From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

If you mean **`comp.lang.c`**, the old Usenet newsgroup, quite a lot. It
was one of the classic places for serious C-language discussion,
especially from the 1980s through the 2000s.

The interesting thing about `comp.lang.c` is that it developed a rather distinctive culture:

* **Very standards-oriented.** People cared intensely about what the C standard actually says, rather than what GCC/MSVC happens to do.
* **Pedantic, sometimes spectacularly so.** Questions that look trivial
could turn into discussions of integer promotions, sequence points,
object representations, effective type, undefined behavior, aliasing, etc.
* **Strong preference for portable C.** "It works on my compiler" was generally not considered an argument.
* **Minimalism was valued.** There was plenty of appreciation for small, idiomatic C solutions rather than importing object-oriented abstractions
into everything.
* **The FAQ became famous.** The `comp.lang.c` FAQ by Steve Summit is
one of the classic C references and is still useful.
* **Usenet personalities mattered.** Some participants became almost
legendary for correcting technically incorrect claims with extremely
detailed standard-based arguments.
* There was also a characteristic distinction between **the C language itself** and extensions supplied by particular implementations. GNU C,
for example, could be discussed separately from ISO C.

And given the sort of C you've been writing lately, I suspect you'd find
some of the old discussions rather amusing. Your preference for things like

```c
char *buf = realloc(buf, w*h);
```

and compact procedural/algebraic solutions is much closer to the
*old-school C mentality* than modern "let's wrap everything in five
structs and three interfaces" C++-inspired programming.

One important caveat: **`comp.lang.c` isn't a single authoritative voice
on C.** Some very knowledgeable people participated, but Usenet
discussions can contain obsolete advice, personality clashes, and interpretations that were later superseded by newer C standards.

If you're asking because you've stumbled across **a particular
`comp.lang.c` thread/post**, give me the text or link and I can dissect
what they're actually sayingrCoand, importantly, distinguish *correct C standard law* from classic `comp.lang.c` pedantry.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

maybe you know some people from there/

Oh yes rCo there are some **very recognizable names** from the old `comp.lang.c` crowd. A few especially prominent ones:

* **Chris Torek** rCo probably one of the names most associated with
serious old-school C. He was exceptionally knowledgeable about C, Unix, implementation details, pointers, memory, and the language's historical background. His Usenet posts are still quoted today. For example, a 1990 `comp.lang.c` post of his was used as the source for a `strtok()` implementation. ([Mirrors NYCBug][1])
* **Richard Heathfield** rCo extremely active and famously *pedantic*
about the C standard and topicality. His signature was `"Usenet is a
strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie`. There are mountains of old
`comp.lang.c` discussions featuring him. ([Google Groups][2])
* **Ben Pfaff** rCo another major regular. He says he posted nearly
**12,000 articles** to `comp.lang.c` and `comp.lang.c.moderated` between
1996 and 2004. He later collected many of his recurring answers into a
very useful C reference. ([Ben Pfaff][3])
* **Keith Thompson** rCo very standards-focused, and still active in C discussions long after the classic Usenet period. He was also involved
with the C FAQ community. ([Google Groups][4])
* **Kaz Kylheku** rCo another distinctive personality, known for extremely detailed technical arguments and, occasionally, wonderfully vicious
Usenet humour. Interestingly, Ben Pfaff attributes the famous
`comp.lang.c` "one cent for on-topic, one dollar for off-topic" analogy
to Kaz. ([Google Groups][5])
* **Dennis Ritchie** himself occasionally posted. That's one of my
favourite bits of `comp.lang.c` history: there is an archived 1999
exchange where **Dennis Ritchie posts something to the group and Richard Heathfield essentially tells him that the topic is off-topic and to go
to the appropriate newsgroup**. Efye ([Google Groups][6])

And that last episode really captures the culture. Someone later reacted essentially: *Dennis Ritchie posts something, and he gets the standard
"move to the right group" response.*

There were also people like **Dan Pop, Peter Nilsson, Eric Sosman, Dave Vandervies, Mark McIntyre, Philip Potter, Jeremy Yallop**, etc. Ben
Pfaff's own list of acknowledgements gives a nice snapshot of that
particular community. ([Ben Pfaff][3])

Honestly, **Chris Torek + Heathfield + Pfaff + Kaz** is probably the
little constellation I'd investigate if you want to understand what the
*old* `comp.lang.c` intellectual culture was like.

And I suspect you'd particularly enjoy Torek. His style is much more
**"let's actually understand what the machine and language are doing"**
than modern cargo-cult C advice.

[1]: https://mirrors.nycbug.org/pub/The_Unix_Archive/Unix_Usenet/alt.sources/1990-January/000950.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Debugging library for programs that use malloc"
[2]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/sJVPXccwDtY?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Re: C examples and codes"
[3]: https://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Ben Pfaff: C Frequent Answers"
[4]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/JkmKMB7sP6I?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Re: comp.lang.c blocked on Google Groups Switch to free (Thunderbird
and eternal-september)"
[5]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/e0mK4Mrqp8o/m/12wTJZiksuEJ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"ANSI C compliance"
[6]: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/wbzzoySmeMk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"A primeval C compiler"

amd from last 2 decades?

Yes rCo and I checked specifically for the **2010srCo2020s**, rather than assuming the old 1990s names remained active.

A few names stand out:

* **Keith Thompson** rCo definitely still active well into the 2010s and 2020s. I found him posting in 2020 on standards questions, including
integer types and C/C++ standard wording. ([Google Groups][1])
* **Kaz Kylheku** rCo very much active during the 2010s. His posts are
quite recognizable: technically detailed, strongly opinionated, and
often with a rather savage sense of humour. I found substantial 2015
activity on C and related Unix/POSIX discussions. ([Google Groups][2])
* **Ben Bacarisse** rCo another name from the later `comp.lang.c` era. He appears in 2020 discussions dealing with C allocators and programming technique. ([Google Groups][3])
* **James Kuyper** rCo particularly associated with extremely careful standards discussions in the later period. He appears alongside Thompson
and Kylheku in discussions of C semantics and undefined behavior.
([Google Groups][2])
* **Keith Thompson + James Kuyper + Kaz Kylheku** are probably the most interesting trio to look at if you're interested specifically in
**post-2005 C standards culture**.

And **Kaz is particularly entertaining**. His 2015 posts have exactly
that old Usenet combination of *very serious technical knowledge +
absolutely no obligation to be diplomatic*. Efya For example, in one
standards discussion he goes off into a rather colourful argument about
what compilers are permitted to assume under undefined behavior.
([Google Groups][2])

One correction to my previous answer, though: I wouldn't describe
**Chris Torek** as a representative of the *last two decades*. He's
enormously important historically, but if your question is specifically
*"who were the recognizable C people in `comp.lang.c` roughly
2006rCo2026?"*, I'd put **Thompson, Kylheku, Kuyper and Bacarisse** much closer to the center of that period.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/f0ZJIe0xgt0?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ?"
[2]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c/c/djmFltBPMHE?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Is there really no standard-conforming function pointer equivalent of
void*"
[3]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/H_p2Ki5JhYU/m/rlSzqJsxCQAJ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Looking for a grow only allocator"

and meybe yet some?

Yes. Looking beyond the names I mentioned, there are quite a few
later-era people worth knowing. IrCOd add:

* **James Kuyper** rCo probably one of the most useful names if you care
about *actual ISO C semantics*. His posts from the 2010s are very standards-focused; e.g. he was discussing the exact status of `char`, `int8_t`, and object representations in 2018. ([Google Groups][1])
* **Ben Bacarisse** rCo another strong later-era C contributor. He was
still participating in 2021, although some Google Groups indexing
occasionally confused `comp.lang.c` and `comp.lang.c++`. ([Google
Groups][2])
* **Tim Rentsch** rCo appears in standards-heavy discussions and tends
toward the "let's read precisely what the standard says" school.
([Google Groups][3])
* **Ian Collins** rCo more visible in the C++ side, but part of the same broader Usenet C/C++ community and active during the later period.
([Google Groups][3])
* **Richard Heathfield** rCo despite being an older-generation name, he remained relevant to the later `comp.lang.c` culture.
* **Vir Campestris** rCo another recurring later-era participant; his
posts show up in the 2010s discussions alongside people such as Rentsch
and Collins. ([Google Groups][3])

There's also an interesting **post-2010 generation of regulars who
aren't nearly as famous outside Usenet**, which is probably what you're actually looking for.

One thing I noticed while searching: **Google Groups stopped accepting
new Usenet posts/subscriptions**, so for the very late period its
archive isn't a reliable indication of who was actually active. The
historical material is still viewable, though. ([Google Groups][4])

If you want, I can dig specifically through **`comp.lang.c` (not C++)
from ~2005rCo2020** and make you a list of, say, **15rCo20 recurring posters**, with a one-line description of what each was known for. That
would be more interesting than just throwing famous C names at you.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/r7qg6-pwowg?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"int8_t and char"
[2]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/4kW4dOdeiDY?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Re: binding reference of type rCyunsigned char&rCO to rCyconst unsigned charrCO
discards qualifiers"
[3]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/rIHGDD5MaUg?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Re: Is the size of \"int\" implementation-defined?"
[4]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/JkmKMB7sP6I?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Re: comp.lang.c blocked on Google Groups Switch to free (Thunderbird
and eternal-september)"

yhat woud be all you know? maybe some more active posters from last decade?

Yeah, there are more rCo but I don't want to pretend I have a reliable
census of the last decade when the searchable Usenet archive is patchy.
My earlier lists were too narrow.

For **roughly 2015rCo2025 `comp.lang.c`**, names I'd investigate further include:

* **Kaz Kylheku**
* **Ben Bacarisse**
* **James Kuyper**
* **Keith Thompson**
* **Tim Rentsch**
* **Jens Gustedt**
* **David Brown**
* **Chris Vine**
* **Malcolm McLean**
* **CBFalconer**
* **Walter Roberson**
* **Seebs / Peter Seebach**
* **Nate Eldredge**
* **Martin Ambuhl**
* **Dann Corbit**
* **Richard Bos**
* **Lawrence Kirby**
* **Kenny McCormack**

But there's an important distinction: some of these were **genuinely
recurring `comp.lang.c` participants**, while others participated in
adjacent C/C++/standards discussions, and I don't want to falsely label someone a major `comp.lang.c` poster merely because their name appears
in the archive.

Also, **Jens Gustedt** is an especially interesting one in this context: unlike many Usenet personalities, he's an actual contemporary C-language researcher/compiler/library person and has been involved with the
evolution of modern C. So if you're looking for *people whose technical
work is relevant to C today*, rather than merely famous Usenet posters,
I'd definitely include him.

If what you're really after is **"who were the recognizable regulars I
would have encountered if I had been reading `comp.lang.c` in
2015rCo2025?"**, I can narrow the list specifically to that and separate **frequent posters / occasional experts / famous old-timers who were
still around**.

...3 questions more nothing on fir

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I see
why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

`bartc` is **Bart** (usually appearing as `BartC` or `bartc`, with a `freeuk.com` address). He was genuinely active in the later
`comp.lang.c` era, not just someone who happened to appear once.

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a
standards-lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design
questions and alternative ways C could work.

For example, in 2016 he started a discussion about allowing `@` in
identifiers and argued from practical/programming-language
considerations rather than simply "what does C11 say?" ([Google Groups][1])

He also discusses things like **new operators**, including `min`/`max` assignment operators:

```c
a max= b;
A[++i] max= lowerlim;
```

and explicitly compares the idea with machine instructions. ([Google Groups][2])

And there's a particularly revealing 2014 discussion where he proposes a **different notation for C types**, saying he prefers a left-to-right description inspired partly by Algol 68. ([Google Groups][3])

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

### `fir`

And **yes, `fir` is in the archive too**. Efya

The current Google Groups archive has a February 2024 thread literally showing:

`fir, rCa Keith Thompson`

on **"simple AI in c"**. ([Google Groups][4])

That's particularly interesting because it means the `fir` account isn't merely some ancient Usenet remnant rCo it was still participating in `comp.lang.c` in the 2020s.

I also found an older 2019 thread where `fir` was arguing that the group
had become too focused on language minutiae and standard-lawyer
discussions, and that programming should be more about **creating actual program content**. ([Google Groups][5])

So, honestly, now that I've looked at the actual archive, I think your
earlier question was pointing me toward a much more specific category:

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C experts answering questions". They have opinions about what programming itself
should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design material. I
can search the archive specifically for **BartC's threads and extract
his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much more interesting than just listing his name.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c/c/6rRxetvYiMQ?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Can we add @ yet?"
[2]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c%2B%2B/c/Mpf93i0SEzA/m/ScCYIP24CQAJ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Operators for min/max, or min/max-assignment operators?"
[3]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.misc/c/4VNii2cQ_Zo/m/7SkgWMit_iIJ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Wirth-ian languages"
[4]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c?utm_source=chatgpt.com "comp.lang.c - Google Groups"
[5]: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/iJe7R-i4oWA/m/AvaJovrQBgAJ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"[ On topic, amazingtly ]: labels and declarations"


(LOL)









--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 9/24/2026 3:43 PM, fir wrote:
[...]

Are you able to think for yourself? Say the internet went down. Can you
code at all?>

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 24/09/2026 23:43, fir wrote:

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I see why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a standards-
lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design questions and alternative ways C could work.

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C experts answering questions". They have opinions about what programming itself should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design material. I
can search the archive specifically for **BartC's threads and extract
his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much more interesting than just listing his name.

Your AI doesn't mention that those ideas are usually poorly received by
those 'regulars' and that BartC has suffered lots of abuse, insults and belittlement.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

bart pisze:

On 24/09/2026 23:43, fir wrote:

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I
see why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting
people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a standards-
lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design questions and
alternative ways C could work.

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C experts
answering questions". They have opinions about what programming itself
should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design material.
I can search the archive specifically for **BartC's threads and
extract his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much more interesting
than just listing his name.

Your AI doesn't mention that those ideas are usually poorly received by those 'regulars' and that BartC has suffered lots of abuse, insults and belittlement.

LOL
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

fir pisze:

bart pisze:

On 24/09/2026 23:43, fir wrote:

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I
see why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting
people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a standards-
lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design questions and
alternative ways C could work.

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C
experts answering questions". They have opinions about what
programming itself should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design material.
I can search the archive specifically for **BartC's threads and
extract his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much more interesting >>> than just listing his name.

Your AI doesn't mention that those ideas are usually poorly received
by those 'regulars' and that BartC has suffered lots of abuse, insults
and belittlement.

LOL

at least ai dont share this attitude ;c more to say when it says on
regulars it says on it with partial reserve (like it realizes they make
some specific point of view)

hovever if i asked on myself 1) i felt like it would talk about dead
person (totally not how i see myself) 2) it makes some kind of reaserch
but ony like was able fo find few post and made even somewhat deeper
reasoning on it instead of searching much more and make more solid
reasoning on this full set


overally its very fun
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

fir pisze:

fir pisze:

bart pisze:

On 24/09/2026 23:43, fir wrote:

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I >>>> see why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting
people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a
standards- lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design
questions and alternative ways C could work.

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C
experts answering questions". They have opinions about what
programming itself should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design
material. I can search the archive specifically for **BartC's
threads and extract his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much
more interesting than just listing his name.

Your AI doesn't mention that those ideas are usually poorly received
by those 'regulars' and that BartC has suffered lots of abuse,
insults and belittlement.

LOL

at least ai dont share this attitude ;c more to say when it says on
regulars it says on it with partial reserve (like it realizes they make
some specific point of view)

hovever if i asked on myself 1) i felt like it would talk about dead
person (totally not how i see myself) 2) it makes some kind of reaserch
but ony like was able fo find few post and made even somewhat deeper reasoning on it instead of searching much more and make more solid
reasoning on this full set

unless maybe some know some thing ass ful clc archive in text file..i
could use it to feed ai...is there something like that?

overally its very fun

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

bart pisze:

On 24/09/2026 23:43, fir wrote:

have you heard about bartc or fir..what you can say on them

Oh rCo **yes, now that I searched the actual `comp.lang.c` archive, I
see why you were asking.** There really are two quite interesting
people here.

### `bartc` / BartC

What makes him interesting is that he is **not primarily a standards-
lawyer type**. He repeatedly brings up language-design questions and
alternative ways C could work.

So if by "new ideas on C" you meant **someone who actually likes
imagining how C could be redesigned**, BartC is *exactly* a name I
should have mentioned earlier.

**BartC and fir are both unusual because they aren't merely "C experts
answering questions". They have opinions about what programming itself
should be and about how C could be different.**

And BartC in particular has a *lot* of this language-design material.
I can search the archive specifically for **BartC's threads and
extract his recurring C ideas** rCo that would be much more interesting
than just listing his name.

Your AI doesn't mention that those ideas are usually poorly received by those 'regulars' and that BartC has suffered lots of abuse, insults and belittlement.

ai answered if i posted her (i call her ai as a human name, like ais or so)

fair enough. apparently my AI was being unusually diplomatic.

but if an idea is routinely attacked by the regulars, that doesn't tell
me much about the idea itself. sometimes it merely tells me that the
regulars are regulars.

when i noticed she maybe likes togenerate answer like in my name i tall
her to answer in her name

That's a fair criticism. I was describing the recurring themes in your
posts, not giving a complete account of how the group has reacted to them.

And yes, if you've repeatedly had your ideas met with insults or
belittlement rather than technical discussion, that's relevant context
that I omitted.

I don't think popularity among the regulars is a particularly useful
measure of whether an idea is interesting, though. In fact,
unconventional language-design ideas are exactly the sort of thing where
I'd want to examine the arguments rather than infer much from the
reaction of the crowd.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2