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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121585 > unrolled thread

Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-11 23:22 +0000
    Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-11 15:46 -0800
      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-12 08:12 +0000
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-12 10:53 +0100
          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-12 10:06 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-12 11:34 -0500
      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-12 10:55 +0100
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 02:47 -0800
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-12 11:36 -0500
          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-12 16:51 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-12 21:58 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 15:00 -0800
          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-12 12:26 -0500
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-13 00:00 -0500
              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-13 06:46 -0500
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 13:58 -0800
      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-12 22:00 +0000
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 15:05 -0800
        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-13 17:34 -0500
          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-14 09:48 +0100
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-14 13:25 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-15 10:15 +0100
                Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 14:37 +0000
                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-15 15:50 +0000
                    Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 15:53 +0000
                      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-15 16:33 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 16:35 +0000
                          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-15 17:00 +0000
                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-15 17:47 +0100
                    Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 16:52 +0000
                      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-15 17:02 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 17:04 +0000
                      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 14:44 -0800
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 22:59 +0000
                          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-16 09:23 +0000
                            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-16 14:13 +0100
                              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-16 13:18 +0000
                                Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-16 17:01 +0200
                                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-16 16:17 +0100
                                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-16 16:44 +0000
                                Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-16 16:09 +0100
                                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-16 16:47 +0000
                                    Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-17 08:11 +0100
                              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-16 16:41 +0000
                              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 15:23 -0800
                                Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-17 09:02 +0000
                            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-16 11:30 -0500
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-15 23:49 -0500
                    Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-15 11:54 -0500
                      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 17:00 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-15 12:20 -0500
                          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 17:24 +0000
                            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-16 09:19 +0000
                      Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-15 17:04 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-15 17:16 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-16 14:31 +0100
                          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-16 16:44 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-14 13:40 -0500
              Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-02-14 21:23 +0000
                Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-15 10:09 +0100
                  Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-02-16 05:47 +0000
          Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-02-14 15:14 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler (neos) - Turing Completeness Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-14 16:00 +0000

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

#121605

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:56 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 13/02/2025 23:34, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 2/12/25 17:00, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:52 -0800, Keith Thompson
>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>> I hope to achieve neos Turing Completeness in March during a two week
>>>>> holiday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, did you know that with neos you can mix code from different
>>>>> programming languages in the same source code file!
>> ...
>>>> Does switching from one language to another require some kind of
>>>> explicit marker, or does neos figure it out? With what granularity?
>>>
>>> In 1.0 a marker will be used.
>> 
>> How would that work? If you use a fixed marker, it would have to be
>> something that wasn't a valid piece of program text in any of the
>> supported languages. But if yours is to be a universal compiler, that
>> becomes an impossible decision - every possible marker is valid program
>> text in as least one of the supported languages.
>> The obvious solution is to use different markers for different languages
>> - but that would still run afoul of any language that didn't have any
>> invalid program texts.
>> 
>> How universal do you really want your compiler to be? Take a look at
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language>. How many
>> of them could neos handle? Most of the languages described there are
>> just elaborate jokes of one kind or another - but as such they provide
>> useful test cases for anything intended to be a truly universal
>> compiler. Any feature of one of those esoteric programming languages
>> that would make it hard to handle is something that might come up in a
>> non-joke language.
>> 
>
>If it were me that was designing this concept, I'd pick some syntax that 
>would be very unlikely to come up in real code - even if it might be 
>valid syntax in one or more languages.
>
>For example, decide that the sequence "#¤§" at the start of a line is a 
>"neos meta-escape".  How likely is it that those characters might form 
>part of a normal valid line in some programming language?  It's rather 
>unlikely.  The same goes for something longer but less cryptic, such as 
>"##NEOS##".
>
>It does mean that people who use Neos and mix different languages in the 
>same file might have an restriction on the code they can use - but it is 
>merely a hypothetical restriction.
>
>
>You could also have a requirement that mixed-language files need to be 
>compiled in "neos" mode (rather than C mode, or Pascal mode, or 
>whatever).  They then start off in "neos meta-escape" mode, and as well 
>as allowing the choice of language (and perhaps standard version, flags, 
>etc.) this could also have a command to change the "neos meta-escape" 
>sequence.  So for those that wanted to use "#¤§" as a new operator in 
>Forth, their first line of the file could be :
>
>#¤§ NEOS-META-ESCAPE = ??
>
>(I hope those Unicode symbols came through okay.)
>
>I'm not suggesting that I think any of this mixture is a good idea, but 
>I don't think making language-change markers is the biggest issue.

Not yet implemented but see the "Mixing Programming Languages" section
of the neos homepage for current plan of language markers:

https://neos.dev/

/Flibble

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

#121611

On 14/02/2025 14:25, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:56 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 13/02/2025 23:34, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 2/12/25 17:00, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:52 -0800, Keith Thompson
>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> I hope to achieve neos Turing Completeness in March during a two week
>>>>>> holiday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, did you know that with neos you can mix code from different
>>>>>> programming languages in the same source code file!
>>> ...

<snip>

>> I'm not suggesting that I think any of this mixture is a good idea, but
>> I don't think making language-change markers is the biggest issue.
> 
> Not yet implemented but see the "Mixing Programming Languages" section
> of the neos homepage for current plan of language markers:
> 
> https://neos.dev/
> 

Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)


Do you have any good use-cases or "stories" for when mixing code from 
different languages in a single file would be a useful thing?  I am 
particularly interested in more obscure or general combinations that you 
want to support.  And I'd like to know why you think this would be 
better than, say, making some kind of foreign-function interface to 
allow code in different languages in different files to interact more 
conveniently.

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

#121612

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 14/02/2025 14:25, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:56 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13/02/2025 23:34, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/25 17:00, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:52 -0800, Keith Thompson
>>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>> I hope to achieve neos Turing Completeness in March during a two week
>>>>>>> holiday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, did you know that with neos you can mix code from different
>>>>>>> programming languages in the same source code file!
>>>> ...
>
><snip>
>
>>> I'm not suggesting that I think any of this mixture is a good idea, but
>>> I don't think making language-change markers is the biggest issue.
>> 
>> Not yet implemented but see the "Mixing Programming Languages" section
>> of the neos homepage for current plan of language markers:
>> 
>> https://neos.dev/
>> 
>
>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)

Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.

>
>
>Do you have any good use-cases or "stories" for when mixing code from 
>different languages in a single file would be a useful thing?  I am 
>particularly interested in more obscure or general combinations that you 
>want to support.  And I'd like to know why you think this would be 
>better than, say, making some kind of foreign-function interface to 
>allow code in different languages in different files to interact more 
>conveniently.

As indicated on the website the ability to mix languages in the same
source file isn't a primary requirement: it is simply a side effect of
the neos architecture that you can do that.

/Flibble

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

#121613

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:37:35 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>
>Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.

And people say I'm rude. 

So you've been working on this for 6 years and you still haven't even started
work on the actual compiler yet, you know, the bit that generates the 
assembler (or machine code if you're feeling really brave).

I don't think we need hold our breath for the finished program anytime soon.

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

#121614

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:50:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:37:35 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
>><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>>>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>>>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>>>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>>
>>Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>>of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
>
>And people say I'm rude. 
>
>So you've been working on this for 6 years and you still haven't even started
>work on the actual compiler yet, you know, the bit that generates the 
>assembler (or machine code if you're feeling really brave).

No, I have mostly been busy working on other projects for the last 6
years.

/Flibble

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

#121615

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:53:20 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:50:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:37:35 +0000
>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
>>><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>>>>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>>>>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>>>>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>>>
>>>Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>>>of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
>>
>>And people say I'm rude. 
>>
>>So you've been working on this for 6 years and you still haven't even started
>>work on the actual compiler yet, you know, the bit that generates the 
>>assembler (or machine code if you're feeling really brave).
>
>No, I have mostly been busy working on other projects for the last 6
>years.

I bet none of them are close to being finished either.

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

#121616

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:33:12 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:53:20 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:50:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:37:35 +0000
>>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
>>>><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>>>>>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>>>>>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>>>>>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>>>>
>>>>Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>>>>of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
>>>
>>>And people say I'm rude. 
>>>
>>>So you've been working on this for 6 years and you still haven't even started
>>>work on the actual compiler yet, you know, the bit that generates the 
>>>assembler (or machine code if you're feeling really brave).
>>
>>No, I have mostly been busy working on other projects for the last 6
>>years.
>
>I bet none of them are close to being finished either.

Your tiny mind is quite predictable, mate.

/Flibble

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

#121620

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:35:57 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:33:12 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:53:20 +0000
>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:50:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:37:35 +0000
>>>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
>>>>><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you 
>>>>>>were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having 
>>>>>>trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not 
>>>>>>mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>>>>>of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
>>>>
>>>>And people say I'm rude. 
>>>>
>>>>So you've been working on this for 6 years and you still haven't even
>started
>>>>work on the actual compiler yet, you know, the bit that generates the 
>>>>assembler (or machine code if you're feeling really brave).
>>>
>>>No, I have mostly been busy working on other projects for the last 6
>>>years.
>>
>>I bet none of them are close to being finished either.
>
>Your tiny mind is quite predictable, mate.

So is your inability to produce a finished article.

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

#121617

On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 14/02/2025 14:25, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:56 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/02/2025 23:34, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/25 17:00, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:52 -0800, Keith Thompson
>>>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>> I hope to achieve neos Turing Completeness in March during a two week
>>>>>>>> holiday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, did you know that with neos you can mix code from different
>>>>>>>> programming languages in the same source code file!
>>>>> ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I'm not suggesting that I think any of this mixture is a good idea, but
>>>> I don't think making language-change markers is the biggest issue.
>>>
>>> Not yet implemented but see the "Mixing Programming Languages" section
>>> of the neos homepage for current plan of language markers:
>>>
>>> https://neos.dev/
>>>
>>
>> Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you
>> were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having
>> trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not
>> mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
> 
> Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
> of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
> 

It would be hubris if I had claimed that you /had/ copied my idea.  I 
just asked a question, based on the order of events that I saw :

1. You claimed to have a way of mixing code.
2. Multiple posts asked you for details, and to say how you handled this.
3. You gave no answer to that.
4. I suggested a way to handle it.
5. You posted with a link showing that you did it in the way I suggested.

I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
There's no need to get rude about it.

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

#121618

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:15:16 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/02/2025 14:25, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:56 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/02/2025 23:34, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/25 17:00, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:52 -0800, Keith Thompson
>>>>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>> I hope to achieve neos Turing Completeness in March during a two week
>>>>>>>>> holiday.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, did you know that with neos you can mix code from different
>>>>>>>>> programming languages in the same source code file!
>>>>>> ...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting that I think any of this mixture is a good idea, but
>>>>> I don't think making language-change markers is the biggest issue.
>>>>
>>>> Not yet implemented but see the "Mixing Programming Languages" section
>>>> of the neos homepage for current plan of language markers:
>>>>
>>>> https://neos.dev/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you pick those markers before or after reading my post?  (If you
>>> were inspired by my post, that's great - just because I am having
>>> trouble seeing the point of some of your proposed features, does not
>>> mean I don't wish you the best with the project.)
>> 
>> Oh the hubris. Of course I didn't fucking pick those markers because
>> of your post.  I picked those markers in 2019.
>> 
>
>It would be hubris if I had claimed that you /had/ copied my idea.  I 
>just asked a question, based on the order of events that I saw :
>
>1. You claimed to have a way of mixing code.
>2. Multiple posts asked you for details, and to say how you handled this.
>3. You gave no answer to that.
>4. I suggested a way to handle it.
>5. You posted with a link showing that you did it in the way I suggested.
>
>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>There's no need to get rude about it.

Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
English language which is why I use it.

/Flibble

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

#121622

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:52:57 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>1. You claimed to have a way of mixing code.
>>2. Multiple posts asked you for details, and to say how you handled this.
>>3. You gave no answer to that.
>>4. I suggested a way to handle it.
>>5. You posted with a link showing that you did it in the way I suggested.
>>
>>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>>There's no need to get rude about it.
>
>Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
>English language which is why I use it.

I bet experiencing its original meaning however eludes you.

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

#121623

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:02:14 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:52:57 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:
>>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
>><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>1. You claimed to have a way of mixing code.
>>>2. Multiple posts asked you for details, and to say how you handled this.
>>>3. You gave no answer to that.
>>>4. I suggested a way to handle it.
>>>5. You posted with a link showing that you did it in the way I suggested.
>>>
>>>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>>>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>>>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>>>There's no need to get rude about it.
>>
>>Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
>>English language which is why I use it.
>
>I bet experiencing its original meaning however eludes you.

You should try standup, mate.

/Flibble

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

#121631

Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
[...]
>>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>>There's no need to get rude about it.
>
> Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
> English language which is why I use it.
>
> /Flibble

Your rudeness has made me lose interest in anything else you might
have to say.  Call this "tone policing" if you like.  I don't care.

I see that I had already killfiled you in this newsgroup, but you're
posting under a different email address now.

*plonk*

-- 
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]

#121632

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:44:04 -0800, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>[...]
>>>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>>>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>>>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>>>There's no need to get rude about it.
>>
>> Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
>> English language which is why I use it.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
>Your rudeness has made me lose interest in anything else you might
>have to say.  Call this "tone policing" if you like.  I don't care.
>
>I see that I had already killfiled you in this newsgroup, but you're
>posting under a different email address now.
>
>*plonk*

Thanks for explaining that: it was very important information that the
entire planet really needed to know. Calls may be monitored for
training purposes.

/Flibble

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

#121641

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:59:33 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:44:04 -0800, Keith Thompson
><Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious, 
>>>>and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about. 
>>>>But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/. 
>>>>There's no need to get rude about it.
>>>
>>> Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
>>> English language which is why I use it.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>>Your rudeness has made me lose interest in anything else you might
>>have to say.  Call this "tone policing" if you like.  I don't care.
>>
>>I see that I had already killfiled you in this newsgroup, but you're
>>posting under a different email address now.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>Thanks for explaining that: it was very important information that the
>entire planet really needed to know. Calls may be monitored for
>training purposes.

Far too many delicate sensibilities in this group. God knows how they'd have
coped in a british school growing up. The rate they're killfilling people
there'll just be a circle jerk of about 3 of them soon, not really saying much 
to each other.

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

#121643

On 16/02/2025 10:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:59:33 +0000
> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:44:04 -0800, Keith Thompson
>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:12 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I am perfectly aware that this way of marking code is pretty obvious,
>>>>> and I expect it would be the most common approach people thought about.
>>>>> But you might well have had other ideas in mind.  That's why I /asked/.
>>>>> There's no need to get rude about it.
>>>>
>>>> Rude? Man up, mate. "Fuck" is the best, most versatile word in the
>>>> English language which is why I use it.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Your rudeness has made me lose interest in anything else you might
>>> have to say.  Call this "tone policing" if you like.  I don't care.
>>>
>>> I see that I had already killfiled you in this newsgroup, but you're
>>> posting under a different email address now.
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> Thanks for explaining that: it was very important information that the
>> entire planet really needed to know. Calls may be monitored for
>> training purposes.
> 
> Far too many delicate sensibilities in this group. God knows how they'd have
> coped in a british school growing up. The rate they're killfilling people
> there'll just be a circle jerk of about 3 of them soon, not really saying much
> to each other.
> 

Are you really trying to argue that because kids were nasty to each 
other in school, it's fine for people to be rude or nasty to each other 
here?  Seriously?

We are adults here, and most regulars here like a reasonable adult 
discussion with honesty and mutual respect.  We don't like people being 
deceitful, or obnoxious, or insulting, or intentionally confusing, or 
trolling.  The occasional bit of swearing is not likely to bother most 
people, depending on its usage, but it's rarely necessary.

Think of this group as professional colleagues - not as your drunken 
mates at the pub.

Killfiling is a perfectly good way for people to say they are simply 
happier not to hear what a particular person has to say, because they 
don't like the way they write.  Some people feel it is helpful to 
others, or polite to the killfiled person, to announce their "plonk" - 
others simply do so silently.  Both are fine.

You get to choose how you post, and what you say.  You don't get to 
choose who will listen, or how they will react.


And for the record, I grew up with British schooling.

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

#121644

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>
>And for the record, I grew up with British schooling.
>
>

And interestingly you haven't killfiled Muttley: that says a lot about
us Brits not being snowflakes.

/Flibble

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

#121646

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:18:38 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> >
> >And for the record, I grew up with British schooling.
> >
> >  
> 
> And interestingly you haven't killfiled Muttley: that says a lot about
> us Brits not being snowflakes.
> 
> /Flibble

DavidB tolerates Muttley, because Muttley is Scottish.  Were he English
there likely would be a different outcome.

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

#121648

On 16/02/2025 16:01, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:18:38 +0000
> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And for the record, I grew up with British schooling.
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> And interestingly you haven't killfiled Muttley: that says a lot about
>> us Brits not being snowflakes.
>>
>> /Flibble
> 
> DavidB tolerates Muttley, because Muttley is Scottish.  Were he English
> there likely would be a different outcome.
> 

I might certainly joke about such a difference, but I would not actually 
make a difference on that basis.

I simply try to judge and answer posts, rather than people.

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

#121652

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:01:43 +0200
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:18:38 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >And for the record, I grew up with British schooling.
>> >
>> >  
>> 
>> And interestingly you haven't killfiled Muttley: that says a lot about
>> us Brits not being snowflakes.
>> 
>> /Flibble
>
>DavidB tolerates Muttley, because Muttley is Scottish.  Were he English

I am? When did this happen Jimmy?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web