Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #11845 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-10-18 05:20 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 23:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> - 2011-10-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 10:52 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 00:02 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2011-10-19 08:57 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 02:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-19 13:41 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-19 15:32 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 20:46 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:06 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-19 20:49 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-19 19:04 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-21 16:56 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "sadsailor" <overboard@the.oceans> - 2011-10-21 16:37 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-24 06:25 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-24 14:43 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 09:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:02 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 21:24 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 23:21 +1300
OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-29 06:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-29 21:18 +0200
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:17 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 06:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-28 00:23 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-01 13:38 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:10 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 17:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:35 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-01 02:53 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:07 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-04 00:35 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-03 18:28 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 14:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:15 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 12:21 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:29 +0100
Operator overloading extensions (Was re: OOP and C++ and C) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 15:50 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-01 07:38 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 20:26 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:37 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:09 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 15:15 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:04 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:03 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:18 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:54 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 23:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:37 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 10:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:59 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:32 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 21:31 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-03 07:41 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:58 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-11-02 21:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 14:26 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 11:07 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 12:51 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-03 06:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 14:34 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-04 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 09:24 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 00:06 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 00:03 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 10:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 11:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 18:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 11:51 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 12:08 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 20:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 13:11 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:56 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:50 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 08:52 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-14 20:15 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-14 14:45 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:21 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:40 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:59 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-14 18:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:15 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 23:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 16:16 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 19:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 12:02 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 08:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 17:00 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 04:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:27 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-12 04:27 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 15:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-11 00:41 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 05:14 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 11:00 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-30 19:09 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:51 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 12:16 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 15:52 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 21:40 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-26 06:13 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:34 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-26 09:47 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-27 04:54 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-27 11:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-10-20 11:07 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-20 11:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-21 08:35 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-21 02:45 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:41 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:52 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:53 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9457f7c5-46da-4830-8920-18c31eb5b3a9@v31g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12288 |
On Oct 30, 4:56 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > > what? How can your *program* be structured as "arrays of arrays...". > My programs are hierarchies of function calls. Nearly a tree but most > likely a DAG. Did you mean your data structures are strcts containing > arrays? Seems very limited. > The data in the program, not the code. Most things naturally fall into arrays of arrays. For instance a protein consists of an array of atoms, each of which has an element type and an x y z position. The atoms are grouped into amino acid residues. The residues are grouped into chains. Then you might be working on more than one protein. That's what most data is like. Arrays are by far the most commonly used data structure in C. They're the only one which has explicit syntactical support. That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you might want to do that for some applications. -- Fuzzy Logic Trees - interpretable machine learning http://www.malcommclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <0.ef9607527a7987094b6a.20111030180003GMT.87sjmafjh8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12293 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Oct 30, 4:56 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >> >> what? How can your *program* be structured as "arrays of arrays...". >> My programs are hierarchies of function calls. Nearly a tree but most >> likely a DAG. Did you mean your data structures are strcts containing >> arrays? Seems very limited. <snip> > That's what most data is like. Arrays are by far the most commonly > used data structure in C. They're the only one which has explicit > syntactical support. What makes this true of arrays and not of structs? I.e. I don't see how you are define a data structure with explicit syntactical support. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <33a6d7e5-063f-4611-a2b7-e061e0d62a5b@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12293 |
On Oct 30, 3:33 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 4:56 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > > what? How can your *program* be structured as "arrays of arrays...". > > My programs are hierarchies of function calls. Nearly a tree but most > > likely a DAG. Did you mean your data structures are strcts containing > > arrays? Seems very limited. > > The data in the program, not the code. > > Most things naturally fall into arrays of arrays. For instance a > protein consists of an array of atoms, doesn't sound a natural data type. Surely a protein is an array of amino acids? The organisation of the atoms is not a linear structure. > each of which has an element > type and an x y z position. The atoms are grouped into amino acid > residues. The residues are grouped into chains. Then you might be > working on more than one protein. > > That's what most data is like. looks to me more like you've chosen it to be like that. > Arrays are by far the most commonly > used data structure in C. because there isn't much choice > They're the only one which has explicit > syntactical support. structs, strings, unions > That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for > representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you > might want to do that for some applications. again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of arrays?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4eaef81e.414528134@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12334 |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 3:33=A0pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>
>> That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for
>> representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you
>> might want to do that for some applications.
>
>again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
>arrays?
As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
structs rather than structs of arrays. If we are using indices rather
pointers it doesn't affect the code much. Thus
a[i].x /* array of structs vs */
a.x[i] /* struct of arrays */
are much the same. However if we use pointers the choice matters.
Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
With an array of structs we have something like:
for (ap=a;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
}
Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
simple. :-)
The catch is that sometimes it makes a real difference in performance.
In the array of structs code the stride is the width of the struct; in
the struct of arrays code the stride is the width of x[i].
The various issues of data layout are beyond the scope of this note.
I'm only pointing out that C biases the choice of layout because some
choices are more convenient to code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <8f9816a8-ffe1-499d-8c4c-896455ef74bf@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12401 |
On Oct 31, 1:07 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>
>
>
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 30, 3:33=A0pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> >wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for
> >> representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you
> >> might want to do that for some applications.
>
> >again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
> >arrays?
>
> As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
> structs rather than structs of arrays. If we are using indices rather
> pointers it doesn't affect the code much. Thus
>
> a[i].x /* array of structs vs */
> a.x[i] /* struct of arrays */
>
> are much the same. However if we use pointers the choice matters.
> Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
> With an array of structs we have something like:
>
> for (ap=a;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
> if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
> }
>
> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
> simple. :-)
I think both of you will have to forgive my ignorance here because
I've never seen arrays and structs as interchangeable constructs. I
mean, I realize you CAN implement a sort of struct in a byte buffer,
but if someone was doing this on a regular basis I'd have to wonder if
they were coding while under the influence of a grand maul seizure or
something.
So, how and when could you convert a "struct of arrays" into an "array
of structs"? For example, lets say I have a struct of arrays:
struct has_arrays
{
char fname[128];
char lname[128];
char mi;
};
How does C bias me toward converting that into an array of structs?
What would such a construct look like?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j8nkug$4js$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12405 |
On 10/31/2011 04:48 PM, nroberts wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:07�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
>>> arrays?
>>
>> As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
>> structs rather than structs of arrays. �If we are using indices rather
>> pointers it doesn't affect the code much. �Thus
>>
>> � � a[i].x �/* array of structs vs */
>> � � a.x[i] �/* struct of arrays � �*/
>>
>> are much the same. �However if we use pointers the choice matters.
>> Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
>> With an array of structs we have something like:
>>
>> � � for (ap=a;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
>> � � � �if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
>> � � }
>>
>> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
>> simple. :-)
>
> I think both of you will have to forgive my ignorance here because
> I've never seen arrays and structs as interchangeable constructs. I
> mean, I realize you CAN implement a sort of struct in a byte buffer,
> but if someone was doing this on a regular basis I'd have to wonder if
> they were coding while under the influence of a grand maul seizure or
> something.
>
> So, how and when could you convert a "struct of arrays" into an "array
> of structs"? For example, lets say I have a struct of arrays:
>
> struct has_arrays
> {
> char fname[128];
> char lname[128];
> char mi;
> };
>
> How does C bias me toward converting that into an array of structs?
> What would such a construct look like?
Well, in general it only makes sense if every member of the struct is an
array, and all of the arrays have the same length, and that length
corresponds to the count of something. Arrays which are simply places to
store strings don't count as arrays for this purpose. An example a
struct of arrays where it might actually make sense to convert it into
that would make more sense:
struct asteroids {
char name[MAX_ASTEROIDS][NAME_LENGTH];
double position[MAX_ASTEROIDS][3];
double velocity[MAX_ASTEROIDS][3];
double mass[MAX_ASTEROIDS];
int num_asteroids;
} asteroid_list;
The corresponding array of structs would look like:
struct asteroid_list {
int num_asteroids;
struct asteroid{
char name[NAME_LENGTH];
double position[3];
double velocity[3];
double mass;
} list[];
} asteroids;
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4eaf2d0a.428076930@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12405 |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nroberts
<roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 31, 1:07=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>>
>>
>>
>> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 30, 3:33=3DA0pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
>> >wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for
>> >> representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you
>> >> might want to do that for some applications.
>>
>> >again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
>> >arrays?
>>
>> As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
>> structs rather than structs of arrays. =A0If we are using indices rather
>> pointers it doesn't affect the code much. =A0Thus
>>
>> =A0 =A0 a[i].x =A0/* array of structs vs */
>> =A0 =A0 a.x[i] =A0/* struct of arrays =A0 =A0*/
>>
>> are much the same. =A0However if we use pointers the choice matters.
>> Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
>> With an array of structs we have something like:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 for (ap=3Da;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
>> =A0 =A0 }
>>
>> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
>> simple. :-)
>
>I think both of you will have to forgive my ignorance here because
>I've never seen arrays and structs as interchangeable constructs. I
>mean, I realize you CAN implement a sort of struct in a byte buffer,
>but if someone was doing this on a regular basis I'd have to wonder if
>they were coding while under the influence of a grand maul seizure or
>something.
>
>So, how and when could you convert a "struct of arrays" into an "array
>of structs"? For example, lets say I have a struct of arrays:
>
>struct has_arrays
>{
> char fname[128];
> char lname[128];
> char mi;
>};
>
>How does C bias me toward converting that into an array of structs?
>What would such a construct look like?
Oh dear. Nobody is saying that arrays and structs are interchangable.
The issue at hand is the choice between using an array of structs or
an "equivalent" struct of arrays. Let's take your example.
struct name_struct {
char fname[128];
char lname[128];
char mi;
};
Is just a struct, even though some fields are arrays. The following
statement creates an array of structs.
struct name names[100];
is an array of structs.
Now instead of using an array of structs we could use an struct
holding arrays. It would look like this:
struct name_fields {
char fname[100][128];
char lname[100][128];
char mi[100];
} names;
The array of structs and the struct of arrays have the same data, but
the data ordering is different.
Is this clear?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <0ee04144-b156-4404-adfd-6444d87d330d@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12427 |
On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nroberts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 1:07=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>
> >> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 30, 3:33=3DA0pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for
> >> >> representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you
> >> >> might want to do that for some applications.
>
> >> >again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
> >> >arrays?
>
> >> As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
> >> structs rather than structs of arrays. =A0If we are using indices rather
> >> pointers it doesn't affect the code much. =A0Thus
>
> >> =A0 =A0 a[i].x =A0/* array of structs vs */
> >> =A0 =A0 a.x[i] =A0/* struct of arrays =A0 =A0*/
>
> >> are much the same. =A0However if we use pointers the choice matters.
> >> Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
> >> With an array of structs we have something like:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 for (ap=3Da;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
> >> =A0 =A0 }
>
> >> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
> >> simple. :-)
>
> >I think both of you will have to forgive my ignorance here because
> >I've never seen arrays and structs as interchangeable constructs. I
> >mean, I realize you CAN implement a sort of struct in a byte buffer,
> >but if someone was doing this on a regular basis I'd have to wonder if
> >they were coding while under the influence of a grand maul seizure or
> >something.
>
> >So, how and when could you convert a "struct of arrays" into an "array
> >of structs"? For example, lets say I have a struct of arrays:
>
> >struct has_arrays
> >{
> > char fname[128];
> > char lname[128];
> > char mi;
> >};
>
> >How does C bias me toward converting that into an array of structs?
> >What would such a construct look like?
>
> Oh dear. Nobody is saying that arrays and structs are interchangable.
> The issue at hand is the choice between using an array of structs or
> an "equivalent" struct of arrays. Let's take your example.
>
> struct name_struct {
> char fname[128];
> char lname[128];
> char mi;
> };
>
> Is just a struct, even though some fields are arrays. The following
> statement creates an array of structs.
>
> struct name names[100];
>
> is an array of structs.
>
> Now instead of using an array of structs we could use an struct
> holding arrays. It would look like this:
>
> struct name_fields {
> char fname[100][128];
> char lname[100][128];
> char mi[100];
> } names;
>
> The array of structs and the struct of arrays have the same data, but
> the data ordering is different.
>
> Is this clear?
OK, what is C specific about preferring one over the other? Why is
*C* biased to using arrays of structs rather than these struct of
arrays abominations over and above simple, basic, common sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <d184dd0c-eb06-400b-8eee-f69e1fe263ed@hj4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12428 |
On Nov 1, 5:52 am, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nroberts
>
> > <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Oct 31, 1:07=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>
> > >> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Oct 30, 3:33=3DA0pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> >> That's not to say you never use other structures, there's a case for
> > >> >> representing the bonds between atoms as a graph, for instance, you
> > >> >> might want to do that for some applications.
>
> > >> >again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
> > >> >arrays?
>
> > >> As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
> > >> structs rather than structs of arrays. =A0If we are using indices rather
> > >> pointers it doesn't affect the code much. =A0Thus
>
> > >> =A0 =A0 a[i].x =A0/* array of structs vs */
> > >> =A0 =A0 a.x[i] =A0/* struct of arrays =A0 =A0*/
>
> > >> are much the same. =A0However if we use pointers the choice matters.
> > >> Frex suppose we are walking through x to find a particular record.
> > >> With an array of structs we have something like:
>
> > >> =A0 =A0 for (ap=3Da;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
> > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
> > >> =A0 =A0 }
>
> > >> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
> > >> simple. :-)
>
> > >I think both of you will have to forgive my ignorance here because
> > >I've never seen arrays and structs as interchangeable constructs. I
> > >mean, I realize you CAN implement a sort of struct in a byte buffer,
> > >but if someone was doing this on a regular basis I'd have to wonder if
> > >they were coding while under the influence of a grand maul seizure or
> > >something.
>
> > >So, how and when could you convert a "struct of arrays" into an "array
> > >of structs"? For example, lets say I have a struct of arrays:
>
> > >struct has_arrays
> > >{
> > > char fname[128];
> > > char lname[128];
> > > char mi;
> > >};
>
> > >How does C bias me toward converting that into an array of structs?
> > >What would such a construct look like?
>
> > Oh dear. Nobody is saying that arrays and structs are interchangable.
> > The issue at hand is the choice between using an array of structs or
> > an "equivalent" struct of arrays. Let's take your example.
>
> > struct name_struct {
> > char fname[128];
> > char lname[128];
> > char mi;
> > };
>
> > Is just a struct, even though some fields are arrays. The following
> > statement creates an array of structs.
>
> > struct name names[100];
>
> > is an array of structs.
>
> > Now instead of using an array of structs we could use an struct
> > holding arrays. It would look like this:
>
> > struct name_fields {
> > char fname[100][128];
> > char lname[100][128];
> > char mi[100];
> > } names;
>
> > The array of structs and the struct of arrays have the same data, but
> > the data ordering is different.
>
> > Is this clear?
>
> OK, what is C specific about preferring one over the other? Why is
> *C* biased to using arrays of structs rather than these struct of
> arrays abominations over and above simple, basic, common sense?
CORAL-66 for instance was far more biased. It allowed ARRAY containing
RECORD but not RECORD containing ARRAY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4eb034b1.495574475@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12428 |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT), nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 31, 8:59=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nroberts [snip] >> >> The array of structs and the struct of arrays have the same data, but >> the data ordering is different. >> >> Is this clear? Q1: >OK, what is C specific about preferring one over the other? Ans: C syntax generally favors one over the other. In particular pointers work better with an array of structs rather than a struct of arrays. Q2: >Why is >*C* biased to using arrays of structs rather than these struct of >arrays [snip editorializing]? I surmise that data order wasn't an important issue when C was being developed. Treating a record as contiguous storage was a very convenient default decision. As a followup: In some programs data order matters a lot. (Latency and caches, you know.) Suppose we have a data set ds consisting of n records with fields f1,f2,..,fm. There are two natural ways to store the data, record by record, or field by field. If it is record by record (the array of structs order) the data is stored as f1[0],f2[0],...,fm[0],f1[1],f2[1],...,fm[1],...,fm[n-1] If it is field by field (the struct of arrays order) the data is stored as f1[0],f1[1],...,f1[n-1],f2[0],...,f2[n-1],...fm[n-1]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <946df905-acf5-42e2-9a29-a6c3e166ca1e@w7g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12469 |
On Nov 1, 11:56 am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT), nroberts > > <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Oct 31, 8:59=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nroberts > > [snip] > > > > >> The array of structs and the struct of arrays have the same data, but > >> the data ordering is different. > > >> Is this clear? > > Q1: > > >OK, what is C specific about preferring one over the other? > > Ans: C syntax generally favors one over the other. In particular > pointers work better with an array of structs rather than a struct of > arrays. This isn't an answer at all, just a restatement of the assertion under query. You haven't shown how any aspect of C's syntax alters the preference over design when deciding whether to treat a bunch of records as an array of records or a record of arrays of its elements. > > Q2: > > >Why is > >*C* biased to using arrays of structs rather than these struct of > >arrays [snip editorializing]? > > I surmise that data order wasn't an important issue when C was being > developed. Treating a record as contiguous storage was a very > convenient default decision. Well, I suppose you did answer the question as you quoted it. Unfortunately since you snipped the important part, your answer doesn't help much when applied to the actual question asked. I "surmise" that the issue is intrinsic to the data being structured, and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or Brainfuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4EB05AB6.4030304@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12472 |
On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote: ... > and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no > way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or > Brainfuck. No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a single structure by converting each member to an array. The syntax to access the data in either form is quite similar: object[i].member vs. objects.member[i], though clearly different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <73de4aea-4923-413a-9f69-7ad5f96b968f@s2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12487 |
On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote: > ... > > > and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no > > way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or > > Brainfuck. > > No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which > can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a > single structure by converting each member to an array. 2+2 = 27? Unless you're making a completely pointless statement then you're implying that it makes equal amount of sense either way. This is especially true when it is stated that the reason for preference of one over the other is a byproduct of syntax and not something else. This is the essence of interchangeability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j8q6oh$392$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12488 |
On 11/01/2011 05:16 PM, nroberts wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:46�pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> and has nothing to do with syntax. �Structures and arrays are in no
>>> way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or
>>> Brainfuck.
>>
>> No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which
>> can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a
>> single structure by converting each member to an array.
>
> 2+2 = 27?
>
> Unless you're making a completely pointless statement ...
Richard Harter's point was precisely that it's significantly more
complicated iterating through the arrays in a structure than through an
array of structures. He's right, though I would not make a big deal
about the difference. You seem to have missed that point in your
obsession with challenging the concept that the two data structures are
otherwise interchangeable.
The point of my statement was to try to remind you of the fact that no
one has made any such claim. It seems not to have worked:
> ... then you're
> implying that it makes equal amount of sense either way. ...
but it was indeed my intention that you realize that no one is saying
anything of the kind.
Nick Keighly said on 2011-10-31 at 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT):
> again wouldn't arrays of structs be more natural than strcuts of
> arrays?
Richard Harter said at 15:07:43 -0500:
> With an array of structs we have something like:
>
> for (ap=a;ap<ap_end;ap++) {
> if (f(ap->x)) calc(ap);
> }
>
> Writing the equivalent code using a struct of arrays is not quite so
> simple. :-)
> The catch is that sometimes it makes a real difference in performance.
> In the array of structs code the stride is the width of the struct; in
> the struct of arrays code the stride is the width of x[i].
and on 22:59:48 -0500:
> Nobody is saying that arrays and structs are interchangable.
and on 2011-11-01 at 13:56:54 -0500:
> As a followup: In some programs data order matters a lot. (Latency
> and caches, you know.) Suppose we have a data set ds consisting of n
> records with fields f1,f2,..,fm. There are two natural ways to store
> the data, record by record, or field by field. If it is record by
> record (the array of structs order) the data is stored as
Every single one of those quotes emphasizes that the two options are not
equivalent. Everyone who's talking with you about this subject has made
at least one such quote. Yet for some reason you keep feeling the need
to counter the suggestion, that no one has made, that they are equivalent.
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <76b3ff1c-9ccf-4bb6-b0dd-7fdcfcdb91b1@r7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12504 |
On Nov 1, 6:35 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2011 05:16 PM, nroberts wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote: > >> ... > > >>> and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no > >>> way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or > >>> Brainfuck. > > >> No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which > >> can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a > >> single structure by converting each member to an array. > > > 2+2 = 27? > > > Unless you're making a completely pointless statement ... > > Richard Harter's point was precisely that it's significantly more > complicated iterating through the arrays in a structure than through an > array of structures. Because *C* has a bias in that direction. I was trying to understand that assertion because it seems like nonsense to me, and now everyone wants to pretend it was never made. That's fine. If you guys want to make nonsensical assertions and then pretend you were making sense the whole time it's no problem with me, I'll just remain unconvinced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <43b0f2d3-d2e7-4330-a7d2-4a71a4bb12fd@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12538 |
On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 6:35 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On 11/01/2011 05:16 PM, nroberts wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote:
> > >> ...
>
> > >>> and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no
> > >>> way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or
> > >>> Brainfuck.
>
> > >> No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which
> > >> can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a
> > >> single structure by converting each member to an array.
>
> > > 2+2 = 27?
>
> > > Unless you're making a completely pointless statement ...
>
> > Richard Harter's point was precisely that it's significantly more
> > complicated iterating through the arrays in a structure than through an
> > array of structures.
>
> Because *C* has a bias in that direction. I was trying to understand
> that assertion because it seems like nonsense to me, and now everyone
> wants to pretend it was never made. That's fine. If you guys want to
> make nonsensical assertions and then pretend you were making sense the
> whole time it's no problem with me, I'll just remain unconvinced.
>
We've got ten employees, each with name, payroll id, and salary.
we can represent the data like this
typedef struct
{
char name[64];
int id;
float salary;
} EMPLOYEE;
EMPLOYEE employees[10];
or like this
typedef struct
{
char name[10][64];
int id[10];
float salary[10];
} EMPLOYEES;
EMPLOYEES employees;
The two methods hold the same data, and have the same access
characteristics - iterating through the list is done in O(N) time,
random access is in O(constant) time, searching for the maximum salary
takes O(N) time, etc. Theya are logically equivalent. The only
difference is the way the employees are laid out in memory.
The first way is better for C, but that's largely because of C's
syntax. We can imagine language x where you can declare arrays of
records, and all the fields are contiguous, and this is transparent to
the user. You'd use a syntax like field(employees, i, salary) *= 1.1; /
* increment employee's salary by 10 % */
The second method has certain advantages. For instance, if we want the
average salary, we have an array of floats ready to be passed to a
generic mean() function. With the first method, ypu've got to either
write an special mean_employee_salary() function, use a temporary
buffer, or fake up the "field" syntax using a stride, offset, and some
pointer jiggery-pokery.
--
My website: all the fun of the Alice in Wonderland card game,
downloadable for free
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <04026baf-46f1-488f-bd01-31eebf7039ea@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12540 |
On Nov 2, 10:14 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:35 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 11/01/2011 05:16 PM, nroberts wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 11/01/2011 03:59 PM, nroberts wrote:
> > > >> ...
>
> > > >>> and has nothing to do with syntax. Structures and arrays are in no
> > > >>> way interchangeable whether you are writing in C, C++, BASIC, or
> > > >>> Brainfuck.
>
> > > >> No one has suggested that they are interchangeable. Only that data which
> > > >> can be stored as a single array of structures can also be stored as a
> > > >> single structure by converting each member to an array.
>
> > > > 2+2 = 27?
>
> > > > Unless you're making a completely pointless statement ...
>
> > > Richard Harter's point was precisely that it's significantly more
> > > complicated iterating through the arrays in a structure than through an
> > > array of structures.
>
> > Because *C* has a bias in that direction. I was trying to understand
> > that assertion because it seems like nonsense to me, and now everyone
> > wants to pretend it was never made. That's fine. If you guys want to
> > make nonsensical assertions and then pretend you were making sense the
> > whole time it's no problem with me, I'll just remain unconvinced.
>
> We've got ten employees, each with name, payroll id, and salary.
>
> we can represent the data like this
>
> typedef struct
> {
> char name[64];
> int id;
> float salary;
>
> } EMPLOYEE;
>
> EMPLOYEE employees[10];
> or like this
>
> typedef struct
> {
> char name[10][64];
> int id[10];
> float salary[10];
>
> } EMPLOYEES;
>
> EMPLOYEES employees;
>
> The two methods hold the same data, and have the same access
> characteristics - iterating through the list is done in O(N) time,
> random access is in O(constant) time, searching for the maximum salary
> takes O(N) time, etc. Theya are logically equivalent.
I thought nobody was saying that!!!!
The truth is that they are not at all logically equivalent. The
difference between the two is 100% logical.
> The only
> difference is the way the employees are laid out in memory.
There could be no difference in how they're laid out in memory, the
difference is in their *logical* structure--completely the opposite of
what you're saying. I can write the statements to access a field in
English and the difference is still there:
Get the N'th employee from the employee's array and access its id
field.
Get the ids field from the employees structure and access its N'th
element.
No matter what syntax I use that is specific enough for talking to a
computer, I'm still going to have to access the elements in different
manners.
> The first way is better for C, but that's largely because of C's
> syntax. We can imagine language x where you can declare arrays of
> records, and all the fields are contiguous, and this is transparent to
> the user. You'd use a syntax like field(employees, i, salary) *= 1.1; /
> * increment employee's salary by 10 % */
>
> The second method has certain advantages. For instance, if we want the
> average salary, we have an array of floats ready to be passed to a
> generic mean() function.
Not in language X. In language X you're using the field() syntax.
You've essentially got an array of structures in language X no matter
what you might want and you're writing your generic mean function to
use binder expressions like: mean(field(employees, _1, salary)). You
can do this in C by the way though not at quite that high level
(you'll be writing custom functions to serve as binder expressions).
> With the first method, ypu've got to either
> write an special mean_employee_salary() function, use a temporary
> buffer, or fake up the "field" syntax using a stride, offset, and some
> pointer jiggery-pokery.
Which is all "language X" is. You could write it in C as a macro and
then still access the underlying memory. It's all going to depend
upon the needs of your program.
All you're doing here is arguing for abstractions. You're not showing
that C's syntax forces you into one form of data expression or
another, you're saying that it would be nice to be able to manipulate
your data at a higher level than structures and arrays. There's
nothing stopping you from doing that in C and there's nothing that
makes it more or less difficult except perhaps a lack of utility
functions in the standard library, which is not a syntax issue.
It is true that there are many languages at higher levels than C that
support the kind of expressions you're talking about. C++ in fact
provides much of the functionality you want here, or at least better
facilities to create it. But when you get to this point you're no
longer talking about structures and arrays, you're talking about even
higher level concepts. I do agree that abstractions can be a
wonderful thing, but this is clearly not a C specific issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <8d5587e7-f542-4d9b-98b2-62a98f21b598@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12543 |
nroberts wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:14 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
...
> > We've got ten employees, each with name, payroll id, and salary.
> >
> > we can represent the data like this
> >
> > typedef struct
> > {
> > char name[64];
> > int id;
> > float salary;
> >
> > } EMPLOYEE;
> >
> > EMPLOYEE employees[10];
> > or like this
> >
> > typedef struct
> > {
> > char name[10][64];
> > int id[10];
> > float salary[10];
> >
> > } EMPLOYEES;
> >
> > EMPLOYEES employees;
> >
> > The two methods hold the same data, and have the same access
> > characteristics - iterating through the list is done in O(N) time,
> > random access is in O(constant) time, searching for the maximum salary
> > takes O(N) time, etc. Theya are logically equivalent.
>
> I thought nobody was saying that!!!!
No, the assertion that no one was making was that they were
interchangeable. While all of his O-notation statements are correct,
the actual coefficients in front of the corresponding power of N would
be quite different, on average, between the two data structures.
> The truth is that they are not at all logically equivalent. The
> difference between the two is 100% logical.
I would not have used the phrase "logically equivalent" for this
concept: I'm not at all sure what precisely that phrase means to him
in this context; neither am I sure what it means to you. However, I do
understand precisely what the two data structures have in common, and
I presume that he's using the term "logically equivalent" to describe
those things. Pay more attention to the list of common features he
gave above, and less to the particular phrase "logically equivalent"
that he used to cover those similarities.
> > The only
> > difference is the way the employees are laid out in memory.
>
> There could be no difference in how they're laid out in memory,
At this point, we're still talking about C, aren't we? They must be
laid out in memory quite differently by any conforming implementation
of C. With the first version, employees[0].salary must be followed by
employees[1].name, with nothing between them except possibly some
padding. If there is padding, it must NOT be used to store any other
part of the data in that array of structures. With the second version
employees.salary[0] must be immediately followed by
employees.salary[1] - and in this case, no padding is allowed.
Strictly conforming code can test these requirements by converting
appropriate pointers to (char*) and comparing them for relative order.
> > The first way is better for C, but that's largely because of C's
> > syntax. We can imagine language x where you can declare arrays of
> > records, and all the fields are contiguous, and this is transparent to
> > the user. You'd use a syntax like field(employees, i, salary) *= 1.1; /
> > * increment employee's salary by 10 % */
> >
> > The second method has certain advantages. For instance, if we want the
> > average salary, we have an array of floats ready to be passed to a
> > generic mean() function.
>
> Not in language X. In language X you're using the field() syntax.
> You've essentially got an array of structures in language X no matter
> what you might want and you're writing your generic mean function to
> use binder expressions like: mean(field(employees, _1, salary)). ...
No, while I think he worded it poorly, what he appears to be saying is
that in language X, something which syntactically appears to be an
array of structures is actually a structure of arrays, laid out in
memory the same way as in his second C example. In language X, the
syntax field(employees, i, salary) has the same meaning that
employees.salary[i] would have in C, while field(employees, _1,
salary) apparently gives you the equivalent of the C expression
employees.salary. I'm not sure how the "_1" is meant to be
interpreted; it's Malcolm's hypothetical language.
> ... You
> can do this in C by the way though not at quite that high level
> (you'll be writing custom functions to serve as binder expressions).
Well, yes - the point is, in C, one method is supported directly, and
the other way requires "writing custom functions to serve as binder
expressions". That's precisely the bias he's talking about. I can't
say its a very important bias, but it's a real one. It doesn't deserve
the amount of attention it's received so far, but that amount of
attention has been due almost entirely to the challenges you've made
against it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <e5267cc4-8234-4156-83b6-c6d964ca9218@es7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12544 |
On Nov 2, 1:11 pm, jameskuyper <jameskuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nroberts wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 10:14 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
> ...
> > > We've got ten employees, each with name, payroll id, and salary.
>
> > > we can represent the data like this
>
> > > typedef struct
> > > {
> > > char name[64];
> > > int id;
> > > float salary;
>
> > > } EMPLOYEE;
>
> > > EMPLOYEE employees[10];
> > > or like this
>
> > > typedef struct
> > > {
> > > char name[10][64];
> > > int id[10];
> > > float salary[10];
>
> > > } EMPLOYEES;
>
> > > EMPLOYEES employees;
>
> > > The two methods hold the same data, and have the same access
> > > characteristics - iterating through the list is done in O(N) time,
> > > random access is in O(constant) time, searching for the maximum salary
> > > takes O(N) time, etc. Theya are logically equivalent.
>
> > I thought nobody was saying that!!!!
>
> No, the assertion that no one was making was that they were
> interchangeable.
LOL!
I think that pretty clearly lays out why it's pointless to continue,
at least with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4eb1b004.61042442@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12544 |
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:11:27 -0700 (PDT), jameskuyper
<jameskuyper@gmail.com> wrote:
snip]
>
>Well, yes - the point is, in C, one method is supported directly, and
>the other way requires "writing custom functions to serve as binder
>expressions". That's precisely the bias he's talking about. I can't
>say its a very important bias, but it's a real one. It doesn't deserve
>the amount of attention it's received so far, but that amount of
>attention has been due almost entirely to the challenges you've made
>against it.
There is another bias. It is customary to define a struct with the
actual fields. Thus
typedef struct
{
char name[64];
int id;
float salary;
} EMPLOYEE;
The definition does not impact how the array is allocated. Thus
EMPLOYEE employees[10]; /*and */
EMPLOYEE *employees;
employees = malloc(10 * sizeof(*employees));
both work. However if we are doing struct of arrays we need different
definitions for the declared arrays case and for the allocated arrays
case. Thus
typedef struct
{
char name[10][64];
int id[10];
float salary[10];
} EMPLOYEES;
EMPLOYEES employees;
vs
typedef struct
{
char name[][64]; /* declaration probably wrong */
int *id;
float *salary;
} EMPLOYEES;
EMPLOYEES employees;
with the further inconvenience that every field must be malloced
separately. On the other hand we now have room for the number of
employees in the struct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web