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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #79722 > unrolled thread

Re: lamda-optimization

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: lamda-optimization red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-05-31 12:41 -0700
    Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 06:15 +0200
      Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 15:24 +0200
        Re: lamda-optimization Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-01 09:04 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 18:42 +0200
        Re: lamda-optimization red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid> - 2021-06-01 20:26 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 05:33 +0200
      Re: lamda-optimization Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-01 14:51 +0200
    Re: lamda-optimization Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-01 07:10 +0000
      Re: lamda-optimization Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-01 10:29 +0100
      Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_x510g@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk - 2021-06-01 18:27 +0000
        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 05:10 +0200
          Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 00:14 -0400
            Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 07:26 +0200
              Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 01:47 -0700
                Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 11:49 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 09:34 -0400
                    Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 15:50 +0200
                      Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:28 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-02 14:45 +0000
                          Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 17:58 +0200
                      Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 10:14 -0400
                      Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 16:19 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:30 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:38 +0200
                          Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 17:46 +0200
                            Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 18:00 +0200
                              Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 10:17 -0700
                                Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 10:11 -0700
                    Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
            Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 09:39 +0200
              Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 10:23 +0200
                Re: lamda-optimization "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 11:38 -0700
              Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 10:15 -0400
                Re: lamda-optimization Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-02 19:01 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 11:39 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-02 14:21 +0000
            Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_2TF@zp_6z10zl3.info - 2021-06-03 08:12 +0000
        Re: lamda-optimization Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-02 05:05 +0000
          Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_9na7kf9y25@bv5tkwx.biz - 2021-06-03 08:10 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#79722 — Re: lamda-optimization

On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You're so ultimately stupid.

Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#80032

>> You're so ultimately stupid.

> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate

No, it means it doesn't make sense do debate sinnce the
person you're discussing with doesn't understand anything.

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

#80044

> One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.

It's all related to this:

| If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
| so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
| code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
| compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
| request.

Is this qualified arguing ?
Öö Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.

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

#80051

On Tuesday, 1 June 2021 at 16:25:02 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
> It's all related to this:
> | If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and 
> | so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage 
> | code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of 
> | compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull 
> | request.
> Is this qualified arguing ? 
> Öö Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.

I agree ... I was suggesting to not write garbage or to extend compiler
so that the useless garbage is detected and optimized out. For
someone sensible these would be constructive suggestions worth
pursuing. As these were suggested to Bonita Montero who can't
possibly do neither of those it was total nonsense.

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

#80056

> I agree ... I was suggesting to not write garbage or to extend compiler
> so that the useless garbage is detected and optimized out. For
> someone sensible these would be constructive suggestions worth
> pursuing. As these were suggested to Bonita Montero who can't
> possibly do neither of those it was total nonsense.

I didn't tell garbage. I just wanted to give the compiler the oppor-
tunity to do the optimization which David said that it wouldn't be
done because there the function wouldn't get compiled.
And I did it right by hiding the lambda behind a volatile-Pointer
so that the lambda couldn't be inline-optimized. I could have done
it also a bit simpler:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
	int volatile i = 123, j = 456, k = 789;
	auto f = [&]() -> int
	{
		return i + j + k;
	};
	decltype(f) *volatile pFf = &f;
	cout << sizeof *pFf << " " << (*pFf)() << endl;
}

And the result is the same.
Why is this garbage ?

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

#80066

On 6/1/21 6:24 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
> 
> It's all related to this:
> 
> | If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
> | so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
> | code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
> | compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
> | request.
> 
> Is this qualified arguing ?
> Öö Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.

"Oo Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense" is a valid argument.  Not
supported by you in the post, but a valid argument.

"You're so ultimately stupid."is attacking the person, not the
argument, and is therefore ad hominem.

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

#80067

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:26:14 -0700, red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid>
wrote:

>On 6/1/21 6:24 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
>> 
>> It's all related to this:
>> 
>> | If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
>> | so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
>> | code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
>> | compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
>> | request.
>> 
>> Is this qualified arguing ?
>> Öö Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.
>
>"Oo Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense" is a valid argument.  Not
>supported by you in the post, but a valid argument.
>
>"You're so ultimately stupid."is attacking the person, not the
>argument, and is therefore ad hominem.

I can understand that the truth hurts, but this does not relieve us
from the duty of respecting woman.

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

#80048

On 6/1/2021 6:15 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You're so ultimately stupid.
> 
>> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate
> 
> No, it means it doesn't make sense do debate sinnce the
> person you're discussing with doesn't understand anything.

One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
The fact is that it is not the one that you think the one that is defective.

Still, it doesn't make sense to keep debating this way - at least you 
got this part right.

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

#80035

red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
> On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> You're so ultimately stupid.
> 
> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate

That's not an ad hominem. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem. That's
a surprisingly (and sadly) common misconception.

An ad hominem argument is arguing against the claim made by someone by
alluding to something objectionable about that person, which has nothing
to do with the claim. Like, for example, "he has committed this heinous
crime, therefore what he's claiming about this mathematical proof is
not to be trusted" (not with those exact words, of course, but as the
fundamental idea). In the current day and age perhaps even more commonly
"he holds these political beliefs, therefore what he's saying (about
this thing completely unrelated to politics) is not to be trusted".

"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".

"Argumentum ad hominem" could, perhaps, be more accurately translated
as "argument by attacking the reputation of the person".

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

#80038

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:

> "An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
> person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
> what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".
>
> "Argumentum ad hominem" could, perhaps, be more accurately translated
> as "argument by attacking the reputation of the person".

The attack is on the argument via the character of the person making it.

-- 
Ben.

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

#80057

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:10:19 +0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
>> On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You're so ultimately stupid.
>> 
>> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate
>
>That's not an ad hominem. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem. That's
>a surprisingly (and sadly) common misconception.
>
>An ad hominem argument is arguing against the claim made by someone by
>alluding to something objectionable about that person, which has nothing
>to do with the claim. Like, for example, "he has committed this heinous
>crime, therefore what he's claiming about this mathematical proof is
>not to be trusted" (not with those exact words, of course, but as the
>fundamental idea). In the current day and age perhaps even more commonly
>"he holds these political beliefs, therefore what he's saying (about
>this thing completely unrelated to politics) is not to be trusted".
>
>"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
>person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
>what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".

Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.

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

#80064

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:27:44 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpook_x510g@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:10:19 +0000 (UTC)
>Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> You're so ultimately stupid.
>>> 
>>> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate
>>
>>That's not an ad hominem. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem. That's
>>a surprisingly (and sadly) common misconception.
>>
>>An ad hominem argument is arguing against the claim made by someone by
>>alluding to something objectionable about that person, which has nothing
>>to do with the claim. Like, for example, "he has committed this heinous
>>crime, therefore what he's claiming about this mathematical proof is
>>not to be trusted" (not with those exact words, of course, but as the
>>fundamental idea). In the current day and age perhaps even more commonly
>>"he holds these political beliefs, therefore what he's saying (about
>>this thing completely unrelated to politics) is not to be trusted".
>>
>>"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
>>person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
>>what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".
>
>Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.

AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.

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

#80069

On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
...
> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.

That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.

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

#80072

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>...
>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>
>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.

disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
civilization.

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

#80077

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>...
>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>
>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>
> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
> civilization.

If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
topic.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#80078

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>...
>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>
>>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>
>> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
>> civilization.
>
>If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
>from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
>topic.

if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
trying to educate people on how they must behave online.

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

#80082

On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.

This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!

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

#80084

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>
>This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!

Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?

what nicety, and what a pity.

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

#80086

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:14:05 -0400, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 6/2/21 9:50 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>
>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>> 
>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>
>You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
>topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
>deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
>were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
>judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
>Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
>any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
>to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
>posted using the name Juanita?

what a misinterpretation of my intentions: I never claimed woman merit
"more" respect, I claimed woman merit respect, which was being negated
in this case.

In any case I just show my own respect for woman, and I am free to
manifest my feelings like I want.

and No, you wouldn't be entitled to more respect if your name was
Juanita, you would need to show that you are polite and an exceptional
programmer, then you would merit more respect :-)

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

#80093

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:14:05 -0400, James Kuyper
><jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>>You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
>>topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
>>deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
>>were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
>>judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
>>Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
>>any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
>>to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
>>posted using the name Juanita?
>
>what a misinterpretation of my intentions: I never claimed woman merit
>"more" respect, I claimed woman merit respect, which was being negated
>in this case.
>

Respect should be earned.   Politeness should be de rigueur.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web