Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:14:22 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <78246.1324394062@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:47:25 GMT." <4EF09FFD.7768.B66F73ED@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4EF09FFD.7768.B66F73ED@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>, "Niall Douglas" writes: >> And maybe, in trying to express that using a real-world example, >> the standards comittee would realize that UTC was a mistake, and >> changed the timeout argument to a relative time interval instead, >> like for instance the poll(2) system-call. > >There was some very good argument against relative periods. I >honestly can't remember what that was. It was a long time ago. There are no good arguments against relative periods, in particular not when the crap they are replaced with requires you to put a loop around the sleep to get the desired behaviour in the first place. The fact that you cant even remeber the argument doesn't in any way make it any more convincing. >> I would assume that the people who found it dangerous were morons >> without any actual real-life experience programming threads on >> computers with finite resources ? > >I think you are out of order in this public comment and you should >apologise to those who have served on WG14. Fuck if will apologize! I will even repeat and clarify my charge to make sure that it is not misunderstood: WG14 are a pile of morons, who have been steadily ruining the C language with utter and useless crap, while only solving an absolute minority of the actual problems and not in any meaningful way developed the language during their time of custody. >Otherwise quite frankly I don't care what your background, your rep >or your experience is. Feel free to voice an opinion after you have >attended a few ISO committee meetings and seen the work done there. >Otherwise you don't know what you're talking about. I run a one man company which does not allow me to fly around the world to sit in meetings with morons who clearly havn't done any serious programming in far too long time. If I could afford it, and did it, I would undoubtedly in a mere matter of months, be a just as useless moron the current crew. And I know exactly what I'm talking about: A programming language I have been using day in and day out for 28 years. I may not now very much about endless meetings churning useless specifications, that have no relationship with what programmers of real-world software actually need from their programming language. It is not a lack of knowledge I see as a problem. WG14 can go to hell, and the C language would be better of if they did. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?78246.1324394062>