Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #387724 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Forkosh <john@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-08-23 22:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-08-26 02:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 414 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... John Forkosh <john@somewhere.com> - 2024-08-23 22:03 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-23 23:06 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-23 17:02 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-24 02:26 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-24 14:41 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... John Forkosh <forkosh@somewhere.com> - 2024-08-25 12:09 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 17:06 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-25 10:54 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 18:10 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:36 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-25 18:47 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 12:58 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-24 20:11 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-24 19:27 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-24 21:12 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-24 18:07 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... John Forkosh <forkosh@somewhere.com> - 2024-08-25 12:18 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-25 10:50 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-25 16:55 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-25 16:30 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 19:17 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-25 18:17 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-08-25 18:20 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-25 18:26 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 14:21 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:40 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 14:51 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 10:41 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 03:18 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 05:41 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-26 12:05 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-26 13:30 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-26 14:54 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-26 12:32 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-28 00:49 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 01:39 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-28 15:57 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 19:26 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 00:43 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 11:35 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 13:35 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 14:10 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 16:13 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-29 15:40 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 16:45 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-29 15:58 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 17:06 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 18:08 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-29 13:30 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 22:29 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-29 15:03 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 23:45 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-29 16:32 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-30 00:29 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-30 02:34 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-30 06:44 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 13:41 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-31 07:08 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-31 12:45 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 14:03 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 09:45 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-01 10:44 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-01 15:01 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 13:14 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 14:17 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-31 19:11 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-31 19:32 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-31 16:04 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-31 15:10 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-01 13:15 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 06:30 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 15:31 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-01 00:37 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 18:17 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-31 20:01 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 20:26 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-01 03:04 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 13:07 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 06:39 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-08 10:12 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 16:37 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 10:46 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-09 07:03 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 13:06 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-09 08:21 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 05:46 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-09 17:29 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-09 14:25 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 05:56 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 06:57 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-17 19:02 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 16:26 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... antispam@fricas.org - 2024-09-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-21 06:00 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-01 13:12 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-07 03:13 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-02 13:03 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-02 13:39 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-02 16:22 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-02 23:48 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-02 23:59 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-02 19:44 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-02 20:04 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-03 16:08 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 18:00 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-29 21:24 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-05 15:21 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-05 17:37 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-06 10:35 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-06 14:05 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-06 07:56 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-08 11:53 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 12:08 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-06 13:23 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-06 19:58 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-06 23:38 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 05:23 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-05 19:10 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-06 10:19 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-06 12:34 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-07 01:44 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-07 11:53 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-08 00:05 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 12:05 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-08 18:13 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 21:18 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 01:19 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-09 12:31 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-10 04:40 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 11:52 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 13:55 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 14:30 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-10 16:53 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 16:18 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-12 21:09 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 22:01 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 14:15 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 23:33 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 16:20 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-09 00:25 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 00:29 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-09 02:07 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 03:04 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 11:14 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 16:46 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 19:21 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 09:04 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-10 13:56 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 16:28 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-11 23:59 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-12 13:45 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-12 21:28 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-13 16:24 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-11 17:12 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 12:08 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-09 16:56 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 18:10 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 02:06 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 20:14 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-09 15:58 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 16:21 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-09 17:57 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 19:37 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-09 18:46 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 21:04 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 13:16 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 09:19 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 12:18 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 22:10 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-09 22:33 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 16:24 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 20:07 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 20:46 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-14 15:51 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-10 04:19 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 12:49 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-14 15:13 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-09 00:09 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 16:50 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-09 13:05 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 11:01 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-09 12:28 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-09 12:29 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 05:53 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 05:58 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-08 17:14 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 17:36 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-10 15:24 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 17:28 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-11 01:22 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-11 10:34 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-11 15:15 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-11 16:51 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-12 00:32 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-12 01:40 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-13 01:01 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-11 17:20 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-15 20:05 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-16 10:58 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-16 11:30 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-16 14:42 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-16 17:40 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-16 12:19 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-16 19:13 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-17 17:32 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 09:44 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-17 14:08 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 10:05 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-18 07:27 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 14:15 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 19:26 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-09-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-12 02:11 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-12 12:27 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 12:38 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-12 20:54 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 13:51 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-13 14:18 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 05:44 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-08 11:58 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 11:27 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-08 16:34 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-08 16:39 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 17:44 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 00:07 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 16:53 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 01:20 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 17:47 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 17:51 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-10 15:15 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-10 17:58 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-11 01:02 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-11 10:52 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-12 00:47 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-12 12:00 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 12:39 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 12:39 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-13 00:46 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-13 15:02 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-13 15:12 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-13 23:01 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 13:05 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 09:47 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-09 18:27 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 16:40 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-08 20:09 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 11:18 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 17:22 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-08 19:01 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-08 18:39 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 12:19 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 11:50 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-06 04:53 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-06 14:48 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-09 17:57 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-29 14:26 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 23:53 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-30 00:08 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-30 13:28 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-30 17:36 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-30 14:37 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-31 02:18 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-31 02:11 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-30 06:40 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-29 23:43 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-26 12:30 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:41 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-27 14:18 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 12:22 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 12:50 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-28 00:15 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 17:46 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-01 07:07 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-27 18:19 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-28 15:47 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 08:18 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:40 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 05:40 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 17:59 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 19:28 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 20:12 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-25 19:24 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-26 03:43 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-27 01:33 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-27 00:47 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 07:09 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 09:37 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 10:36 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 11:32 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 11:47 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 14:51 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 15:14 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 20:54 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 07:02 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 11:26 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 11:30 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 11:49 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 13:43 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:02 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 15:06 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 09:37 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 13:49 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 14:25 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-08 21:34 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 11:34 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 14:36 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-09 17:11 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-09 23:58 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-10 11:20 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> - 2024-09-13 02:16 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-13 16:25 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-13 18:05 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-13 17:32 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 13:55 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-27 21:13 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-27 21:07 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 07:03 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-28 14:01 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 12:39 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-28 18:48 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 22:00 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 05:39 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-26 17:16 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 07:10 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 05:17 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 07:23 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 06:47 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 08:58 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:44 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 06:59 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 05:39 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 08:04 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 03:21 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 10:43 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-31 00:01 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 06:44 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-31 22:30 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-30 14:38 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-31 00:02 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-01 15:19 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-01 15:22 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-01 23:48 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 08:09 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:32 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 08:47 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 14:58 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 10:35 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 15:45 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 10:52 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 11:04 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 16:18 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 16:51 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 18:58 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 16:55 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 14:02 -0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 19:13 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-28 19:29 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 19:33 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-27 15:06 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-27 12:49 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-27 12:44 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:50 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 06:31 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-25 18:28 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 05:38 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-25 18:23 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 17:58 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-25 18:51 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-25 18:36 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-25 20:11 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-25 17:48 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-26 10:54 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-26 17:55 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-27 12:33 +0300
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-27 19:38 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-27 09:45 -0400
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-31 03:56 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-26 15:46 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 04:36 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 09:44 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 21:53 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:55 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:53 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 01:28 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 05:45 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 09:49 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-26 18:16 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-28 19:57 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-28 18:37 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-28 23:18 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-28 22:11 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 13:42 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-28 23:22 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 22:36 -0700
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 04:34 +0000
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 11:11 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-27 21:20 +0100
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-31 10:14 +0200
Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 02:33 +0000
Page 14 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 21 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-08 19:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vbkopr$20j8e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #388172 |
On 08/09/2024 16:22, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 08.09.2024 12:18, Bart wrote:
>> On 08/09/2024 04:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 06.09.2024 13:34, Bart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (c ? a : b) = x;
>>>
>>> In Algol 68 you can write
>>>
>>> IF c THEN a ELSE b FI := x
>>>
>>> or, in a shorter form, as
>>>
>>> ( c | a | b ) := x
>>>
>>> if you prefer.
>>
>> But the feature (using them in lvalue contexts) was rarely used.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> [...]
>>> This is only a "visual" symmetry, not a semantical one.
>>>
>>> The LHS of the Algol 68 example is of 'REF' (lvalue) type, as it would
>>> be the case with a language that supports a syntax as you show it here.
>>
>> This is where I differ from Algol68,
>
> Since Algol 68 is conceptually an extremely well designed language
> I don't expect such formally elaborated and consistent design in
> any language of much lower level.
It is ridiculously over-engineered. It requires the user to have too
much knowledge of its internal workings.
A higher level HLL should make life simpler not harder!
>> where I had to considerably
>> simplify the semantics to get something I could understand and implement.
>>
>> Take this C:
>>
>> int A, B;
>>
>> A = B;
>>
>> There are two types associated with the LHS: 'int*' which is the type
>> the name A (its address), and 'int' which is the type of A's value.
>
> Erm, no. The LHS of the assignment is a 'ref' 'int'; in "C" and in
> (almost) all other languages I encountered.
The LHS of an an assignment needs to be an LVALUE. It has little to do
with types, other than, if the LHS has type T, you might use the ability
to turn it into REF T by a hypothetical application of &, to determine
lvalueness.
Here is a fragment of C code:
int a, b;
a = b;
Here is the typed AST my compiler produces for it:
int----1 assign:
int- --|---1 name: a
int----|---2 name: b
On the left is the type of each node. Where is the 'int*' or ref int'
type? I can't see it.
You might notice that LHS and RHS both have the same type.
> - If you have an issue
> in seeing that, and with your decades of engagement with computers,
> you may now have a serious practical effort to fix that view.
Why? My decades have been partly spent devising compilers for systems
languages. If my views were wrong, then they simply wouldn't work!
>> This is where I think Algol68 got it badly wrong.
>
> I strongly suspect you have no clue.
Algol68 was famous for its hard-to-grasp concepts. That's what it got wrong.
> Algol 68 as probably the formally mostly elaborated and consistent
> language defines the assignment semantics not differently from any
> other of the many existing languages that work with variables.
Here's some syntax in my language which defines 3 ranks of names:
Type of name: Print shows
const int A = 100; int 100
int B := 200; ref int 200
ref int C := &B; ref ref int 0x123456 (address of B)
Here it is in Algol68 (I've swapped letter case for consistency):
Type of name: Print shows
int A = 100; int 100
int B := 200; ref int 200
ref int C := B; ref ref int 200
The middle column shows the types of the /names/ A B C. For B, C, it
would be the type of &B and &C in my language and in C.
In both cases, A is a constant, not a variable. It is not an lvalue, and
you can't assign to it. Yet the declaration uses the same 'int' rank as B.
You will see the difference though if you look at the middle column.
The Print column shows the results of applying Print to A/B/C. A doesn't
need a dereference. B has that first 'ref' dereferenced automatically as
is common for variables in nearly every HLL.
But In Algol 68 however, both of those 'ref ref' for C are dereferenced
to get at the underlying int value. That happens with C used as an
rvalue, but to assign to C, the RHS must have 'ref ref int' type; it's
is unbalanced.
So my language, like C, needs explicit & operators and explicit
derefoperators when dealing with pointers. Here, C is a pointer; B is
just a variable. That extra 'ref' in the middle is hidden like in every HLL.
Algol68 as I see it has a bunch of arcane rules that you need to
understand. I couldn't tell you for example how to get it to display the
actual address contained within C (ie. the address of B), or how to
display the address of C itself.
In my language it has been exactly this for 40 years:
print C shows contents of C (address of B)
print C^ (deref) shows what C points to (200)
print &C shows address of C
It is incredibly simple. So, you still think that Algol68 got it right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-08 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vbkr15$27l2o$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #388165 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> But the feature (using them in lvalue contexts) was rarely used.
>
> (** This is:
>
> (a, b, c) = 0;
>
> in C, which is illegal. But put in explicit pointers, and it's suddenly
> fine:
>
> *(a, b, &c) = 0;
>
> So why can't the compiler do that?)
The second really is
(a, b, c = 0);
I do not know what you expect writing '(a, b, c) = 0', but the above
C meaning probably is not what you want.
I use language that allows:
(a, b, c) := (b, c, a);
that is if there are 3 things on left hand side, then there must
be 3 things on the right hand side. It also allows
(a, b, c) := l;
but then l must be a list or record of 3 things (and entries in
order are assigned to things on the left hand side).
(a, b, c) := 0;
would be valid only if '0' happended to be approprate list or record
so that case above would apply. '0' is overloaded and user definable
so user in principle could do that. But no sane person would
define such '0'.
BTW, in Pop11 this is
(1, 2, 3) -> (a, b, c);
and if you write
0 -> (a, b, c);
it assigns 0 to 'c' and grabs two items from the stack and assigns
them to 'a' and 'b' (empty stack signals error).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-08 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87v7z62bt5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #388180 |
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> writes:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the feature (using them in lvalue contexts) was rarely used.
>>
>> (** This is:
>>
>> (a, b, c) = 0;
>>
>> in C, which is illegal. But put in explicit pointers, and it's suddenly
>> fine:
>>
>> *(a, b, &c) = 0;
>>
>> So why can't the compiler do that?)
A C compiler doesn't do that because the language doesn't allow it.
An expression whose top-level operator is a comma operator is not
an lvalue in C, even if the operands are lvalues. It could have been,
but it isn't.
> The second really is
>
> (a, b, c = 0);
>
> I do not know what you expect writing '(a, b, c) = 0', but the above
> C meaning probably is not what you want.
I think Bart was talking about a hypothetical feature that allows comma
expressions to be lvalues. The comma operator evaluates both its
operands and yields the value of the right operand. So for example:
(a, b) = 0;
which is a constraint violation in current C, the LHS (a, b) would be
treated as an lvalue that discards a and designates b, which then
becomes the target of the assignment.
It's not an insane idea, and it wouldn't be difficult to specify its
semantics consistently. In fact C++ supports conditional and comma
expressions as lvalues; `(a, b) = 0;` is a constraint violation in C,
but valid in C++. I'm not sure how useful it is.
> I use language that allows:
>
> (a, b, c) := (b, c, a);
>
> that is if there are 3 things on left hand side, then there must
> be 3 things on the right hand side.
That's not a comma operator, and I don't think it's relevant to what
Bart is talking about. The comma symbol is used in a lot of different
contexts.
Bart, please jump in if I've misunderstood what you meant.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-08 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zfoi2d5c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #388165 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Take this C:
>
> int A, B;
>
> A = B;
>
> There are two types associated with the LHS: 'int*' which is the type
> the name A (its address), and 'int' which is the type of A's value.
No, there is no int* associated with the LHS. The LHS is an lvalue
of type int.
An lvalue is an expression that (potentially) *designates* an object.
In this case, the lvalue `A` designates the int object whose name is
"A". Designating an object is not defined in terms of the object's
address or constructing a pointer to it.
Nothing in the C syntax or semantics of this assignment expression
refers to the address of A, or to anything of type int*.
(The generated code may or may not compute the address of A.)
C *could* have defined assignment and similar operations in terms of the
address of the target, and perhaps some other languages might do so.
But it doesn't.
And if it had, then assignment to bit fields would have had to be
described as a special case. They aren't. If bf is the name of a bit
field, then obj.bf is an lvalue designating a bit field object (which
has no address), and `obj.bf = 42` assigns a value to that object.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-06 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86cylhngkx.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #388134 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 05/09/2024 16:21, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> So what exactly is different about the LHS and RHS here: >>> >>> A = A; >>> >>> (In BLISS, doing the same thing requires 'A = .A' AIUI; while >>> 'A = A' is also valid, there is a hidden mismatch in indirection >>> levels between left and right. It is asymmetric while in C it >>> is symmetric, although seem to disagree on that latter point.) >> >> You seem to miss the point that assigment operator is >> fundamentally assymetic. > > If you've followed the subthread then you will know that nobody > disputes that assignment reads from side of '=' and writes to the > other. > > The symmetry is to do with syntax when the same term appears on > both sides of '=', the type associated with each side, and, > typically, the internal representations too. Maybe it would help if you would stop thinking in terms of the word symmetry (clearly assignment is not symmetrical) and instead think about consistency. In C, the meaning of an identifier or object-locating expression depends on where it is in the syntax tree. In some places it means the address of the object; in other places it means the contents of whatever is stored in the object. Those meanings are very different; among other things, they have different types (if one type is 'int' the other is 'int *'). In Bliss, by contrast, the meaning of an identifier is the same no matter where it appears in the syntax tree: it always means the address of the object. The meaning is independent of where the term appears in the input, which is to say the meaning is consistent from place to place. In C the meaning is not consistent - in some places it means the address, in other places whatever is stored at the address. Considering the point of view of a compiler writer, it's easier to write a compiler for Bliss than for C. In Bliss, upon seeing an identifier, always simply put its address in a register. If an object's value needs to be loaded, there will be a '.' to take the address produced by the sub-expression and fetch the word stored at that address. On the other hand, in C, upon seeing an identifier, the compiler needs to consider the context of where the identifier appears: on the left hand side of an assignment it means one thing, in almost all other places it means something else. There needs to be code in the compiler to decide which of these two meanings is in effect for the node in question. Please note that I am making no claim that the Bliss approach is better than the C approach, or vice versa. My purpose here is to explain the differences, not evaluate them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-06 14:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vbf187$rcd3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #388140 |
On 06/09/2024 12:53, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 05/09/2024 16:21, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what exactly is different about the LHS and RHS here:
>>>>
>>>> A = A;
>>>>
>>>> (In BLISS, doing the same thing requires 'A = .A' AIUI; while
>>>> 'A = A' is also valid, there is a hidden mismatch in indirection
>>>> levels between left and right. It is asymmetric while in C it
>>>> is symmetric, although seem to disagree on that latter point.)
>>>
>>> You seem to miss the point that assigment operator is
>>> fundamentally assymetic.
>>
>> If you've followed the subthread then you will know that nobody
>> disputes that assignment reads from side of '=' and writes to the
>> other.
>>
>> The symmetry is to do with syntax when the same term appears on
>> both sides of '=', the type associated with each side, and,
>> typically, the internal representations too.
>
> Maybe it would help if you would stop thinking in terms of the
> word symmetry (clearly assignment is not symmetrical) and instead
> think about consistency.
>
> In C, the meaning of an identifier or object-locating expression
> depends on where it is in the syntax tree. In some places it
> means the address of the object; in other places it means the
> contents of whatever is stored in the object.
In a HLL, a named object (ie. a variable name) is nearly always meant to
to refer to an object's value, either its current value or what will be
its new value.
It will rarely be intended to mean the name itself (ie. its address)
without extra denotations, other in special cases (eg. names of
functions, or names of arrays in C).
The implementation may sometimes need to use the address instead, but
that is hidden. (For example in evaluating x.m, you don't want to load a
500KB struct just to extract one small element).
I'm not sure what you mean by object-locating expression, but any
anonymous intermediate results (I call them transient values) generally
are considered rvalues in the HLL. They would need an explicit pointer
deref op to perform any stores.
> Those meanings
> are very different; among other things, they have different
> types (if one type is 'int' the other is 'int *').
>
> In Bliss, by contrast, the meaning of an identifier is the same
> no matter where it appears in the syntax tree: it always means
> the address of the object. The meaning is independent of where
> the term appears in the input, which is to say the meaning is
> consistent from place to place.
In BLISS both A and .A rvalues apparently have the same type. Both A = A
and A = .A are apparently valid, but do different things.
(But I don't know if ..A would work. In C, A = **A is invalid because of
the type system, but there isn't one in BLISS. However, when A is an
integer array, then i[A][A][A] does famously work - with suitable data
values.)
> In C the meaning is not consistent - in some places it means the
> address, in other places whatever is stored at the address.
>
> Considering the point of view of a compiler writer, it's easier
> to write a compiler for Bliss than for C. In Bliss, upon seeing
> an identifier, always simply put its address in a register. If
> an object's value needs to be loaded, there will be a '.' to take
> the address produced by the sub-expression and fetch the word
> stored at that address. On the other hand, in C, upon seeing an
> identifier, the compiler needs to consider the context of where
> the identifier appears:
You can do the same thing in a C compiler: always load the address of
any identifier associated with the location of value. Then decide
whether anything else needs to be done. The rules a little more
elaborate, but then C is a more complicated language.
You can try this in C source too:
*&A = *&B;
although the compiler is likely to cancel out both those sets of
operations (symmetrically on both sides).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-09 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86seu8iavv.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #388141 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 06/09/2024 12:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 05/09/2024 16:21, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>> >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So what exactly is different about the LHS and RHS here: >>>>> >>>>> A = A; >>>>> >>>>> (In BLISS, doing the same thing requires 'A = .A' AIUI; while >>>>> 'A = A' is also valid, there is a hidden mismatch in indirection >>>>> levels between left and right. It is asymmetric while in C it >>>>> is symmetric, although seem to disagree on that latter point.) >>>> >>>> You seem to miss the point that assigment operator is >>>> fundamentally assymetic. >>> >>> If you've followed the subthread then you will know that nobody >>> disputes that assignment reads from side of '=' and writes to the >>> other. >>> >>> The symmetry is to do with syntax when the same term appears on >>> both sides of '=', the type associated with each side, and, >>> typically, the internal representations too. >> >> Maybe it would help if you would stop thinking in terms of the >> word symmetry (clearly assignment is not symmetrical) and instead >> think about consistency. >> >> In C, the meaning of an identifier or object-locating expression >> depends on where it is in the syntax tree. In some places it >> means the address of the object; in other places it means the >> contents of whatever is stored in the object. > > In a HLL, a named object (ie. a variable name) is nearly always meant > to to refer to an object's value, either its current value or what > will be its new value. BLISS is different. >> Considering the point of view of a compiler writer, it's easier >> to write a compiler for Bliss than for C. In Bliss, upon seeing >> an identifier, always simply put its address in a register. If >> an object's value needs to be loaded, there will be a '.' to take >> the address produced by the sub-expression and fetch the word >> stored at that address. On the other hand, in C, upon seeing an >> identifier, the compiler needs to consider the context of where >> the identifier appears: > > You can do the same thing in a C compiler: always load the > address of any identifier associated with the location of > value. Sure, but that doesn't change the basic point that in C some additional information needs to be taken into account, and possibly additional code generated, when looking at the parse node for an identifier. In BLISS the action is always just to load the address, and no other action is ever needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-29 14:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vaqefq$2arg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387999 |
On 8/29/24 12:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: ... > I can't see what it is you object to in what I wrote. I don't disagree > with anything you are saying (the "correct result" being to reject a > program that has, syntactically, the wrong thing on the left hand side). No - the only requirement is that a diagnostic be produced. A fully conforming implementation of C is allowed to accept such code and then generate an executable; if you choose to execute the executable, the behavior is undefined. The only construct for which rejection is mandatory is a #error directive that survives conditional compilation. Note that a #error directive that contains or is a syntax error or a constraint violation would invalidate that requirement, allowing the program to be accepted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-29 23:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h6b3uejz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #388008 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > On 8/29/24 12:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ... >> I can't see what it is you object to in what I wrote. I don't disagree >> with anything you are saying (the "correct result" being to reject a >> program that has, syntactically, the wrong thing on the left hand side). > > No - the only requirement is that a diagnostic be produced. A fully > conforming implementation of C is allowed to accept such code and then > generate an executable; if you choose to execute the executable, the > behavior is undefined. Sorry, I used a term incorrectly. To put it informally, you must be told that "this is not C". Not everything is C even if a C compiler will accept FORTRAN code as an extension. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-30 00:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bk1buduc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #388021 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> On 8/29/24 12:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> ... >>> I can't see what it is you object to in what I wrote. I don't disagree >>> with anything you are saying (the "correct result" being to reject a >>> program that has, syntactically, the wrong thing on the left hand side). >> >> No - the only requirement is that a diagnostic be produced. A fully >> conforming implementation of C is allowed to accept such code and then >> generate an executable; if you choose to execute the executable, the >> behavior is undefined. > > Sorry, I used a term incorrectly. To put it informally, you must be > told that "this is not C". Not everything is C even if a C compiler > will accept FORTRAN code as an extension. Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler that says "this is not C" and then generates a executable is rejecting the code as far as I am concerned. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-30 13:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vasvg2$j3u2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #388022 |
On 8/29/24 19:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: ... > Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler that says > "this is not C" and then generates a executable is rejecting the code as > far as I am concerned. How about a compiler that says: "Congratulations on using our extension to C - program accepted"? Such a compiler could be fully conforming, and I see no way to describe that as a rejection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-30 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240830103452.749@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #388037 |
On 2024-08-30, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > On 8/29/24 19:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ... >> Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler that says >> "this is not C" and then generates a executable is rejecting the code as >> far as I am concerned. > > How about a compiler that says: "Congratulations on using our extension > to C - program accepted"? Such a compiler could be fully conforming, and > I see no way to describe that as a rejection. Woudln't it hava to correctly look for and process #error directives? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-30 14:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vat3nn$jqhg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #388038 |
On 8/30/24 13:36, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-08-30, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> On 8/29/24 19:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> ... >>> Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler that says >>> "this is not C" and then generates a executable is rejecting the code as >>> far as I am concerned. >> >> How about a compiler that says: "Congratulations on using our extension >> to C - program accepted"? Such a compiler could be fully conforming, and >> I see no way to describe that as a rejection. > > Woudln't it hava to correctly look for and process #error directives? Certainly. I said that it could be fully conforming. It won't actually be fully conforming unless it meets all of the other requirements of the C standard. That means it must reject any program that contains a #error directive that survives conditional compilation, but it's otherwise free to accept any program, even if that program has syntax errors or constraint violations, so long as it also generates the required diagnostics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-31 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86frqluk2y.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #388037 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > On 8/29/24 19:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ... > >> Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler >> that says "this is not C" and then generates a executable is >> rejecting the code as far as I am concerned. > > How about a compiler that says: "Congratulations on using our > extension to C - program accepted"? As long as the message conforms to the implementation-defined (and so documented) characteristics of other mandatory diagnostics, it seems reasonable to expect that someone would treat it the same way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-31 02:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86msktukdz.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #388022 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> >>> On 8/29/24 12:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> I can't see what it is you object to in what I wrote. I don't >>>> disagree with anything you are saying (the "correct result" being >>>> to reject a program that has, syntactically, the wrong thing on >>>> the left hand side). >>> >>> No - the only requirement is that a diagnostic be produced. A >>> fully conforming implementation of C is allowed to accept such >>> code and then generate an executable; if you choose to execute >>> the executable, the behavior is undefined. >> >> Sorry, I used a term incorrectly. To put it informally, you must >> be told that "this is not C". Not everything is C even if a C >> compiler will accept FORTRAN code as an extension. > > Actually I don't think I did. I said "reject" and a compiler that > says "this is not C" and then generates a executable is rejecting > the code as far as I am concerned. I would like to express a personal reaction. I think what you said about rejecting a program isn't exactly wrong, but it is misleading, and also, I think, inadvisable. A good general principle is not to use words with private meanings in a venue where there is a different public meaning as understood by a significant majority of participants in the venue. The response from James Kuyper is off the mark in my view and so enters the conversation at cross purposes. The quotes around the phrase "correct result" should be enough to make clear that you are not making a precise statement about what the C standard requires, but instead giving an informal description of a reaction to a well-defined condition. James is dragging the conversation into a domain that is not quite the same as the one of your comment. That said, I still think "reject" is a poor word choice there, whatever you might think of it privately, for two reasons. Reason one, it goes against the common ordinary meaning of the word. Reason two, although the C standard does not use the word "reject" at all, it does use the word "accept", and it is natural to take "reject" to mean the opposite of "accept", but that sense of "reject" is not what you mean (at least, I don't think it is). Incidentally, the C standard doesn't say anything about refusing an entire program. What it does say is that implementations must not successfully translate a preprocessing translation unit that has an unskipped #error directive. Presumably a not-successfully translated preprocessing translation unit is meant to imply that any program that tries to incorporate that translation unit must also be invalid, but I don't think the C standard ever actually says that. (Disclaimer: I haven't checked this claim carefully.) On the question of what phrase to use instead, I might suggest "must flag the program as being erroneous (in the sense that it does not comply with the rules given in the C standard for what constitutes a C source file)". That's a long phrase, but I think the first part - "must flag the program as being erroneous" - expresses what it is you want to convey. And I think it would be understood by C-standard-experts in a way that's compatible with what you want to say. So, for what it's worth, there are my thoughts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-30 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86h6b2w2m9.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #387998 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2024-08-29, Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
[.. is assignment in C symmetric w.r.t. the two sides of '=' ..]
>> Have you taken Bart's bait and are now discussing a narrower
>> context?
>>
>> The claim that C's assignment is symmetric and what is required on
>> the two sides is exactly the same is junk. C's assignment has
>> different syntax on each side, and what is required is even more
>> strict.
>
> In the ISO C grammar for assignment, there is a "unary expression"
> on the left and an "assignment expression" on the right. That's
> just a particular factoring of the grammar that implementors don't
> have to follow, if the correct results are produced.
>
> Under a parser generator tool we could have a production rule like
> expr '=' expr , where the '=' token has an elsewhere-declared
> associativity and precedence.
>
> The basic idea that the same syntactic kind of thing is on both
> sides of a C assignment (with an additional lvalue constraint) is
> valid; it's just not literally true if we are discussing the
> details of how ISO C expresses the grammar.
I think this kind of reasoning is more harmful than helpful. The
point of the discussion is to understand what the ISO C standard
requires. Constraints apply only in the context of a complete
parse of a syntactically well-formed translation unit. To give
an example:
enum { A = 47 };
int
foo( int x ){
int A = 23;
return x+A;
}
There is nothing wrong with this translation unit. But if we
look at just the 'A = 23' as an assignment expression, it
violates a constraint. Reasoning about how an implementation
might go about parsing its input might lead one astray as to
how compilers are allowed to behave.
Of course implementations are allowed to phrase diagnostics in
any way they choose, even when a diagnostic is required. But for
understanding what the C standard mandates, it's better not to
think about how the parsing might be done, and instead follow the
given easy-to-understand guideline, namely, that constraints
apply only in the context of a complete parse of a syntactically
well-formed translation unit. If a translation unit is not
syntactically well-formed then no further consideration is needed
because it already doesn't comply with the C standard's rules;
it's only when a translation unit is completely syntactically
well-formed that one needs to think about constraint violations
and whether constraints are violated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-29 23:43 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240829234357.00002555@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #387929 |
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:26:24 +0100 Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > In most HLLs you use the same syntax whether for lvalue or rvalue > (eg. A = A). > From the top of my head. Windows cmd shell: set y=%x% TCL: set y=$x bash shell: y=$x There should be many more examples like those above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-26 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87seurdqts.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #387795 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> BLISS is a rather strange language. For something supposedly low level than
>> C, it doesn't have 'goto'.
>>
>> It is also typeless.
>>
>> There is also a key feature that sets it apart from most HLLs: usually if
>> you declare a variable A, then you can access A's value just by writing A;
>> its address is automatically dereferenced.
>
> Not always. This is where left- and right-evaluation came in. On the
> left of an assignment A denotes a "place" to receive a value. On the
> right, it denotes a value obtained from a place. CPL used the terms and
> C got them via BCPL's documentation. Viewed like this, BLISS just makes
> "evaluation" a universal concept.
As I recall, the terms "lvalue" and "rvalue" originated with CPL. The
'l' and 'r' suggest the left and right sides of an assignment.
Disclaimer: I have a couple of CPL documents, and I don't see the terms
"lvalue" and "rvalue" in a quick look. The PDFs are not searchable. If
someone has better information, please post it. Wikipedia does say that
the notion of "l-values" and "r-values" was introduced by CPL.
An expression could be "evaluated for its lvalue", which means
determining what object it designates, or "evaluted for its rvalue",
which C just calls evaluating the expression. An expression like 2+2
that does not designate an object does not have an lvalue.
So given `int foo = 42;`, in CPL terms evaluating `foo` for its lvalue
yields the identity of that object, and evaluating `foo` for its rvalue
yields the value 42.
C changed the meanings, so that a C lvalue is a kind of expression, not
the result of evaluating an expression. C doesn't use the term "rvalue"
except in one footnote: "What is sometimes called "rvalue" is in this
document described as the "value of an expression"."
C has implicit *lvalue conversion* which converts an lvalue (expression)
to the value stored in the designated object. Apparently BLISS requires
this conversion to be done explicitly. (I don't hate the idea.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-26 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vaisqf$2k7o6$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387799 |
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:30:55 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote: > As I recall, the terms "lvalue" and "rvalue" originated with CPL. And very useful they have proven, too. CPL was kind of a rival to PL/I. But as I recall from the design papers and stuff, they spent most of their effort on coming up with alternative syntaxes for features, rather than on the features themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-27 14:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87frqqyuib.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #387799 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> BLISS is a rather strange language. For something supposedly low level than >>> C, it doesn't have 'goto'. >>> >>> It is also typeless. >>> >>> There is also a key feature that sets it apart from most HLLs: usually if >>> you declare a variable A, then you can access A's value just by writing A; >>> its address is automatically dereferenced. >> >> Not always. This is where left- and right-evaluation came in. On the >> left of an assignment A denotes a "place" to receive a value. On the >> right, it denotes a value obtained from a place. CPL used the terms and >> C got them via BCPL's documentation. Viewed like this, BLISS just makes >> "evaluation" a universal concept. > > As I recall, the terms "lvalue" and "rvalue" originated with CPL. The > 'l' and 'r' suggest the left and right sides of an assignment. > > Disclaimer: I have a couple of CPL documents, and I don't see the terms > "lvalue" and "rvalue" in a quick look. The PDFs are not searchable. If > someone has better information, please post it. Wikipedia does say that > the notion of "l-values" and "r-values" was introduced by CPL. I presume, since I mentioned the concepts coming from CPL, you are referring to specifically the short-form terms l- and r-values? I can't help with those specific terms as the document I have uses a mixture of terms like "the LH value of...", "left-hand expressions" and "evaluated in LH mode". -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web