Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #56907 > unrolled thread

Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:44 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-17 10:47 +1100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 09:06 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 16:53 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:39 -0500
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:41 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:40 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:44 +1100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 09:11 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 14:19 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-10-22 03:34 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:43 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:42 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 22:35 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-23 15:13 +0200
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-24 22:02 +0200
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 15:13 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 10:58 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 11:49 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-29 12:37 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-29 14:08 +0000
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-29 13:00 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-30 10:22 +0000
                  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:48 -0700
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-31 08:41 +0000
                      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-31 21:41 -0700
                        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 05:41 +0000
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:50 -0700
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-02 03:52 +0000
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:46 -0800
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2013-11-02 18:22 +0000
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-03 05:17 +0000
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 10:45 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:50 -0800
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 19:49 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 09:11 +1100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 09:38 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 20:07 +1100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 10:38 +0100
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-02 18:36 +0000
                        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-01 13:50 +0100
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:51 -0700
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-02 12:15 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:53 +0100
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-11-02 20:49 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 15:17 +1100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2013-10-29 19:08 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:44 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 11:57 -0700
      Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 16:05 -0400
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-25 16:44 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 01:19 +0100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:58 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 16:38 +0100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:36 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 11:25 +1100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 20:35 -0400
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:00 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 02:40 +0000
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 05:15 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-27 00:02 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:07 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:25 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:43 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:05 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 17:24 +0000
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:33 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 09:15 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:45 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 14:23 +0000
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 22:09 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 13:37 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 18:45 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:56 +1100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:29 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 22:04 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:59 -0700
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:40 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700
                  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-28 21:03 -0700
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-29 17:22 +1100
                      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:53 -0700
                      OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 07:00 +0000
                        Re: OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 19:19 +1100
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-29 08:45 -0400
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#58342

On 02/11/2013 18:22, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 1 November 2013 05:41, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>>>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>>>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>>>>> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
>>>>> analysis of it.
>>>>
>>>> I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up --
>>>> not just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst
>>>> possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.
>>>
>>> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
>>> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
>>> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
>>> statement
>>
>> I said nothing of the sort.
>
> Personally, rurpy's reading seems like a reasonable one to me. Maybe
> not correct in a technical sense, but at least reasonable.
>
> Particularly, the phrase
>
> "Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes
> sense or doesn't."
>
> seems especially harsh, and would be furthermore so should Skybuck be
> a professional programmer. That's a phrase easy to take badly,
> especially over this medium.
>
> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
> that you're both on the same side here.
>

Coming from me this is probably a classic case of pot calling the kettle 
black, but how about reading the Spike Milligan story The White Flag 
before this also escalates out of control.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58259

Op 01-11-13 05:41, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> 
>> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just 
>> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by 
>> Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting 
>> false words into my mouth.
> 
> An apology is due when someone does some damage to things 
> or people (including reputation or feelings) that should 
> have been avoided.
> 
> My overstating your disagreement with Skybuck was inadvertent, 
> does not change the points I was making (it does not matter 
> whether you thought he was wrong or nutty) and did no 
> significant damage to you or your reputation.  

It seems rather obvious from Steven's reaction, your overstatement
hurt (damaged) his feelings. Since you ackowleged that damaged
feelings are cause for an apology, it seems by your own words
an apology is due.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58308

On 11/01/2013 06:50 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 01-11-13 05:41, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just 
>>> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by 
>>> Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting 
>>> false words into my mouth.
>> 
>> An apology is due when someone does some damage to things 
>> or people (including reputation or feelings) that should 
>> have been avoided.
>> 
>> My overstating your disagreement with Skybuck was inadvertent, 
>> does not change the points I was making (it does not matter 
>> whether you thought he was wrong or nutty) and did no 
>> significant damage to you or your reputation.  
> 
> It seems rather obvious from Steven's reaction, your overstatement
> hurt (damaged) his feelings. 

It it not obvious to me at all.

> Since you ackowleged that damaged
> feelings are cause for an apology, it seems by your own words
> an apology is due.

I explained why an apology was not appropriate previously.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58321

Op 02-11-13 02:51, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
> On 11/01/2013 06:50 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 01-11-13 05:41, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just 
>>>> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by 
>>>> Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting 
>>>> false words into my mouth.
>>>
>>> An apology is due when someone does some damage to things 
>>> or people (including reputation or feelings) that should 
>>> have been avoided.
>>>
>>> My overstating your disagreement with Skybuck was inadvertent, 
>>> does not change the points I was making (it does not matter 
>>> whether you thought he was wrong or nutty) and did no 
>>> significant damage to you or your reputation.  
>>
>> It seems rather obvious from Steven's reaction, your overstatement
>> hurt (damaged) his feelings. 
> 
> It it not obvious to me at all.

Shouldn't you be erring on the safe side? Rather issue an appology
when it may not be really needed than refuse to give one when it
may be appropiate?

>> Since you ackowleged that damaged
>> feelings are cause for an apology, it seems by your own words
>> an apology is due.
> 
> I explained why an apology was not appropriate previously.

No you didn't. What you did was trying to minimize your contribution.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58218

Skybuck Flying wrote:


 >> Because it's logical.
 >
 > "
 > What is logical?
 > "
 >
 > To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.


As "logical" as to put it anywhere else inside the loop body. As long as we write code
on machine language level, we are asked to choose the most efficient instruction chain
we can find. The decision where to place which instructions is up to the programmers -
not to a counter-productive "Universal Law".


 > The exit condition glues the loop to the code that will be executed next which is also at the bottom.
 >
 > Example:
 >
 > Loop
 >
 > NextCode


Yes. As you should know, jump targets should be aligned to 32 byte boundaries to avoid
prefetch stalls. Hence, it is absolutely illogical to let a loop run into a set of NOP
instructions at the bottom of the loop's body. Therefore, we had to end each loop with
a jump to the next label to avoid the execution of a couple of extra NOP instructions.
This is as illogical as the attempt to declare some artificial restrictions as the new
Non-Plus-Ultra of programming.


 > Placing the exit ondition near next code makes more sense at least in situation where I was
 > programming.
 >
 > I will give you an example:
 >
 >
 >
 > LoopBegin( Step = 10 )
 >
 >     if ButtonExists then
 >     begin
 >         ClickButton()
 >     end;
 >
 > LoopEnd( ButtonClicked )
 >
 > Execute next code...
 >
 > This loop waits for the button to appear, once it's found it is clicked and then the loop exits to
 > continue the next code.
 >
 > Putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense.


Ever thought about how a compiler might translate this construct? Here are 2 partially
optimised results:

ButtonExists  = bit 0 in RCX
ButtonClicked = bit 1 in RCX

       ...
       movl  $0x0A, %ebp
       testl $0x01, %ecx        # does button exist?
       je    1f
       jmp   0f

       .p2align 5,,31
     0:decl  %ebp
       je    1f
       call  _ClickButton
       jmp   0b

       .p2align 5,,31
      1:orl  $0x02, %ecx        # button was clicked ten times...
       ...


Alternative:

       ...
       movl  $0x0A, %ebp
       testl $0x01, %ecx        # does button exist?
       je    1f
       jmp   0f

       .p2align 5,,31
     0:call  _ClickButton
       decl  %ebp
       jne   0b
       jmp   1f

       .p2align 5,,31
      1:orl  $0x02, %ecx        # button was clicked ten times...
       ...


The code with the conditional branch at top is faster than the alternative code,
because putting calls at places used as branch target, even if properly aligned,
is punished with some penalty cycles. As the loop ends at the bottom, we have to
insert a second jump to bypass the second set of NOPs.

Placing an exit condition at the top possibly looks odd for HLL programmers, but
it's faster in many cases. Placing all exit conditions at the bottom of the loop
body can never be faster, but often will be the slower solution.

You should translate your HLL constructs into simple machine language before you
start to declare "Universal Laws" which are none.

I am still wondering why you post to alt.lang.asm if you do not accept that your
proposals are analysed and their flaws are revealed. ;)


BTW: If this button ever existed, it'll exist throughout the runtime of the loop
without disappearing.  Hence, it is not necessary to query its existence in each
iteration, because it costs a lot of precious time. The best solution is the one
above - check if the button exists, then start the loop.


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58361

For those programmers that want to write clear/understandable/less buggy 
code instead of the fastest it could be interesting.

Also ultimately compilers are free to implement it they way they want it ;) 
Thus freeing the programmer from strange assembler instruction orders as 
usual ;)

If you ever would like to write your own compiler you are free to implement 
it the way you want it and thus hopefully your assembler analysis makes 
sense ;)

Bye,
  Skybuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58362

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Skybuck Flying
<Windows7IsOK@dreampc2006.com> wrote:
> For those programmers that want to write clear/understandable/less buggy
> code instead of the fastest it could be interesting.

"it", without context? What could be interesting? You're not quoting
any text, so I have no idea what you're referring to. Correspondingly
in your other paragraphs.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57950

Bernhard Schornak replied to a "Flying-Bucket-post":

Methink we all know about the often not-so-logical ideas from
Buck, they merely come from an abstracted view and are far away
from todays hardware given opportunities.

OTOH, I sometimes got to think about his weird ideas, but mainly
figured that his demands are already covered by hardware but may
not have entered his Delphi/Python-HLL-world yet.
Most of the asked features may be found implemented in the C/C+-
area even just as intrisincs since a while anyway now.

__
wolfgang
(for those who dont know:
 I'm a purist machine code programmer since more than 35 years)





 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58217

wolfgang kern wrote:


 > Bernhard Schornak replied to a "Flying-Bucket-post":
 >
 > Methink we all know about the often not-so-logical ideas from
 > Buck, they merely come from an abstracted view and are far away
 > from todays hardware given opportunities.
 >
 > OTOH, I sometimes got to think about his weird ideas, but mainly
 > figured that his demands are already covered by hardware but may
 > not have entered his Delphi/Python-HLL-world yet.
 > Most of the asked features may be found implemented in the C/C+-
 > area even just as intrisincs since a while anyway now.


Oops. I am a free human, so I am a natural enemy of declarations of
quite pointless "Universal Laws" - in simple words: Plights are the
opposite of rights.


 > wolfgang
 > (for those who dont know:
 >   I'm a purist machine code programmer since more than 35 years)


Bis zum selba z'sammg'schtrickt'n ZX80 (1980) ko I grod no midhoid'n...


Pfüat'Di

Bernhard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57545

Dave said :

"Include a quote from whomever you're responding to, and we might
actually take you seriously.  And of course, make sure you don't delete
the attribution. "

This forum is working for me. One of the more frequent and sophisticated posters emailed me saying he appreciates my contributions. 

I'm sorry I'm putting in a bustle in your hedgerow (just a little bit sorry) but I've got 20 balls in the air right now and I haven't got around to configuring a proper client for this feed. The default Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.

Some readers can discern context from the previous posts. That's sort of what the word context means. But I understand this skill isn't universal.

If it makes you feel better, I'm mostly lurking/learning and just posting on areas where I have expertise. 

Thanks for letting me off with a warning officer, I'll do better next time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57556 — Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:

> The default
> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.

So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and 
access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57576 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> The default
>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
> 
> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and 
> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.

Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.  
There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to 
their obnoxious noisiness.

I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a 
little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors 
GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
the anti-GG goon squad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57579 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 26/10/2013 00:44, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>> The default
>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>>
>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>
> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
> their obnoxious noisiness.
>
> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
> little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors
> GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
> the anti-GG goon squad.
>

Thunderbird cons - I've never known any. Google groups cons - continual 
streams of messages on a daily basis that are double spaced despite 
umpteen requests to follow instructions so the crap doesn't get 
repeated.  Just how difficult is it?  Are you prepared to pay for my new 
glasses, as the eye strain caused by google crap really does get to me. 
  Goon squad indeed!!!

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57614 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 06:19 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/10/2013 00:44, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>>> The default
>>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>>>
>>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>>
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
>> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
>> their obnoxious noisiness.
>>
>> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
>> little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
>> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
>> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors
>> GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
>> the anti-GG goon squad.
> 
> Thunderbird cons - I've never known any. 

That's odd, because in 
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/FFAe5sJ7kQ4/GmDtHitY50QJ
I responded to a direct question from you about problems 
with Thunderbird.  If you mean instead that because *you've* 
experienced no problems, then none exist, that's your business
but I hope you don't carry that attitude into your programming 

Further, that post was only with technical issues related to 
TB; in another thread in which you participated, I explained 
some of the other usability tradeoffs, issues of personal 
choice and preference which clearly vary between users, for 
example in:
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/WRZDOzZd76oJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/41hZ3Si5G0cJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/jKu57BLvqIUJ
I question your judgement if you see you own preferences for 
TB as being absolute and applicable to everyone.  The idea 
that there exists any access method for reading this list 
that has *no* cons is ludicrous.

> Google groups cons - continual 
> streams of messages on a daily basis that are double spaced despite 
> umpteen requests to follow instructions so the crap doesn't get 
> repeated.  Just how difficult is it?  Are you prepared to pay for my new 
> glasses, as the eye strain caused by google crap really does get to me. 

You are being absurd.  If you are seriously willing to damage 
your eyesight because you feel compelled to read every post
here then you should seek psychological help right away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57623 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 26/10/2013 15:58, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> That's odd, because in
>    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/FFAe5sJ7kQ4/GmDtHitY50QJ
> I responded to a direct question from you about problems
> with Thunderbird.  If you mean instead that because *you've*
> experienced no problems, then none exist, that's your business
> but I hope you don't carry that attitude into your programming
>

Would you please be kind enough to quote the question that I asked. 
You'll find it extremely difficult as I actually made a stement.  I quote

"
 > Please provide evidence that Thunderbird is buggy.  I use it quite
 > happily, don't have problems, and have never seen anybody complaining
 > about it.
"

I still stand by the above statement, whereas as a constant stream of 
crap arrives here every day from the bug ridden google product(s).  How 
can you ignore it until you've actually looked at it?  Do you have 
Superman's eyesight?

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57718 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 09:38 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/10/2013 15:58, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> That's odd, because in
>>    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/FFAe5sJ7kQ4/GmDtHitY50QJ
>> I responded to a direct question from you about problems
>> with Thunderbird.  If you mean instead that because *you've*
>> experienced no problems, then none exist, that's your business
>> but I hope you don't carry that attitude into your programming
> 
> Would you please be kind enough to quote the question that I asked. 
> You'll find it extremely difficult as I actually made a stement.  I quote

Ah, right it was a stement rather than a quesion.  And that
changes my points exactly how?

> [...]
> How 
> can you ignore it until you've actually looked at it?  Do you have 
> Superman's eyesight?

So your eyes are so sensitive that just glancing at a double 
spaced message damages them?  OK....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57582 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
> their obnoxious noisiness.
>
> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
> little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors
> GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
> the anti-GG goon squad.

As soon as we hear of people automatically blacklisting any posts that
come from Thunderbird, I'll believe you that they're on par. Until
then, no matter how courteous you might be in your use of GG (which
still makes you part of an extremely small minority), you still have a
fundamental downside in that your message simply won't get to
everyone.

As to "without annoying anyone except a few drooling fanatics" - I
wouldn't count myself among those fanatics (do you count me there?),
but the GG issus (mainly with regard to quoted text) DO annoy me, and
very much. Just because I don't flame people or throw tantrums doesn't
mean I don't mind.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57613 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 06:25 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
>> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
>> their obnoxious noisiness.
>>
>> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
>> little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
>> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
>> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors
>> GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
>> the anti-GG goon squad.
> 
> As soon as we hear of people automatically blacklisting any posts that
> come from Thunderbird, I'll believe you that they're on par. Until
> then, no matter how courteous you might be in your use of GG (which
> still makes you part of an extremely small minority), you still have a
> fundamental downside in that your message simply won't get to
> everyone.

I am aware of that.  As I said the last time the subject came up,

* So what?  Anyone too lazy or with too much need to control, to
 not skip over posts they find annoying probably is someone unlikely
 to offer anything constructive in any thread I'm participating
 in.

* It is not at all clear that the number who actually completely
 ignore GG is more than a very small number.

* Life's full of tradeoffs.  The convenience of GG to some people
 is worth the downside.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57584 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 7:44 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>> The default
>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>>
>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>
> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.

Rurpy: My advice was real advice (what I do) given in response to 
Cacioppi's complaint 'notoriously cruddy'.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57615 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 06:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 7:44 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>>> The default
>>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>>>
>>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>>
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
> 
> Rurpy: My advice was real advice (what I do) given in response to 
> Cacioppi's complaint 'notoriously cruddy'.

As was mine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web