Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #123321 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-01-23 21:35 -0600 |
| Last post | 2026-02-03 17:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 21:35 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-24 04:46 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-01-24 10:11 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-01-25 17:13 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 15:21 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-26 01:00 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-26 15:04 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:42 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 00:45 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-26 14:17 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 16:50 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-26 09:07 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2026-01-30 14:56 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-30 14:37 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-01-30 20:28 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-31 12:50 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2026-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-01-31 16:10 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" ImperiusDamian <dgwrightauthor@gmail.com> - 2026-01-31 21:08 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-01 09:06 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2026-02-02 11:18 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-02 21:23 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2026-02-03 10:33 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-03 21:29 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-01 11:18 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-02-01 08:28 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-01 09:42 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-01 11:35 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-02-01 12:21 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-01 23:01 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-02-01 19:11 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-02 04:31 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-02 11:27 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-02 12:49 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-02 13:14 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-02 16:07 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-02-02 09:36 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-02 16:01 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-02 16:19 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-01-26 22:47 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 16:51 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-27 05:17 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-01-27 06:45 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 01:46 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 00:14 -0800
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-27 15:22 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 12:33 -0800
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-27 11:04 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-01-27 08:35 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-27 15:21 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 02:06 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-02 21:02 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-02 21:13 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-02 21:25 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-03 10:54 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-03 10:44 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-03 09:47 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-03 16:02 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-04 08:45 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-03 21:32 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-03 22:56 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-04 00:15 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-04 09:37 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 17:28 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-04 00:14 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 20:17 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-04 04:57 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-04 08:54 -0500
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:43 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:09 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 15:47 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:35 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-02-04 15:44 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:53 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:10 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 12:10 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-07 09:23 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 15:25 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-04 14:24 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-04 16:57 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-02-04 17:16 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:57 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:11 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:55 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 12:24 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-04 19:20 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 17:07 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-05 07:23 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:14 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 16:01 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:30 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 20:22 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-06 04:50 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 23:52 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Harold Stevens <wookie@aspen.localdomain> - 2026-02-06 04:24 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 12:02 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-05 18:38 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-13 17:21 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-05 11:13 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 15:58 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-07 19:15 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-07 20:34 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-08 08:58 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-08 04:07 -0800
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-08 15:39 +0200
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-08 23:35 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 15:33 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-10 20:55 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 18:57 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-11 05:57 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-11 14:32 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-11 20:46 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 15:29 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-10 06:10 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 15:32 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-10 06:07 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-10 20:17 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 20:07 -0600
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-11 05:54 +0000
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-11 14:42 +0100
Re: "Internationalis(z)ing Code - Computerphile" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 17:32 -0600
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lptks$hm30$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123378 |
Op 01.feb.2026 om 10:06 schreef Lawrence D’Oliveiro: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:10:38 -0600, Gary Scott wrote: > >> Flexibility is taken to a bit extreme in GINO graphics libraries (a >> UK product), with a calendar that goes all the way back to 1066...:) > > ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-1066" > Mon 01 Jan 1066 00:00:00 LMT > ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-966" > Wed 01 Jan 0966 00:00:00 LMT > ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-866" > Fri 01 Jan 0866 00:00:00 LMT Now it becomes important to indicate whether the Gregorian or the Julian calendar is used. Not all countries switched at the same date. That is missing in the notation above, so I am not sure about the names of the days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10lr4k0$vgkr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123388 |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:18:03 +0100, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.feb.2026 om 10:06 schreef Lawrence D’Oliveiro:
>>
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:10:38 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Flexibility is taken to a bit extreme in GINO graphics libraries
>>> (a UK product), with a calendar that goes all the way back to
>>> 1066...:)
>>
>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-1066"
>> Mon 01 Jan 1066 00:00:00 LMT
>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-966"
>> Wed 01 Jan 0966 00:00:00 LMT
>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-866"
>> Fri 01 Jan 0866 00:00:00 LMT
>
> Now it becomes important to indicate whether the Gregorian or the Julian
> calendar is used.
ldo@theon:~> date -d 4-oct-1582
Mon 04 Oct 1582 00:00:00 LMT
ldo@theon:~> date -d 15-oct-1582
Fri 15 Oct 1582 00:00:00 LMT
Proleptic Gregorian.
> Not all countries switched at the same date.
ldo@theon:~> ncal -s IT oct 1582
October 1582
Mo 1 18 25
Tu 2 19 26
We 3 20 27
Th 4 21 28
Fr 15 22 29
Sa 16 23 30
Su 17 24 31
ldo@theon:~> ncal -s GB oct 1582
October 1582
Mo 1 8 15 22 29
Tu 2 9 16 23 30
We 3 10 17 24 31
Th 4 11 18 25
Fr 5 12 19 26
Sa 6 13 20 27
Su 7 14 21 28
ldo@theon:~> ncal -s GB sep 1752
September 1752
Mo 18 25
Tu 1 19 26
We 2 20 27
Th 14 21 28
Fr 15 22 29
Sa 16 23 30
Su 17 24
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lsfe5$1c4po$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123399 |
Op 02.feb.2026 om 22:23 schreef Lawrence D’Oliveiro: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:18:03 +0100, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > >> Op 01.feb.2026 om 10:06 schreef Lawrence D’Oliveiro: >>> >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:10:38 -0600, Gary Scott wrote: >>> >>>> Flexibility is taken to a bit extreme in GINO graphics libraries >>>> (a UK product), with a calendar that goes all the way back to >>>> 1066...:) >>> >>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-1066" >>> Mon 01 Jan 1066 00:00:00 LMT >>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-966" >>> Wed 01 Jan 0966 00:00:00 LMT >>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "1-Jan-866" >>> Fri 01 Jan 0866 00:00:00 LMT >> >> Now it becomes important to indicate whether the Gregorian or the Julian >> calendar is used. > > ldo@theon:~> date -d 4-oct-1582 > Mon 04 Oct 1582 00:00:00 LMT > ldo@theon:~> date -d 15-oct-1582 > Fri 15 Oct 1582 00:00:00 LMT > > Proleptic Gregorian. > >> Not all countries switched at the same date. > > ldo@theon:~> ncal -s IT oct 1582 > October 1582 > Mo 1 18 25 > Tu 2 19 26 > We 3 20 27 > Th 4 21 28 > Fr 15 22 29 > Sa 16 23 30 > Su 17 24 31 > ldo@theon:~> ncal -s GB oct 1582 > October 1582 > Mo 1 8 15 22 29 > Tu 2 9 16 23 30 > We 3 10 17 24 31 > Th 4 11 18 25 > Fr 5 12 19 26 > Sa 6 13 20 27 > Su 7 14 21 28 > ldo@theon:~> ncal -s GB sep 1752 > September 1752 > Mo 18 25 > Tu 1 19 26 > We 2 20 27 > Th 14 21 28 > Fr 15 22 29 > Sa 16 23 30 > Su 17 24 What I meant is that the calender should be added in the output. We add a time-zone to avoid confusion, for such old dates the calendar should be added as well to avoid confusion. When the country, e.g. IT is known, then we don't need a time zone or calendar, strictly speaking, because it can be looked up somewhere, but not everyone knows the time zone and the calendar switch by heart and it saves time to add them both. Another thing is that time zones did not exist centuries ago. Every place had its own local time. But how serious should we be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ltpb7$1qnh3$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123402 |
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 10:33:55 +0100, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> What I meant is that the calender should be added in the output.
The usual assumption (at least internationally) is proleptic
Gregorian, unless otherwise stated.
Also, this:
ldo@theon:~> TZ=UTC date -d 01-jan-0
Sat 01 Jan 0000 00:00:00 UTC
ldo@theon:~> TZ=UTC date -d 01-jan-0 +%s
-62167219200
ldo@theon:~> TZ=UTC date -d '@-62167219100'
Sat 01 Jan 0000 00:01:40 UTC
ldo@theon:~> TZ=UTC date -d '@-62167219300'
Fri 31 Dec -001 23:58:20 UTC
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ln990$3khd0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123375 |
On 31/01/2026 23:10, Gary Scott wrote: > On 1/31/2026 12:50 PM, G wrote: >> In comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 30/01/2026 21:28, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>> I have not yet succeeded in getting LibreOffice to display a decimal >>>> point with German settings, and when I use US English I get inches >>>> for paper sizes :-( >>>> >>> >>> Use UK settings, not US settings. Then at least you get sane paper >>> sizes and measurement units. >>> >> and sane dates... Indeed. Some countries use little-endian dates, some use big-endian dates, and one country likes muddled-endian dates :-) > > Date format is adjustable in many applications. Choose the one you > want. Flexibility is taken to a bit extreme in GINO graphics libraries > (a UK product), with a calendar that goes all the way back to 1066...:) > Dates from long ago can be very important, and challenging to get right. But I doubt that there is a lot of overlap between people interested in programming with graphics libraries and people trying to match up exact dates a millennium ago! (In the MS Office vs. LibreOffice comparison, Excel famously thinks 1900 was a leap year. And rather than fix the problem, MS bullied it in as an ISO standard.) >> >>> LibreOffice has its faults and weaknesses, but it is still far ahead of >>> MS Office in many aspects. (Or perhaps "less terrible" is more >>> accurate?) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 08:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10lnnu3$3q724$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123380 |
On 2/1/2026 4:18 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 31/01/2026 23:10, Gary Scott wrote: >> On 1/31/2026 12:50 PM, G wrote: >>> In comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> On 30/01/2026 21:28, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >>>>> I have not yet succeeded in getting LibreOffice to display a decimal >>>>> point with German settings, and when I use US English I get inches >>>>> for paper sizes :-( >>>>> >>>> >>>> Use UK settings, not US settings. Then at least you get sane paper >>>> sizes and measurement units. >>>> >>> and sane dates... > > Indeed. Some countries use little-endian dates, some use big-endian > dates, and one country likes muddled-endian dates :-) > >> >> Date format is adjustable in many applications. Choose the one you >> want. Flexibility is taken to a bit extreme in GINO graphics >> libraries (a UK product), with a calendar that goes all the way back >> to 1066...:) >> > > Dates from long ago can be very important, and challenging to get right. > But I doubt that there is a lot of overlap between people interested > in programming with graphics libraries and people trying to match up > exact dates a millennium ago! It's part of the graphing/charting library. It's targeted at engineers/scientists/academics. > > (In the MS Office vs. LibreOffice comparison, Excel famously thinks 1900 > was a leap year. And rather than fix the problem, MS bullied it in as > an ISO standard.) > >>> >>>> LibreOffice has its faults and weaknesses, but it is still far ahead of >>>> MS Office in many aspects. (Or perhaps "less terrible" is more >>>> accurate?) >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ln76a$3jree$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123373 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: > On 30/01/2026 21:28, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> I have not yet succeeded in getting LibreOffice to display a decimal >> point with German settings, and when I use US English I get inches >> for paper sizes :-( >> > > Use UK settings, not US settings. Then at least you get sane paper > sizes and measurement units. That is better, thanks! > LibreOffice has its faults and weaknesses, but it is still far ahead of > MS Office in many aspects. (Or perhaps "less terrible" is more accurate?) I find Impress to be very difficult to work with, compared to PowerPoint. But the most recent thing that drove me up the wall was Excel's inability to display a bar graph with non-overlapping bars for a primary and secondary axis, so I can display data like a 2 0.1 b 3 0.3 c 5 0.2 in a sane way. Libreoffice Calc can actually do this. -- This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence, artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity, artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 11:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lnaa2$3khd0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123379 |
On 01/02/2026 10:42, Thomas Koenig wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >> On 30/01/2026 21:28, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >>> I have not yet succeeded in getting LibreOffice to display a decimal >>> point with German settings, and when I use US English I get inches >>> for paper sizes :-( >>> >> >> Use UK settings, not US settings. Then at least you get sane paper >> sizes and measurement units. > > That is better, thanks! I fully understand why many people from non-English-speaking countries sometimes find it best to have an English locale or language settings on their systems. But I have never understood why they pick US English for the purpose. Despite the Brexit madness, UK standards are far closer to European norms than the US standards are. And for many purposes, those norms are nearly global - the US is the only one that is different. (Although for dates, China and Japan and a few other countries use YMD ordering daily, while most of the world only uses it for more technical documents.) > >> LibreOffice has its faults and weaknesses, but it is still far ahead of >> MS Office in many aspects. (Or perhaps "less terrible" is more accurate?) > > I find Impress to be very difficult to work with, compared to > PowerPoint. From my limited experience in that area, I agree - PowerPoint is the one part of MS Office that is a lot better than LibreOffice. > But the most recent thing that drove me up the wall > was Excel's inability to display a bar graph with non-overlapping > bars for a primary and secondary axis, so I can display data like > > a 2 0.1 > b 3 0.3 > c 5 0.2 > > in a sane way. Libreoffice Calc can actually do this. Another difference I have seen is in graphs with some missing data. Excel fills in the gaps with 0, while LibreOffice draws the graphs with appropriate gaps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10lo232$3ups0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123381 |
On 2026-02-01 05:35, David Brown wrote: ... > I fully understand why many people from non-English-speaking countries > sometimes find it best to have an English locale or language settings on > their systems. But I have never understood why they pick US English for > the purpose. Despite the Brexit madness, UK standards are far closer to > European norms than the US standards are. And for many purposes, those > norms are nearly global - the US is the only one that is different. Because the US is fairly big, and has economic power disproportionate to it's size, so it's peculiarities get catered to more often than might otherwise seem justified. I am a US citizen, but I'm not endorsing this, merely describing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10loifs$4qre$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123383 |
On 01/02/2026 18:21, James Kuyper wrote: > On 2026-02-01 05:35, David Brown wrote: > ... >> I fully understand why many people from non-English-speaking countries >> sometimes find it best to have an English locale or language settings on >> their systems. But I have never understood why they pick US English for >> the purpose. Despite the Brexit madness, UK standards are far closer to >> European norms than the US standards are. And for many purposes, those >> norms are nearly global - the US is the only one that is different. > Because the US is fairly big, and has economic power disproportionate to > it's size, so it's peculiarities get catered to more often than might > otherwise seem justified. I am a US citizen, but I'm not endorsing this, > merely describing it. Sure - the US has a lot of influence on the rest of the world for a great many reasons (some good, some bad, with that judgement being highly subjective). We are using a protocol written in the USA, transported over a network system developed (at least initially) in the USA, to discuss a programming language from the USA. I've no problem with that. But when people in other countries want to choose an English language environment (because English has a lot of influence on the world - for good reasons and bad reasons), why pick an environment that has more incompatibilities and baggage than necessary? I expect it is mostly a matter of sticking to default choices unless you know you need something different, and simply not thinking about the alternatives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-01 19:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10loq3n$3ups0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123384 |
On 2026-02-01 17:01, David Brown wrote: ... > But when people in other countries want to choose an English language > environment (because English has a lot of influence on the world - for > good reasons and bad reasons), why pick an environment that has more > incompatibilities and baggage than necessary? I expect it is mostly a > matter of sticking to default choices unless you know you need > something different, and simply not thinking about the alternatives. The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British Commonwealth. When someone from a non-English speaking country sets up an English compatible environment, there's a pretty good chance he's doing so to communicate with people in the US, rather than other parts of English-speaking world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 04:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10lp9bc$bgk5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123385 |
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 19:11:35 -0500, James Kuyper wrote: > The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the > entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British > Commonwealth. But they’re almost all concentrated in one place. This is like the issue with Mandarin, which has more speakers than English, but they are largely confined to one country. British English (and its offshoots) remain the most widely spoken language, not purely by numbers, but by sheer distribution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 11:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lpu79$hqcs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123385 |
On 02/02/2026 01:11, James Kuyper wrote: > On 2026-02-01 17:01, David Brown wrote: > ... >> But when people in other countries want to choose an English language >> environment (because English has a lot of influence on the world - for >> good reasons and bad reasons), why pick an environment that has more >> incompatibilities and baggage than necessary? I expect it is mostly a >> matter of sticking to default choices unless you know you need >> something different, and simply not thinking about the alternatives. > > The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the > entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British > Commonwealth. There are about 400 million native English speakers around the world, of which about 230 are in the USA. Of course any such numbers will be estimates, with surveys being from different years, but it certainly looks like you overestimate the numerical ratios. Still, the native speaker numbers are not the relevant numbers here - it is primarily the second language users that matter. That is, of course, even more difficult to judge well - there is no consensus on how well a second language must be understood to count as an English speaker. Best guesses, as far as I can see, are about 1.1 billion. > When someone from a non-English speaking country sets up > an English compatible environment, there's a pretty good chance he's > doing so to communicate with people in the US, rather than other parts > of English-speaking world. > No, by far the most likely reason for a non-native English speaker to speak English is to communicate with another non-native English speaker. English is the lingua franca of the world. But my point was more about the factors /other/ than the language. The whole world, other than the USA, uses metric for everything technical. The whole world, other than the USA, Canada and Mexico uses A4 and related paper sizes. The whole world, other than the USA, uses either little-endian or big-endian dates. Thus for perhaps 80% of people in the world using a computer and communicating in English, UK locale settings are a better fit than US locale settings. (For many, perhaps most, other English variants - like Indian English locale, would be even better.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 12:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260202124922.00001913@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #123389 |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:27:53 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 02/02/2026 01:11, James Kuyper wrote: > > On 2026-02-01 17:01, David Brown wrote: > > ... > >> But when people in other countries want to choose an English > >> language environment (because English has a lot of influence on > >> the world - for good reasons and bad reasons), why pick an > >> environment that has more incompatibilities and baggage than > >> necessary? I expect it is mostly a matter of sticking to default > >> choices unless you know you need something different, and simply > >> not thinking about the alternatives. > > > > The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the > > entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British > > Commonwealth. > > There are about 400 million native English speakers around the world, > of which about 230 are in the USA. Of course any such numbers will > be estimates, with surveys being from different years, but it > certainly looks like you overestimate the numerical ratios. > > Still, the native speaker numbers are not the relevant numbers here - > it is primarily the second language users that matter. That is, of > course, even more difficult to judge well - there is no consensus on > how well a second language must be understood to count as an English > speaker. Best guesses, as far as I can see, are about 1.1 billion. > > > When someone from a non-English speaking country sets up > > an English compatible environment, there's a pretty good chance he's > > doing so to communicate with people in the US, rather than other > > parts of English-speaking world. > > > > No, by far the most likely reason for a non-native English speaker to > speak English is to communicate with another non-native English > speaker. English is the lingua franca of the world. > > But my point was more about the factors /other/ than the language. > The whole world, other than the USA, uses metric for everything > technical. The whole world, other than the USA, Canada and Mexico > uses A4 and related paper sizes. The whole world, other than the > USA, uses either little-endian or big-endian dates. > > Thus for perhaps 80% of people in the world using a computer and > communicating in English, UK locale settings are a better fit than US > locale settings. (For many, perhaps most, other English variants - > like Indian English locale, would be even better.) > > > > That sounds about right except for keyboard layout. For majority of non-native English user (not necessarily speakers, many computer users can't speak English, even more can't understand English spoken by natives, but they read and write English not too badly) US layout would be more practical than UK layout.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lq4f8$jpvv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123390 |
On 02/02/2026 11:49, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:27:53 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 02/02/2026 01:11, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 2026-02-01 17:01, David Brown wrote: >>> ... >>>> But when people in other countries want to choose an English >>>> language environment (because English has a lot of influence on >>>> the world - for good reasons and bad reasons), why pick an >>>> environment that has more incompatibilities and baggage than >>>> necessary? I expect it is mostly a matter of sticking to default >>>> choices unless you know you need something different, and simply >>>> not thinking about the alternatives. >>> >>> The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the >>> entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British >>> Commonwealth. >> >> There are about 400 million native English speakers around the world, >> of which about 230 are in the USA. Of course any such numbers will >> be estimates, with surveys being from different years, but it >> certainly looks like you overestimate the numerical ratios. >> >> Still, the native speaker numbers are not the relevant numbers here - >> it is primarily the second language users that matter. That is, of >> course, even more difficult to judge well - there is no consensus on >> how well a second language must be understood to count as an English >> speaker. Best guesses, as far as I can see, are about 1.1 billion. >> >>> When someone from a non-English speaking country sets up >>> an English compatible environment, there's a pretty good chance he's >>> doing so to communicate with people in the US, rather than other >>> parts of English-speaking world. >>> >> >> No, by far the most likely reason for a non-native English speaker to >> speak English is to communicate with another non-native English >> speaker. English is the lingua franca of the world. >> >> But my point was more about the factors /other/ than the language. >> The whole world, other than the USA, uses metric for everything >> technical. The whole world, other than the USA, Canada and Mexico >> uses A4 and related paper sizes. The whole world, other than the >> USA, uses either little-endian or big-endian dates. >> >> Thus for perhaps 80% of people in the world using a computer and >> communicating in English, UK locale settings are a better fit than US >> locale settings. (For many, perhaps most, other English variants - >> like Indian English locale, would be even better.) >> >> >> >> > > That sounds about right except for keyboard layout. > For majority of non-native English user (not necessarily speakers, many > computer users can't speak English, even more can't understand English > spoken by natives, but they read and write English not too badly) US > layout would be more practical than UK layout. > If that is the case, then that is a good reason for choosing US layout. But AFAIK the differences between the US and the UK layouts are very small. And a large proportion of computer users use Latin keyboards, even if their native languages use significantly different writing systems. So keyboard layout is often partially independent of other language and locale choices. For example, I use a Norwegian layout keyboard, but have my locale set to UK (with the region set to Norway). Changing to the UK keyboard layout would be silly - it would mean some symbols are in a different place, and I could not type the Norwegian letters I need when writing in Norwegian. Changing to US layout would be a step sillier, and there would be no advantages. If you are used to a keyboard with a different writing system - say, Greek - then you might find it convenient to change to a Latin based layout for writing in English. But I see no reason why you might have a preference for US layout over UK - either would be fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 16:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lqek5$5he9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123391 |
On 2026-02-02 13:14, David Brown wrote: > > If that is the case, then that is a good reason for choosing US layout. > But AFAIK the differences between the US and the UK layouts are very > small. And a large proportion of computer users use Latin keyboards, > even if their native languages use significantly different writing > systems. So keyboard layout is often partially independent of other > language and locale choices. Yes. > For example, I use a Norwegian layout > keyboard, but have my locale set to UK (with the region set to Norway). It seems to be similar to, e.g., a German keyboard... > Changing to the UK keyboard layout would be silly - it would mean some > symbols are in a different place, and I could not type the Norwegian > letters I need when writing in Norwegian. ...where the German specific letters are in the same place as the Norwegian specific letters. Exceptions are the location/ordering of quite some of the punctuation characters. (And of course the infamous QWERTZ vs. QWERTY cultural detail.) > Changing to US layout would > be a step sillier, and there would be no advantages. Well, an advantage - and here we're getting on-topic again - is writing programs in C-like languages; the access to the braces and brackets is a pain (IMO) with those "Latin based" layouts. That's why I'm running two keyboards in parallel on my system, one with DE and one with US layout. - But in practice I rarely use the US keyboard - despite its advantage for C-like programming - because of the mentioned differences of many important control characters (and the Y/Z placement); my muscle memory would make too many typing mistakes. > > If you are used to a keyboard with a different writing system - say, > Greek - then you might find it convenient to change to a Latin based > layout for writing in English. Actually many Greek letters are "naturally" transcribed to Latin (Alpha, Sigma, Delta, Phi, Gamma, etc. to A, S, D, F, G, etc.), so it's not much hassle to use one or the other keyboard type. (But some letters, Latin or Greek, don't exist in the other language and will be mapped to use their respective places on the other type of keyboard.) > But I see no reason why you might have a > preference for US layout over UK - either would be fine. The locale issues are of course another thing. I'm using a mixture of 3 or 4 locales in my system defaults; for example: LC_NUMERIC=C (for the numeric dot), en_DK (for the time format), en_US (basically), de_DE (for the writing). - This mixed setting somehow feels wrong to me. Since what I want to set and use is in principle neither language specific nor country specific (although cultures associated with language and countries use specific conventions reflected in their locale setting). I'd probably want something like "iso_UN" (not really but that may come close); using ISO dates and time, DIN paper sizes, SI units, and my language specific collate setting (which varies when I'm writing in more than one language). Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10lqcpl$3uprv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123389 |
On 2026-02-02 05:27, David Brown wrote: > On 02/02/2026 01:11, James Kuyper wrote: ... >> The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the >> entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British >> Commonwealth. > > There are about 400 million native English speakers around the world, of > which about 230 are in the USA. Of course any such numbers will be > estimates, with surveys being from different years, but it certainly > looks like you overestimate the numerical ratios. I looked at the Wikipedia article on English (language), which says that US has 244,079,241 native speakers of English, and that the world has 391,286,346. When I did the calculations last night, that, came out to 75%, but for some reason it's 62% this morning. Perhaps I shouldn't post that late at night. It's still more US speakers than non-US speakers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 16:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lqe7m$mpj0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123392 |
On 02/02/2026 15:36, James Kuyper wrote: > On 2026-02-02 05:27, David Brown wrote: >> On 02/02/2026 01:11, James Kuyper wrote: > ... >>> The US has three times as many native speakers of English than the >>> entire rest of the world combined, including the entire British >>> Commonwealth. >> >> There are about 400 million native English speakers around the world, of >> which about 230 are in the USA. Of course any such numbers will be >> estimates, with surveys being from different years, but it certainly >> looks like you overestimate the numerical ratios. > > I looked at the Wikipedia article on English (language), which says that > US has 244,079,241 native speakers of English, and that the world has > 391,286,346. When I did the calculations last night, that, came out to > 75%, but for some reason it's 62% this morning. Perhaps I shouldn't post > that late at night. I also got my numbers from Wikipedia. I think there are a variety of numbers, depending on the dates and the source of the numbers. > It's still more US speakers than non-US speakers. For native speakers, all the numbers I have seen support that, yes. But native speakers are not the numbers of interest here. Native English speakers will, for the most part, have their locales and settings for their locale English variant. But this is all getting wildly off-topic for these newsgroups, and I don't think we are likely to get anything but speculation and anecdotal examples. My speculation is that the reason non-native English users might be more likely to pick US locales than anything else is simply that it is the default for a lot of software and OS's, and it's usually not difficult to change things like paper sizes manually.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lqfa8$5he9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123393 |
On 2026-02-02 16:01, David Brown wrote: > On 02/02/2026 15:36, James Kuyper wrote: >> >> I looked at the Wikipedia article on English (language), [...] > > I also got my numbers from Wikipedia. I think there are a variety of > numbers, depending on the dates and the source of the numbers. In the past I occasionally inquired the CIA's "The World Factbook" for actual numbers and other cultural, demographic, etc. details; the data I retrieved from there appeared reliable and accurate (as far as I could tell). - Just mentioning another public data source. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-26 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10l8qu5$2sse8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123335 |
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb: > I started writing Fortran code in 1975 for one of my dad's programmers > when I was 14. Dad was always selling the future capabilities of the > software, more than the software did or was even designed to do. Sounds an awful lot like Bill Gates, but he even sold software that had not even been written. There is a story where he wrote a Fortran compiler, which failed tests and was therefore not accepted, and he refused to fix the bugs. -- This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence, artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity, artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web