Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general 
Author Message
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

Quote:

>>I suggest we split this newsgroup into two groups. One of them would
>>be for questions not related to the C language at all, but would cover
>>every other topic possible in computer science. The only communality
>>required would be that someone wants to use the C language plus arcane
>>peculiar extensions to accomplish some task, or wants to know about
>> some peculiar wrinkle associated with a link library supplied by some
>> vendor of a C compiler.

>> The other would be devoted to the C language.

Greetings...
About 2 years ago when I first got on the Net, I looked into this group,
but the negativity drove me (and I would presume most experienced non-
academic programmers) away. A wide variety of practical questions that
would interest C Programmers was dismissed as "off topic". However,
since I now have to write and explain some basic concepts in C, I now
read some of the postings in this group. My thanks to the regular
posters in this group, for their explanations and examples in both style
and substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Reality Check:
There's a basic "Catch 22" when considering splitting this group. The C
programmers who would support a new C group are not present in this
group because they basically support the charter of this group. They are
C programmers first and fully recognize that newbie C programmers must
learn the limits of a portable (semi-portable) language.

2.The Present Situation:

On one side:
There is a basic core to the C Language which must be learned by newbies
and extends itself into some esoteric C Language discussions. This is
basically what James Hu explained in his thread posting.

Quote:

>First, it is *extremely* important for beginning programmers to learn
>the difference between platform independent programming and platform
>specific programming...

On the other side:
Scott present the average working C programmers perspective, with newbie
questions as trivial, and the more esoteric discussion are interesting
but of no practical value.

Quote:

>The other problem is, of course, that if you eliminate any topic where
>people actually *DO* anything in C like write real programs, the only
>thing left is stuff covered in basic C reference works like H&S or even
>K&R. There's really nothing to talk about. C is a simple language
>that's very easy to learn if you're halfway competent. The only thing
>to talk about is "duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh" kinds of questions, and
>pathological implementation issues (ex: "what is the value of i=i++?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basic Need for a new C group:

1. Changing Demographics:
Basically things have changed. Access to the WWW as a corporate and
business tool allows working (non academic) C programmers daily access
to the Usenet on company time. These programmers have a totally
different set of needs and expectations from a C group than the newbies
and academics.

2. The portable C programmer, a new C group:
C as a portable language has been wildly successful. The use of the C
programming language presents a viable cross section thru most platforms
and language neutral comp groups. A portable language allows programmers
to pick and choose between a variety of computer related employment
possiblities. It also creates a tremendous burden on programmers to
remain current with a wide variety of topics. All topics are focused,
filter and viewed from the limitations and perspective of the C
language. The interest and perspectives of these C programmers are not
addressed by the present C group.

3. Time: never enough!
In the present situation, programmers with C questions beyond the scope
of the present group are simply shunted to an existing comp group which
may supply the answer. In theory this is fine, in practice it doesn't
work: We have a limited amount of time to spend on the Net and regular
scanning of a single group presents a practical limit for "company time"
(We have lives, programming in C is a living not a religion for us). To
have a C group with a wide spectrum of comp topics filtered to the C
language perspective is the answer.

4. What C programmers want to know:
Being a portable C programmers involves an interest but not an obsession
with a wide spectrum of programming topics, along with accumulating
knowledge of the various quirks and limitations of hardware
configurations (from embedded microcontrolers to supercomputers) C
programmers want to know. There are tricks and traps when writing and
debugging real C programs and C programmers want to know. Time is money
and deadlines are a deadly reality: any tricks that can save me some
time and warning of any traps are appreciated. I'd like the tcl
interpreter but only in C, not in Lisp or Perl. Is C being used for
DSP's? There is a copy of the newly patented permutation based
compression algorithm written in C floating around. Where can I get it?
I always get compiler warnings for my lpstr's in windoze, the problem is
with my assembly language modules. Should I go to the windoze group or
the assembly language group?  No, the problem is in my C coding and is
beyond the scope of the present group.

5. Two groups: different sides of the same coin.
IMO: There is no conflict in splitting the present group. The present
group "comp.lang.c" holds the core of C Language, while a new group such
as "comp.lang.c.general" presents an interface to the real programming
world, with a wide spectrum of topics and platforms filtered and
relevant to the PORTABLE C PROGRAMMER.
The two groups should compliment each other and solidify C's portable
language pre{*filter*}.

Just my opinion: T.J.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

>Oh, I almost forgot.  Eat more chocolate.
>I'd rather be {*filter*} than not read the C-faq.

Totally "off topic" but still an excellent atonement of the sacred
bureaucratic cannon. The letter of faq/charter/law  first, foremost, and
always: common sense (such as wearing clothes) be dammed. I foresee
greatness for you in academic or government bureaucracy, however
corporate reality would be a NO-NO. Oil and water don't mix and an
emulsification would only cloud the issue. Kinda like the present
situation :).


Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

[...]
: 3. Time: never enough!
: In the present situation, programmers with C questions beyond the scope
: of the present group are simply shunted to an existing comp group which
: may supply the answer. In theory this is fine, in practice it doesn't
: work: We have a limited amount of time to spend on the Net and regular
: scanning of a single group presents a practical limit for "company time"
: (We have lives, programming in C is a living not a religion for us). To
: have a C group with a wide spectrum of comp topics filtered to the C
: language perspective is the answer.

Well, no.  I _don't_ want a 'wide spectrum of comp topics filtered to the
C language perspective':  such a group would be far too large for me to
read comfortably in the little time I have available.  What I want is
pretty much what I've got; groups on DSP, groups on embedded systems,
groups on C, all with their special expertise.

: 4. What C programmers want to know:
: Being a portable C programmers involves an interest but not an obsession
: with a wide spectrum of programming topics, along with accumulating
: knowledge of the various quirks and limitations of hardware
: configurations (from embedded microcontrolers to supercomputers) C
: programmers want to know. There are tricks and traps when writing and
: debugging real C programs and C programmers want to know. Time is money
: and deadlines are a deadly reality: any tricks that can save me some
: time and warning of any traps are appreciated. I'd like the tcl
: interpreter but only in C, not in Lisp or Perl. Is C being used for
: DSP's? There is a copy of the newly patented permutation based
: compression algorithm written in C floating around. Where can I get it?
: I always get compiler warnings for my lpstr's in windoze, the problem is
: with my assembly language modules. Should I go to the windoze group or
: the assembly language group?  No, the problem is in my C coding and is
: beyond the scope of the present group.

Well, actually this last question is on-topic for the newsgroup dealing
with your compiler; there are several compiler related groups around, and
if they fail, then try a group in which many compiler uses hang out, such
as the relevant OS group.  Otherwise, there are groups on algorithms, DSPs,
tcl... pretty much whatever you'd need.

The proposed group would end up as a mixture of the MS, Borland, Windows,
(Mac?), and whatever groups, not forgetting the Tcl/Tk groups, and would
be completely unuseable.  Quite a lot of postings in this group do ask
relevant questions, and do get answered.  I doubt that would be the
case in the all-singing, all-dancing group proposed.

Will



Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Basic Need for a new C group:

> 1. Changing Demographics:
> Basically things have changed. Access to the WWW as a corporate and
> business tool allows working (non academic) C programmers daily access
> to the Usenet on company time. These programmers have a totally
> different set of needs and expectations from a C group than the newbies
> and academics.

With this point, I could not agree more.  I read this newsgroup on
company time, 15-30 minutes per day. It has been well worth this time
because I continue to learn so much.  I do find myself reading more of
the implementation postings, rather than the 'academic' ones.  By
academic, I mean

a). discussions where a newbie asks a question and people generously
reply to the questions but also nit pick his code examples.  

b). theoretical debates that really are matters of opinion than fact.

Quote:
> 2. The portable C programmer, a new C group:
> C as a portable language has been wildly successful. The use of the C
> programming language presents a viable cross section thru most platforms
> and language neutral comp groups. A portable language allows programmers
> to pick and choose between a variety of computer related employment
> possiblities. It also creates a tremendous burden on programmers to
> remain current with a wide variety of topics. All topics are focused,
> filter and viewed from the limitations and perspective of the C
> language. The interest and perspectives of these C programmers are not
> addressed by the present C group.

I would read this newsgroup if the focus were on real-world problem
solving.  For example, I keep hearing rumblings that I have to port my
quasi-ansi-compliant UNIX C code to NT (God Forbid).  Being a
UNIX-person, my current lack of skills on NT could be buoyed by those
who have 'been there, done that'.

Quote:
> 3. Time: never enough!
> In the present situation, programmers with C questions beyond the scope
> of the present group are simply shunted to an existing comp group which
> may supply the answer. In theory this is fine, in practice it doesn't
> work: We have a limited amount of time to spend on the Net and regular
> scanning of a single group presents a practical limit for "company time"
> (We have lives, programming in C is a living not a religion for us). To
> have a C group with a wide spectrum of comp topics filtered to the C
> language perspective is the answer.

Add to the fact that this newsgroup (comp.lang.c) has about 200 new
postings a day!  This is way too much information to filter and find
relevant information (on company time).  Anyone have a good newsgroup
filtering program?

Quote:
> 5. Two groups: different sides of the same coin.
> IMO: There is no conflict in splitting the present group. The present
> group "comp.lang.c" holds the core of C Language, while a new group such
> as "comp.lang.c.general" presents an interface to the real programming
> world, with a wide spectrum of topics and platforms filtered and
> relevant to the PORTABLE C PROGRAMMER.
> The two groups should compliment each other and solidify C's portable
> language pre{*filter*}.

I completely agree. Except the name 'comp.lang.c.general' does not
really fit this discription.  Maybe something like
'comp.lang.c.portable'

Cheers.
--
Jeffery C. Cann
Senior Software Engineer
Fairway Systems, Inc.



Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Basic Need for a new C group:

> 1. Changing Demographics:
> Basically things have changed. Access to the WWW as a corporate and
> business tool allows working (non academic) C programmers daily access
> to the Usenet on company time. These programmers have a totally
> different set of needs and expectations from a C group than the newbies
> and academics.

With this point, I could not agree more.  I read this newsgroup on
company time, 15-30 minutes per day. It has been well worth this time
because I continue to learn so much.  I do find myself reading more of
the implementation postings, rather than the 'academic' ones.  By
academic, I mean

a). discussions where a newbie asks a question and people generously
reply to the questions but also nit pick his code examples.  

b). theoretical debates that really are matters of opinion than fact.

Quote:
> 2. The portable C programmer, a new C group:
> C as a portable language has been wildly successful. The use of the C
> programming language presents a viable cross section thru most platforms
> and language neutral comp groups. A portable language allows programmers
> to pick and choose between a variety of computer related employment
> possiblities. It also creates a tremendous burden on programmers to
> remain current with a wide variety of topics. All topics are focused,
> filter and viewed from the limitations and perspective of the C
> language. The interest and perspectives of these C programmers are not
> addressed by the present C group.

I would read this newsgroup if the focus were on real-world problem
solving.  For example, I keep hearing rumblings that I have to port my
quasi-ansi-compliant UNIX C code to NT (God Forbid).  Being a
UNIX-person, my current lack of skills on NT could be buoyed by those
who have 'been there, done that'.

Quote:
> 3. Time: never enough!
> In the present situation, programmers with C questions beyond the scope
> of the present group are simply shunted to an existing comp group which
> may supply the answer. In theory this is fine, in practice it doesn't
> work: We have a limited amount of time to spend on the Net and regular
> scanning of a single group presents a practical limit for "company time"
> (We have lives, programming in C is a living not a religion for us). To
> have a C group with a wide spectrum of comp topics filtered to the C
> language perspective is the answer.

Add to the fact that this newsgroup (comp.lang.c) has about 200 new
postings a day!  This is way too much information to filter and find
relevant information (on company time).  Anyone have a good newsgroup
filtering program?

Quote:
> 5. Two groups: different sides of the same coin.
> IMO: There is no conflict in splitting the present group. The present
> group "comp.lang.c" holds the core of C Language, while a new group such
> as "comp.lang.c.general" presents an interface to the real programming
> world, with a wide spectrum of topics and platforms filtered and
> relevant to the PORTABLE C PROGRAMMER.
> The two groups should compliment each other and solidify C's portable
> language pre{*filter*}.

I completely agree.

Cheers.
--
Jeffery C. Cann
Senior Software Engineer
Fairway Systems, Inc.



Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general


Quote:
>On one side:
>There is a basic core to the C Language which must be learned by newbies
>and extends itself into some esoteric C Language discussions. This is
>basically what James Hu explained in his thread posting.

>>First, it is *extremely* important for beginning programmers to learn
>>the difference between platform independent programming and platform
>>specific programming...

I'm not sure these extend into esorteric discussions.  They are
usually some pretty nitty gritty discussions about what precisely must
be done to achieve "maximally portable" status.  More often than not,
if a strictly conforming implementation is not possible, platform
specific solutions do get mentioned.  These are usually greeted
neutrally so long as the post makes it clear that the solution is not
guaranteed by Standard C.

Quote:
>5. Two groups: different sides of the same coin.
>IMO: There is no conflict in splitting the present group. The present
>group "comp.lang.c" holds the core of C Language, while a new group such
>as "comp.lang.c.general" presents an interface to the real programming
>world, with a wide spectrum of topics and platforms filtered and
>relevant to the PORTABLE C PROGRAMMER.
>The two groups should compliment each other and solidify C's portable
>language pre{*filter*}.

I think perhaps such a case could be made for a newsgroup called
comp.programming.c.  This would have the similar flavor as
comp.programming.threads, in which all manners of thread
implementations are discussed.  So all flavors of C programming could
be discussed there, rather than the issues concerning the C language
(comp.lang.c) and issues concerning the C standard (comp.std.c).

Quote:
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>Oh, I almost forgot.  Eat more chocolate.
>>I'd rather be {*filter*} than not read the C-faq.
>Totally "off topic" but still an excellent atonement of the sacred
>bureaucratic cannon. The letter of faq/charter/law  first, foremost, and
>always: common sense (such as wearing clothes) be dammed. I foresee
>greatness for you in academic or government bureaucracy, however
>corporate reality would be a NO-NO. Oil and water don't mix and an
>emulsification would only cloud the issue. Kinda like the present
>situation :).

I have consumed several bars of chocolate and have played several
games of raquetball, but I find that I can't let this one go.

Since I am ready to graduate and am about to seek employment, I feel
I must respond to this.  Although I am quite fond of academia, and I
do not have the same level of detestment of government as libertarians
do, I am going to seek employment in the private sector.  Technology
is moving along at such a rapid pace, and many of the most exciting
developments are happening in industry circles rather than academic
ones.  I feel I have much to offer any company that chooses to hire me.

Smiley aside, I take it as a personal insult that you have chosen to
sabotage my attempts at seeking employment by predisposing potential
employers with the idea that I would be a liability to them rather than
an asset.

But, perhaps I am over reacting.  For my sake, I hope so.

--

http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~jxh/        Washington University in Saint Louis

Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use *SpamBeGone* <URL: http://www.*-*-*.com/ ;



Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

Quote:

>>>Oh, I almost forgot.  Eat more chocolate.
>>>I'd rather be {*filter*} than not read the C-faq.
>>Totally "off topic" but still an excellent atonement of the sacred
>>bureaucratic cannon. The letter of faq/charter/law  first, foremost, and
>>always: common sense (such as wearing clothes) be dammed. I foresee
>>greatness for you in academic or government bureaucracy, however
>>corporate reality would be a NO-NO. Oil and water don't mix and an
>>emulsification would only cloud the issue. Kinda like the present
>>situation :).
>Since I am ready to graduate and am about to seek employment, I feel
>I must respond to this.  Although I am quite fond of academia, and I
>do not have the same level of detestment of government as libertarians
>do, I am going to seek employment in the private sector.  Technology
>is moving along at such a rapid pace, and many of the most exciting
>developments are happening in industry circles rather than academic
>ones.  I feel I have much to offer any company that chooses to hire me.
>Smiley aside, I take it as a personal insult that you have chosen to
>sabotage my attempts at seeking employment by predisposing potential
>employers with the idea that I would be a liability to them rather than
>an asset.

After your posting in this thread, your FAQ declaration was continually
used by other posters in this thread as a closing statement along with
their own paraphrasing (or spin) of your declaration. The spin I placed on
your FAQ declaration was designed merely as a feedback loop to the concept
of a changing demographics for this group, the academic verse the private
sector and that the needs and expectations for these two different groups
were simply not compatible, hence the need for two groups.

To sabotage anyone's chance for employment is a very serious allegation,
I am sorry but I would have to dispute the importance of any or all
postings in this group? And that placing a spin on your FAQ declaration
would be a decisive career issue outweighing the years of study and
development of your thesis, seem to be a bit paranoid to me?

Still, I COULD BE VERY VERY WRONG, and at least a partial neutralization
of the situation is possible, if warranted.

I feel that email would be a better method to resolve the issue, as in all
honesty I simply cannot see it???

T.J.



Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Subject: Re: Split Newsgroup - comp.lang.c.general

[posted and mailed]


Quote:
(James Hu) writes:

>> ...Totally "off topic" but still an excellent atonement of the sacred
>> bureaucratic cannon. The letter of faq/charter/law  first, foremost, and
>> always: common sense (such as wearing clothes) be dammed. I foresee
>> greatness for you in academic or government bureaucracy, however
>> corporate reality would be a NO-NO. Oil and water don't mix and an
>> emulsification would only cloud the issue. Kinda like the present
>> situation :).

> I have consumed several bars of chocolate and have played several
> games of raquetball, but I find that I can't let this one go.

> Since I am ready to graduate and am about to seek employment, I feel
> I must respond to this.  Although I am quite fond of academia, and I
> do not have the same level of detestment of government as libertarians
> do, I am going to seek employment in the private sector.  Technology
> is moving along at such a rapid pace, and many of the most exciting
> developments are happening in industry circles rather than academic
> ones.  I feel I have much to offer any company that chooses to hire me.

> Smiley aside, I take it as a personal insult that you have chosen to
> sabotage my attempts at seeking employment by predisposing potential
> employers with the idea that I would be a liability to them rather than
> an asset.

> But, perhaps I am over reacting.  For my sake, I hope so.

I wish I could fully reassure you.

I didn't see T.J. Sameshima's full followup, so I don't know
if it was intended as an insult or sabotage attempt, or what.
Much the same words could have been used simply as a warning
about what to expect in the world of "professional" corporate
programming.

The fact is that the atmosphere here in comp.lang.c, at least
comp.lang.c as defined as many of the regulars (myself included),
is just a bit rarefied.  It is not an academic ivory tower in
the sense of being ignorant of real-world concerns and market
pressures, but it could certainly be (and is) viewed that way by
the madding crowd which is struggling desperately under those
pressures.

It's sad to say, and I wish I were wrong (and would be glad to
be proved so), but I get the pretty strong impression that most
programming managers, and the programmers who work for them,
do not in fact care for the kind of strict correctness and
portability which is so often espoused here.  What's worse,
they don't care for it not because they haven't heard of it,
but because they actively believe that it's impossible or
unattainable or misguided or that they can't afford it.

Worse still, their beliefs are not at all easy to overcome,
because I'm afraid that there's a certain impasse in the
debate.  Those of us who do believe that strict correctness
and portability are attainable and beneficial most of the time,
also believe that this is a pinnacle we've advanced to; we may
look back on our former, unenlightened days when we still settled
for programs which merely worked, before we cared so much about
portability and correctness and having programs work *for the
right reasons*.  But many of those espousing the opposing
viewpoints give the very strong impression that *they're* looking
down on *us*, pitying our naivete and the fact that we still
haven't learned or accepted the realities of the marketplace.

Out there in The Real World, there are managers and senior
programmers -- lots of them -- who will tell you to your face
that they want the expedient, nonportable solution.  If you offer
a portable alternative, they will ask how much longer it will
take to design and implement, and if your answer is that it will
take you even one minute longer, they will instruct you to to
stick with expediency.  If you can argue convincingly that the
more portable solution, though it may cost you time this week,
will save you more time next week, you might get somewhere, but
the unit had better be weeks, not months or years.  "If you
don't have time to do it right, do you have time to do it again?"
It seems that huge numbers of people will seize the expedient but
wrong solution, emphatically, with both hands, time and time
again.

If you believe passionately in elegant, portable, correct
solutions, if you have learned to shun the expedient solutions
which almost always come back to bite you, you will sometimes
(if not most of the time) find yourself having to practice your
elegant and correct programming surreptitiously, in a back alley
under dark of night, in violation of direct orders and perhaps
at risk of your job.  It's just not something that seems to be
valued very much right now.  I've had a bunch of words about
portable and correct programming -- words which I like to think
are nice and sum up my most outstanding and valuable
characteristics as a programmer and an engineer -- on my resume
for five or six years now, and I can count the number of good
leads that resume has gotten me on the thumbs of one hand.

Am I being too cynical or too pessimistic here?  I wish I were.
But consider this: C has -- or used to have -- four sizes of
integral types, char, short, int, and long.  There is *no*
*theoretical* *reason* why these types aren't sufficient, why
they couldn't be mapped to 8-, 16-, 32-, and 64-bit objects on
a 64-bit machine.  But after years and years of hack jobs upon
hack jobs, it has become a near-absolute, de facto standard that
sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) and that both of these are 32 bits.
Ergo, if you want a 64-bit type, you have to invent "long long".
A 64-bit type, named something other than "long", was pretty much
an absolute requirement for C9X; industry wouldn't stand for
anything less or anything else.  That's how powerful and
widespread expediency is, and where it has gotten us.
(I've pretty much given up arguing about this; John Mashey's
voluminous postings on the subject have convinced me that
these industry demands are unstoppable.)

And what about the programmer who believed that long and unsigned
long were guaranteed to be the most-capacious types, that values
of type size_t could be stored in unsigned long variables without
loss of information, who did things like carefully casting
sizeof's value to (unsigned long) before printfing it out %lu,
believing his code to be maximally portable, now and forevermore?
His name is Peter Curran, and he's been over in comp.std.c
complaining about what the new Standard will do to his
carefully-crafted, maximally portable code, and he's been getting
beat up pretty badly, with very little (or no, that I can
remember) sympathy for his plight.  So he has to change some of
his code -- so what?  Everybody else tinkers with their code all
the time (to try to fix all the bugs and false assumptions in it,
of course) -- what's the big deal?

I guess I should come down off my high horse and quit ranting.
To return to the (nominal) subject at hand: James, I salute,
appreciate, and (obviously) agree with your perceptions about
what's important in programming, but I have to caution you that
they will occasionally be challenging beliefs to uphold.  You are
going to find yourself, at times, feeling like Alice down the
rabbit hole, arguing for what it's obvious to you is a superior
solution, with people who look at you like you don't know what
you're talking about (because they certainly don't), and clinging
to their traditional, clumsy ways of doing things, the ways
they've always used, the ways you'd dared to suggest you might
have an improvement on.  And you're going to have to be very
tactful in these discussions, lest they turn into out-and-out
arguments, and lest you alienate everybody with what they
perceive as a pedantic or patronizing or holier-than-thou
attitude.  (No, don't worry, you haven't been patronizing or
holier-than-thou here in comp.lang.c, at least not that I've
seen.  But on the other hand, it's not my impressions that you
have to worry about.)

Or maybe you and Rich Miller and I should get together and form
a little consulting group, and while we were waiting for clients
crazy enough to appreciate what we had to offer, we could sit
around being in heated agreement with each other...

                                        Steve Summit



Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 7 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Subject: Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c {From: mikey@ontek.com (Mike Lee)}

2. Subject: Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c {From Mike Lee, via me}

3. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c++.moderated,comp.lang.c.moderated

4. c/c++ book, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.leda, comp.lang.c++.moderated, comp.lang.c.moderated, comp.sys.mac.programmer.codewarrior

5. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

6. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

7. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

8. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

9. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

10. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c

11. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c {From: mikey@ontek.com (Mike Lee)}

12. Top 10 subjects in comp.lang.c {From Mike Lee}

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software