3 ms·

It's a library, one of the goals of which is compatibility with the many C89 compilers still in use today, so how else should I name it? And why is it bad or pr

by Rochus 3y ago

It's a library, one of the goals of which is compatibility with the many C89 compilers still in use today, so how else should I name it? And why is it bad or provoking to have a gray beard (which sounds a lot like age discrimination to me) or to highlight a "serious hacker aspect"?

eqvinox 3y ago
> It's a library […] C89 […] how else should I name it? It's unfortunate that you pose this as a rhetorical question, it has an actual answer: replace "pure C89" with "C89 compatible", wrap it in braces, and move it to the end of the title. The message you're communicating by putting "pure C89" right front is very different from having a "(C89 compatible)" at the end: the former sounds like C89 is somehow an unequivocally good thing ("pure") while the latter makes clear that it is to address an unfortunate reality of engineering life. It would also distance you from C style and quality focused comments. > which is all about trivialities and the personal sensitivities of the commentator, and which contributes nothing relevant to the matter at hand The select API concern seems relevant and actionable.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > replace "pure C89" with "C89 compatible" Not even English has the "purity" that you subliminally presuppose in your (entirely unnecessary) assertions. See e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure?utm_campaign.... And not a single one of your arguments had to do with "language purity"; instead you nit-picked about naming and features you miss; so what? But hey, it's open source: impress the world with your own version of the library.
sevagh 3y ago
These aren't really my judgements, I'm just guessing why you got some criticisms. I didn't consider the aspect of which modern toolchains are still attached to C89, but using a language spec that's 35 years old has some relationship to the grayness of one's beard. But in any case I used the term greybeard to evoke the aesthetic of "fuck modernity, embrace terse C, suckless software" etc.

by Rochus 3y ago

eqvinox 3y ago

> It's a library […] C89 […] how else should I name it? It's unfortunate that you pose this as a rhetorical question, it has an actual answer: replace "pure C89" with "C89 compatible", wrap it in braces, and move it to the end of the title. The message you're communicating by putting "pure C89" right front is very different from having a "(C89 compatible)" at the end: the former sounds like C89 is somehow an unequivocally good thing ("pure") while the latter makes clear that it is to address an unfortunate reality of engineering life. It would also distance you from C style and quality focused comments. > which is all about trivialities and the personal sensitivities of the commentator, and which contributes nothing relevant to the matter at hand The select API concern seems relevant and actionable.

Rochus 3y ago
> replace "pure C89" with "C89 compatible" Not even English has the "purity" that you subliminally presuppose in your (entirely unnecessary) assertions. See e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure?utm_campaign.... And not a single one of your arguments had to do with "language purity"; instead you nit-picked about naming and features you miss; so what? But hey, it's open source: impress the world with your own version of the library.

sevagh 3y ago

These aren't really my judgements, I'm just guessing why you got some criticisms. I didn't consider the aspect of which modern toolchains are still attached to C89, but using a language spec that's 35 years old has some relationship to the grayness of one's beard. But in any case I used the term greybeard to evoke the aesthetic of "fuck modernity, embrace terse C, suckless software" etc.