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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <0d45587c-7941-435a-8c71-0ac2bfb49253@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13040 |
On Nov 10, 11:05 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 8, 4:06 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> >> I am saying that the organisation of data in memory, and the
> >> organisation of data into logical structures are orthogonal, but many
> >> languages (like C) link the two together.
>
> > Because in computers, memory is one large array like structure.
> > That's the fundamental abstraction that our hardware attempts to
> > create.
>
> [...]
>
> Memory needn't be monolithic like that. That's certainly a common
> organization, but it's not the only one, and it's not one that's imposed
> or even strongly encouraged by C's memory model.
>
> In C, give, two distinct declared objects:
>
> int x;
> int y;
>
> there is no defined relationship between their locations in memory.
> It's typically the case that (&x < &y || &x > &y) is true, but the
> behavior of attempting to evaluate that expression is undefined.
>
> Memory within each object is contiguous (in the sense that it can
> consistently be treated as a 1-dimensional array of bytes). No such
> relationship necessarily exists between distinct objects.
OK, I'll bite.
How does this save the argument that these are C specific issues?
To answer I'd expect that you can come up with a logical framework by
which an object does not have to be contiguous, or appear to be. Or,
you could come up with a logical framework in which the layout of
objects within objects is not significantly altered in use when you
invert the relationship. Meaning that something like
struct employee { string name; int age; } employees[];
always makes as much sense as:
struct employees { string names[]; int ages[]; };
To me, the grouping of data here is not equivalent and my opponents
are telling me that this is a **C language specific issue**.
I can see why one might prefer the later for performance reasons, and
I've never disputed this. But that is not the argument being made.
I've also never disputed that you can come up with a higher
abstraction, which will cost more on the standard computer, through
which you could operate on either structure with the same interface.
The argument being made is that these two methods of data organization
could be logically equivalent if it wasn't written in C. I for one
cannot think of any way in which it is possible to make that true and
I've been repeatedly asking those who made this claim to tell me how
it could, only to receive abstract interfaces and performance criteria
to prefer the latter version in reply.
If you can show how data grouping and higherarchy become non-issues in
environments unlike the standard, von Neumanesque memory model I'm all
ears.
To reiterate what this argument is even about, it started with this
statement by Richard Harter:
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. :-)
END
I've tried repeatedly to get someone to explain why that's even
remotely a C specific issue and again all I've heard so far is that,
"You could have an abstraction that..." and, "Sometimes it's faster to
do..." and every time I try to explain why that's got nothing really
to do with C someone comes along with some completely new, unrelated
thing. Can you get it back on topic and show why a hypothetical non-
preference for the standard model can salvage their argument?
Actually, some have even made the claim that an abstraction on top of
this that hid the difference between the two organization methods
would be impossible to write in C. I don't expect you to be able to
salvage that one though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <723060f6-10aa-489e-9a9c-dad0ea6a6dae@o15g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13059 |
I'm going to try to get this argument back on track to see if there's
anything to gleam from it or if my initial assumption, that people
were just making crazy statements to win an argument, is in fact true.
It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of structs
rather than structs of arrays. The basis of this statement has so far
seemed to be that there are two ways, among others, that one might
organize a list of records:
1. As an array of records:
struct record
{
type0 field0;
type1 field1;
...
} records[];
2. As a structure of arrays:
struct
{
type0 field0[];
type1 field1[];
...
} records;
Alternatives that have not been brought up are things like having
individual variables for each element of each record, random placement
in a blob, some sort of scattered matrix, quantum entanglement...etc.
So the premise at this point would be that you are organizing data in
a hierarchy of containers and contents, otherwise there's nothing to
discuss.
For the claim that there is a bias in C toward #1 over #2 there must
be a way in which this preference does not exist outside of C
somewhere. My assumption to date, which seems clear to me at least,
is that no such environment exists or can exist given our
understanding of logic and computability.
A couple of valid attempts have been made to show that such an
environment is possible:
1. You could invent a "language X" that has some other form of
container that pretty much logically resembles the first case, but
uses a functional syntax such that you could implement it internally
with the later version (though why you would is questionable since
this is not exposed and so can't be taken advantage of).
2. There are cases WITHIN C in which the supposed bias is inverted,
such as when you want performance gains for functions that operate on
the entire record set, but only on one field...and also because
expressing a generic function that can operate on a particular,
supplied field within a generic record (like a generic sum function
that could sum up ages within a list of person records) is so
complicated that you generally don't. In my opinion this is a very
valid argument why this idea that C is causing any bias to #1 is in
error, but I've let that slide hoping for refinement.
I have responded to both by saying that "language X" can be written in
C (this seems to be a debatable proposition but nobody's said why so
far) since it's just a higher abstraction than was originally proposed
and that sure, one might prefer the less obvious organization in some
situations due to the performance gains you might get in the standard
memory model, but that these are not issues specific in any way to C.
The newest argument seems to be that in non-standard memory models,
which C kind of assumes in some ways, language X could take advantage
of some yet unspecified memory addressing method that C would be
incapable of. I concede that this could possibly be true but I don't
believe this does anything to the problem either. Remember that it is
assumed at this point that you're attempting to organize data into a
container/contained relationship, which is an issue that I believe
would still come up with ANY KIND of abstraction one could possibly
come up with. There is always going to be a selection of logical
organizations one can use for their data and which one picks is an
issue of the data and its use, but has nothing to do with syntax or
memory model or even if objects exist in memory in any kind of
recognizable form we currently expect, or anything that could be said
to be a component of C specifically. So long as there exists a
mapping between our logical view and the memory model we don't
actually care what that is unless we're trying to exploit it, which
again won't be language specific.
I don't believe this begs the question. Without a need to organize
data into container and contained there is no sense by which it can be
said that C has a bias toward one method or another. We must be
trying to organize data in some sense for there to be anything to
discuss. If we were simply talking about random values spattered
about in a completely decoupled manner, then C actually prefers
independent variables..and so would any other language we could think
of. We're not though. If we were going even further and talking
about a system in which objects themselves are not coherent and
mappable to logical constructs then I think the entire idea of
computing goes kaput.
It is true that we could possibly come up with some memory model that
is not standard in which the cost of abstracting a "language X" is not
paid because it's actually closer to the machine's memory model than
structures and arrays possibly. I don't believe this solves the issue
either though because we can push language X into reductio ad absurdum
by proposing its obvious extension: field(records_blob, index_0,
index_1, field_name). This expresses a hierarchy. Does it make more
sense to iterate by index_0 or index_1? Under what conditions? At
what point do we decide that instead of having index_0 through index_N
do we actually return some sort of container as our data type? Will
it make as much sense then to invert the relationship and if not does
that comprise of a bias in the language?
Working with simple examples has hidden the bigger, higher level issue
to some people it seems.
Another issue here is that "language X" is incomplete. We've not
devised a declarative syntax for it. If we assume that either
declaration we might use in C can be used in "language X" and then
manipulated through the field syntax, is there any reason at all
anymore to use the second version? The whole argument for even using
the second version has been entirely dependent upon the nature of C
and the standard memory model. Does not the very structure of the
data make the first version more understandable for humans? If so,
how could this be a language issue? If not, please explain.
Even further, the field() syntax proposed in "language X" seems to
mimic the first version more than the second. Given the freedom to
evolve a completely new language that avoids the biases in C we've
created something that very much resembles that which is being said is
C's bias. The whole motivating factor for our attempt to abstract is
not, "How can we get C to make #1 look more like #2," but, "How can we
get C to give us the speed advantages and generic re-usability we want
from #2, but a logical structure that's more resembling #1 because
that's what makes more sense to us." Unfortunately, the answer isn't
so easy when it comes to composing generic functions because this is
something that C is simply not good at. The speed issue on the other
hand can be taken care of by providing macros that turn a #2
implementation into something resembling language X.
Now, if something I've just said is wrong then please explain how. If
your only reply is that "nobody's saying ..." or some other red
herring then I'm not interested; if you don't think anyone's saying it
then there's no reason to argue about it...if the fact that the very
next person contradicts you isn't clue enough. If you've legitimately
got a reason why C specifically causes a bias toward the first
implementation above then I'm all ears. Even if you've got a
legitimate reason why "C like" language have this bias I'm all
ears...what possible language doesn't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j9hpju$srd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13064 |
"nroberts" <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:723060f6-10aa-489e-9a9c-dad0ea6a6dae@o15g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> I'm going to try to get this argument back on track to see if there's
> anything to gleam from it or if my initial assumption, that people
> were just making crazy statements to win an argument, is in fact true.
>
> It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of structs
> rather than structs of arrays. The basis of this statement has so far
> seemed to be that there are two ways, among others, that one might
> organize a list of records:
>
> 1. As an array of records:
>
> struct record
> {
> type0 field0;
> type1 field1;
> ...
> } records[];
>
> 2. As a structure of arrays:
> struct
> {
> type0 field0[];
> type1 field1[];
> ...
> } records;
>
> Alternatives that have not been brought up are things like having
> individual variables for each element of each record, random placement
> in a blob, some sort of scattered matrix, quantum entanglement...etc.
> So the premise at this point would be that you are organizing data in
> a hierarchy of containers and contents, otherwise there's nothing to
> discuss.
If at any point you need a single record as an independent struct object,
then only (1) will give you that. With (2), the fields of a single record
are spread over several arrays.
Perhaps that's the bias that's being talked about.
If there is never any need to be able to pass around an individual, compact
record, then there is no bias. Nor is there really any need to collect all
the parallel arrays into a single struct.
> For the claim that there is a bias in C toward #1 over #2 there must
> be a way in which this preference does not exist outside of C
> somewhere.
OK, so you're disputing not just the existence of a bias, but that fact that
it must be unique to C in order to exist?
Certainly many languages work exactly the same as C, and a few will be able
to extract a single record whether method (1) or (2) is
used, but the internal problems that need to be solved to do that are the
same.
But you seem to be making a big deal out of a simple throw-away remark.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <a37148ac-5c44-4d93-b3bc-57dbca23ff03@o15g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13072 |
On Nov 10, 4:17 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: > "nroberts" <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > For the claim that there is a bias in C toward #1 over #2 there must > > be a way in which this preference does not exist outside of C > > somewhere. > > OK, so you're disputing not just the existence of a bias, but that fact that > it must be unique to C in order to exist? No, I'm claiming that the bias must be unique to C in order to be unique to C. The claim that it WAS unique to C is what I'm trying to fathom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4ebd6341.102959177@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13100 |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:29:26 -0800 (PST), nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 4:17=A0pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: >> "nroberts" <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > For the claim that there is a bias in C toward #1 over #2 there must >> > be a way in which this preference does not exist outside of C >> > somewhere. >> >> OK, so you're disputing not just the existence of a bias, but that fact t= >hat >> it must be unique to C in order to exist? > >No, I'm claiming that the bias must be unique to C in order to be >unique to C. The claim that it WAS unique to C is what I'm trying to >fathom. AFAIK, nobody made such a claim, certainly not I. AFAICT, the whole notion is an invention of yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j9jp01$7ck$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #13102 |
In <4ebd6341.102959177@text.giganews.com> cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> AFAIK, nobody made such a claim, certainly not I. AFAICT, the whole
> notion is an invention of yours.
"As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4EBD693F.4050705@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #13103 |
On 11/11/2011 01:19 PM, John Gordon wrote: > In <4ebd6341.102959177@text.giganews.com> cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes: > >> AFAIK, nobody made such a claim, certainly not I. AFAICT, the whole >> notion is an invention of yours. > > "As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of > structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter I see nothing in there about the bias being unique to C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j9jq0m$fi3$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #13104 |
In <4EBD693F.4050705@verizon.net> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> > "As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of
> > structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter
> I see nothing in there about the bias being unique to C.
I may have responded to the wrong sub-thread.
If I'm reading my attributions correctly, nroberts said this:
It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of structs
rather than structs of arrays.
And then someone (Ben Bacarisse?) responded with this:
I don't think that claim has been made.
So I provided a quote of just such a claim.
The quote does not state the bias is unique to C, but it does state that
C has the bias, which is the point I was responding to.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4EBD73C7.5020909@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #13105 |
On 11/11/2011 01:37 PM, John Gordon wrote: > In <4EBD693F.4050705@verizon.net> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > >>> "As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of >>> structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter > >> I see nothing in there about the bias being unique to C. > > I may have responded to the wrong sub-thread. Apparently. I've tracked down the details below. > If I'm reading my attributions correctly, nroberts said this: > > It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of structs > rather than structs of arrays. > > And then someone (Ben Bacarisse?) responded with this: > > I don't think that claim has been made. > > So I provided a quote of just such a claim. Ben's message containing that text was <0.1a58db304bd70f0e7d15.20111111045341GMT.87zkg3xnsa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>. The message you posted that I was responding to, <j9jp01$7ck$1@reader1.panix.com>, had a different context. It cites none of the above text. The last item in it's References: header was <4ebd6341.102959177@text.giganews.com>. It cited: > In <4ebd6341.102959177@text.giganews.com> cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes: > >> AFAIK, nobody made such a claim, certainly not I. AFAICT, the whole >> notion is an invention of yours. In that message, the text you quoted was immediately preceded by this text: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:29:26 -0800 (PST), nroberts > <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> No, I'm claiming that the bias must be unique to C in order to be >> unique to C. The claim that it WAS unique to C is what I'm trying to >> fathom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <60be2c83-3d90-470d-8246-903820e6d079@d5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13105 |
On Nov 11, 10:37 am, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote: > In <4EBD693F.4050...@verizon.net> James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> writes: > > > > "As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of > > > structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter > > I see nothing in there about the bias being unique to C. > > I may have responded to the wrong sub-thread. > > If I'm reading my attributions correctly, nroberts said this: > > It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of structs > rather than structs of arrays. > > And then someone (Ben Bacarisse?) responded with this: > > I don't think that claim has been made. > > So I provided a quote of just such a claim. > > The quote does not state the bias is unique to C, but it does state that > C has the bias, which is the point I was responding to. Yeah, I misspoke above. I sometimes get caught by straw men people throw up and loose track of the conversation for a moment. The whole unique to C thing isn't mine at all. That was never the claim but I did get confused and misspeak. I don't expect that it is unique to C, only that by saying it is IN C (which WAS stated, as you and I have now both quoted) that there's something outside of C that doesn't have it...or could be. Otherwise saying that it's in C is a pointless, inflammatory statement...sort of like saying there's a bias in American culture toward breathing air. Even though Americans indeed breath air, so does everyone and everything else living so the bias isn't exactly an American one. Just like I'd expect you to back the bias claim by showing me any possible human culture that does not breath air, I expect someone to be able to show any possible programming language or form of computational logic that doesn't contain THIS "bias". It's been said I'm making a big deal about a "throw away statement". If that's the case fine...but the only reason I'm continuing here is that people keep arguing against me. If it really was a throw away statement, why are so many people asserting that it's either a) true, or b) never said even though it can be quoted repeatedly. Maybe it wasn't meant, then I'd hope the person who said it would explain that. As far as I know to date it WAS meant and there are many supporters. I'm just asking them to explain themselves. At this point I'm giving up. My initial assumption was that people had gotten so locked into their point of view that they were talking nonsense to back it up. I was asking for clarification in case I was wrong and all I've gotten is a bunch of hand wrangling. Obviously I was correct and this conversation can never go anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4ebd827f.110957130@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13109 |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:17:21 -0800 (PST), nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 11, 10:37=A0am, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote: >> In <4EBD693F.4050...@verizon.net> James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> = >writes: >> >> > > "As a side note, there is a subtle bias in C in favor of arrays of >> > > structs rather than structs of arrays." -- Richard Harter >> > I see nothing in there about the bias being unique to C. >> >> I may have responded to the wrong sub-thread. >> >> If I'm reading my attributions correctly, nroberts said this: >> >> =A0 It's been said that there is a bias in C that favors arrays of struct= >s >> =A0 rather than structs of arrays. >> >> And then someone (Ben Bacarisse?) responded with this: >> >> =A0 I don't think that claim has been made. >> >> So I provided a quote of just such a claim. >> >> The quote does not state the bias is unique to C, but it does state that >> C has the bias, which is the point I was responding to. > >Yeah, I misspoke above. I sometimes get caught by straw men people >throw up and loose track of the conversation for a moment. The whole >unique to C thing isn't mine at all. That was never the claim but I >did get confused and misspeak. It is yours - you claimed that the claim had been made, several times if I recall correctly. > >I don't expect that it is unique to C, only that by saying it is IN C >(which WAS stated, as you and I have now both quoted) that there's >something outside of C that doesn't have it...or could be. Otherwise >saying that it's in C is a pointless, inflammatory statement...sort of >like saying there's a bias in American culture toward breathing air. >Even though Americans indeed breath air, so does everyone and >everything else living so the bias isn't exactly an American one. This is a fallacious argument based on a faulty analogy. Simply observing that X has property A does not establish that there is anything that does not have property A. It does not oblige me to show that there could be something that does not have property A. >Just like I'd expect you to back the bias claim by showing me any >possible human culture that does not breath air, I expect someone to >be able to show any possible programming language or form of >computational logic that doesn't contain THIS "bias". Do you now? I fear that life is not going to come up to your expectations. > >It's been said I'm making a big deal about a "throw away statement". >If that's the case fine...but the only reason I'm continuing here is >that people keep arguing against me. If it really was a throw away >statement, why are so many people asserting that it's either a) true, >or b) never said even though it can be quoted repeatedly. Maybe it >wasn't meant, then I'd hope the person who said it would explain >that. As far as I know to date it WAS meant and there are many >supporters. I'm just asking them to explain themselves. > >At this point I'm giving up. Excellent! Make that a resolution and never stray from it. >My initial assumption was that people >had gotten so locked into their point of view that they were talking >nonsense to back it up. I was asking for clarification in case I was >wrong and all I've gotten is a bunch of hand wrangling. Obviously I >was correct and this conversation can never go anywhere. I quite agree that this conversation can never go anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j9k6i2$a44$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #13124 |
In <4ebd827f.110957130@text.giganews.com> cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> >like saying there's a bias in American culture toward breathing air.
> >Even though Americans indeed breath air, so does everyone and
> >everything else living so the bias isn't exactly an American one.
> This is a fallacious argument based on a faulty analogy. Simply
> observing that X has property A does not establish that there is
> anything that does not have property A. It does not oblige me to show
> that there could be something that does not have property A.
Strictly speaking you're right of course, but I do see his point.
If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me
to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than
other cuisines.
Yes, it's possible that the speaker believes all cooking is delicious,
but in that case, why did he or she bother to single out French cooking?
It would have been more accurate and less effort to simply say that all
cooking is delicious.
But the speaker did choose to single out French cooking, and in my opinion
that can carry meaning.
(Of course this is all hugely subject to context. If the speaker in my
example was specifically responding to a question about French cooking,
then that changes everything.)
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <1a5fc3fd-36da-4c2b-a1e7-779b592529b5@a5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13131 |
On Nov 11, 2:11 pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote: > In <4ebd827f.110957...@text.giganews.com> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes: > > > >like saying there's a bias in American culture toward breathing air. > > >Even though Americans indeed breath air, so does everyone and > > >everything else living so the bias isn't exactly an American one. > > This is a fallacious argument based on a faulty analogy. Simply > > observing that X has property A does not establish that there is > > anything that does not have property A. It does not oblige me to show > > that there could be something that does not have property A. > > Strictly speaking you're right of course, but I do see his point. > > If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me > to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than > other cuisines. > > Yes, it's possible that the speaker believes all cooking is delicious, > but in that case, why did he or she bother to single out French cooking? > It would have been more accurate and less effort to simply say that all > cooking is delicious. > > But the speaker did choose to single out French cooking, and in my opinion > that can carry meaning. > > (Of course this is all hugely subject to context. If the speaker in my > example was specifically responding to a question about French cooking, > then that changes everything.) Likewise, if someone made the statement out of the blue during a discussion critiquing French and say Spanish cuisine I'd expect that the singling out of French has even more special meaning. Back to the original, the context here of course was discussing the differences between C and C++ among a few others. Thus I expected a claim that C has a bias toward whatever carried significance to the author. Now I know better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4ebdccdd.129996163@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13131 |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:11:14 +0000 (UTC), John Gordon
<gordon@panix.com> wrote:
>In <4ebd827f.110957130@text.giganews.com> cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>> >like saying there's a bias in American culture toward breathing air.
>> >Even though Americans indeed breath air, so does everyone and
>> >everything else living so the bias isn't exactly an American one.
>
>> This is a fallacious argument based on a faulty analogy. Simply
>> observing that X has property A does not establish that there is
>> anything that does not have property A. It does not oblige me to show
>> that there could be something that does not have property A.
>
>Strictly speaking you're right of course, but I do see his point.
>
>If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me
>to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than
>other cuisines.
And that would be an error. There is no reason to suppose that the
speaker is familiar with all cuisines. Perhaps all of the cuisines he
is familiar with are all delicious, perhaps some are not. Regardless
of that he cannot speak for the cuisines he does not know.
>
>Yes, it's possible that the speaker believes all cooking is delicious,
>but in that case, why did he or she bother to single out French cooking?
>It would have been more accurate and less effort to simply say that all
>cooking is delicious.
>
>But the speaker did choose to single out French cooking, and in my opinion
>that can carry meaning.
>
>(Of course this is all hugely subject to context. If the speaker in my
>example was specifically responding to a question about French cooking,
>then that changes everything.)
Quite right. In the case in hand the context was a small programming
issue that arises when using the C language.
In your example of cuisines there might be a few hundred to consider;
an ambitious gourmand might claim to familiar with all of them.
However there are tens of thousands of computer languages constructed
on a wide diversity of principles; no one can speak for them all.
All of this is off topic. Alt.postmodernism may still be active - if
so, that would be a good place for Roberts to play off his tricks. If
not, the sharks in alt.usage.english would be quite happen to nibble
on his toes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <057f447c-9f5a-45c8-b205-bcc82fed4361@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13164 |
On Nov 12, 4:50 am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:11:14 +0000 (UTC), John Gordon > > >If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me > >to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than > >other cuisines. > > And that would be an error. There is no reason to suppose that the > speaker is familiar with all cuisines. Perhaps all of the cuisines he > is familiar with are all delicious, perhaps some are not. Regardless > of that he cannot speak for the cuisines he does not know. > It implies the speaker is familiar with at least one other cuisine, which he considers inferior to the French. We didn't like school dinners when I was at primary, and we got our parents to give us sandwiches instead. Then I moved to secondary school, and I realised that the primary's dinners were actually quite good for school dinners, though not as good as home cooking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4ebea2bb.184737928@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13171 |
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:44:02 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >On Nov 12, 4:50=A0am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:11:14 +0000 (UTC), John Gordon >> >> >If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me >> >to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than >> >other cuisines. >> >> And that would be an error. =A0There is no reason to suppose that the >> speaker is familiar with all cuisines. =A0Perhaps all of the cuisines he >> is familiar with are all delicious, perhaps some are not. =A0Regardless >> of that he cannot speak for the cuisines he does not know. >> >It implies the speaker is familiar with at least one other cuisine, >which he considers inferior to the French. No. He might consider French inferior to Thai, but none the less delicious. Then again, he might consider French and Thai equally delicious, but have no knowledge of German. The only safe inference is that the speaker purports to be able to distinguish between delicious and not delicious. It is an error of logic to claim that Px->(Ey)~Py. Now it is true that when a speaker such an assertion there will be collateral information, e.g., what we know or can infer about the knowledge of the speaker, why the speaker might be making that claim, etc, and that we can make inferences that take that collateral information into account. However these sort of inferences must be made on a case by case basis. That is why Roberts's American breathing analogy was a false analogy; the collateral information was different. > >We didn't like school dinners when I was at primary, and we got our >parents to give us sandwiches instead. Then I moved to secondary >school, and I realised that the primary's dinners were actually quite >good for school dinners, though not as good as home cooking. > In the first case (delicious,~delicious) there is a binary predicate, either is or is not. In your school dinners you have a comparative adjective. Different cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <dd06d0b5-fcc7-444d-9cd0-07a715561ec0@k38g2000pro.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13190 |
On Nov 12, 9:54 am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:44:02 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean > > <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On Nov 12, 4:50=A0am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:11:14 +0000 (UTC), John Gordon > > >> >If I hear someone say that French cooking is delicious, that leads me > >> >to believe that the speaker holds French cooking in higher regard than > >> >other cuisines. > > >> And that would be an error. =A0There is no reason to suppose that the > >> speaker is familiar with all cuisines. =A0Perhaps all of the cuisines he > >> is familiar with are all delicious, perhaps some are not. =A0Regardless > >> of that he cannot speak for the cuisines he does not know. > > >It implies the speaker is familiar with at least one other cuisine, > >which he considers inferior to the French. > > No. He might consider French inferior to Thai, but none the less > delicious. Then again, he might consider French and Thai equally > delicious, but have no knowledge of German. The only safe inference > is that the speaker purports to be able to distinguish between > delicious and not delicious. It is an error of logic to claim that > Px->(Ey)~Py. Bartholemy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4710a4a3-fcf6-4a56-b9ab-07241a933709@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13190 |
On Nov 12, 7:54 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > > In the first case (delicious,~delicious) there is a binary predicate, > either is or is not. In your school dinners you have a comparative > adjective. Different cases. > Was the Roman army a powerful army? Is the army of Lichtenstein a powerful army? What would happen if, hypothetically, the Roman legions were sent against the Lichtenstein national guard armed with assault rifles? In order to have attribute X, there must be something which is not X. Otherwise you don't know you have attribute X.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4ec131f4.352482589@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13270 |
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 7:54=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>
>> In the first case (delicious,~delicious) there is a binary predicate,
>> either is or is not. =A0In your school dinners you have a comparative
>> adjective. =A0Different cases.
>>
>Was the Roman army a powerful army? Is the army of Lichtenstein a
>powerful army? What would happen if, hypothetically, the Roman legions
>were sent against the Lichtenstein national guard armed with assault
>rifles?
Uranium atoms are large atoms; white dwarfs are small stars.
Therefore uranium atoms are larger than white dwarfs. Conttext? Who
needs context!
>
>In order to have attribute X, there must be something which is not X.
>Otherwise you don't know you have attribute X.
Thus you refute classical logic, e.g.,
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefor Socrates is mortal.
By your criterion, for "mortal" to be an attribute, there must be
someone who is immortal. Try this instead: In order for X to be an
attribute it must be possible to distinguish between having X and not
having X.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <dd7933cd-f9f3-41fd-aba5-30235f2189b1@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13290 |
On Nov 14, 8:01 am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean > > <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On Nov 12, 7:54=A0pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > > >> In the first case (delicious,~delicious) there is a binary predicate, > >> either is or is not. =A0In your school dinners you have a comparative > >> adjective. =A0Different cases. > > >Was the Roman army a powerful army? Is the army of Lichtenstein a > >powerful army? What would happen if, hypothetically, the Roman legions > >were sent against the Lichtenstein national guard armed with assault > >rifles? > > Uranium atoms are large atoms; white dwarfs are small stars. > Therefore uranium atoms are larger than white dwarfs. Conttext? Who > needs context! > > > > >In order to have attribute X, there must be something which is not X. > >Otherwise you don't know you have attribute X. > > Thus you refute classical logic, e.g., > > All men are mortal. > Socrates is a man. > Therefor Socrates is mortal. > > By your criterion, for "mortal" to be an attribute, there must be > someone who is immortal. Try this instead: In order for X to be an > attribute it must be possible to distinguish between having X and not > having X. I have to say that I'm not really buying all this logic crap you're spewing. You had the chance to clarify that you did not mean to single C out two weeks ago when I asked you why you thought this was a bias in the C language; syntax specifically. I was quite clear about what I was asking you and that was why were you singling out C as special. If you'd said, "It's not and I never meant to say it was," way back then this whole long thread would never have happened. You didn't though, you kept arguing with me as I explained why C wasn't any different from any other programming language until now, suddenly...you're trying to take the logical high ground. You didn't say anything remotely like the logical construct above. You just said, "Socrates is mortal." I said, "So is everyone else and I don't think it can be otherwise," and then you argued with me! For two weeks :P I don't think anyone would debate that when working in formal logic you'd be correct. The real point here isn't that you're wrong on that, only that you're full of crap invoking it. This is bait and switch. I do have to say though, watching you seize about rather than do anything quite so extreme as to admit perhaps you misspoke is a little entertaining. How far into la-la land with Socrates, atoms and stars, etc... are you willing to go? Besides, how are you going to rationalize away the fact that you said this was a syntactical bias? Even after I showed the same problem in LISP you stuck to that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web