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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16792 > unrolled thread

Self-taught C

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

Contents

  Self-taught C Sleepy Duke <josh.izzard@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 09:24 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C "Bl0ckeduser ." <bl0ckedusersoft@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 11:54 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-05 04:34 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-04 05:38 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-08 16:42 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-08 11:50 -0500
          Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:07 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 17:25 -0500
        Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:42 -0800
          Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 05:05 -0800
            Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-09 13:31 +0000
              Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 06:39 -0800
              Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 07:53 -0800
                Re: Self-taught C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-09 09:32 -0800
                  Re: Self-taught C Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-09 12:34 -0800
                    Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-09 16:06 -0500
                      Re: Self-taught C Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-09 14:17 -0800
                        Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-09 17:46 -0500
                          Re: Self-taught C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-18 01:08 +0000
                            Re: Self-taught C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-19 18:23 +0100
                    Re: Self-taught C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-09 14:38 -0800
                  Re: Self-taught C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-09 21:52 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-09 16:08 -0600
                Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-09 16:16 -0600
                  Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 00:39 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-10 10:50 -0600
                      Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 22:21 +0000
                Re: Self-taught C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-09 23:45 +0000
                  Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 16:32 -0800
                    Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 11:24 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-21 23:19 +0200
                      Re: Self-taught C Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-22 08:54 +0100
                Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 00:38 +0000
              Re: Self-taught C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 00:07 -0500
              Re: Self-taught C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-10 20:34 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-09 23:36 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-02-09 22:14 -0700
              Re: Self-taught C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 03:49 -0800
          Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:12 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-02-14 14:50 +0000
          Re: Self-taught C 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-02-14 09:49 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-05 04:32 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 04:23 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-02-06 22:34 -0700
          Re: Self-taught C Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-07 10:26 +0100
            Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-07 02:18 -0800
              Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-07 22:28 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-02-08 04:05 +0000
      Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-08 10:31 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:51 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-09 21:26 -0500
    Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-07 07:53 -0500
    Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 14:29 +0000
      Re: Self-taught C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-02-07 09:26 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 17:45 +0000
          Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 18:07 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:56 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:53 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#16792 — Self-taught C

What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves how to code proficiently in C?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16793

On Feb 3, 12:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves how to code proficiently in C?

I'm a teenager who writes in C as a hobby. Obviously my advice
won't be worth much, but here it is:

K&R was more in-depth than the web tutorial I first read.
I also learnt a few things from reading the old Unix sources
(http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl). I'm pretty sure writing
a lot of code helps.

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

#16800

On Feb 3, 7:54 pm, "Bl0ckeduser ." <bl0ckedusers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > What are the best methods you all have found for teaching
> > yourselves how to code proficiently in C?
>
> I'm a teenager who writes in C as a hobby. Obviously my advice
> won't be worth much, but here it is:

if you are a competent C programmer then your advice may well be
useful. It probably helps that you learned C recently so you have a
better memory of the process

> K&R was more in-depth than the web tutorial I first read.

yes. Most web tutorials are, sadly, crap. K&R is great, though some
find it a bit heavy going. They don't waste words.

> I also learnt a few things from reading the old Unix sources
> (http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl).


> I'm pretty sure writing
> a lot of code helps.

absolutely. Learn by doing.

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

#16796

On Feb 3, 5:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves how to code proficiently in C?
>
Basically do it.

If you're sitting in a bedroom on your own, the most likely thing
you'll want to code is a game. So get graphics working as fast as you
can. It's harder now than it was to get a simple character-based
raster that can be used for moving space invaders round the screen.
But that's usually the best place to start.

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

#16928

On Sat, 2012-02-04, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves how to code proficiently in C?
>>
> Basically do it.
>
> If you're sitting in a bedroom on your own, the most likely thing
> you'll want to code is a game. So get graphics working as fast as you
> can. It's harder now than it was to get a simple character-based
> raster that can be used for moving space invaders round the screen.

It's still easy on Unix, where you have the curses library.

{{Unix bigot mode|
Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#16929

On 02/08/2012 11:42 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
...
> {{Unix bigot mode|
> Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
> have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
> imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}

If you haven't tried doing it on Windows yet, what is it you're
comparing Unix against when you say it's "easier"? I know there's things
other than Unix and Windows, but the significance of your statement
would be easier to evaluate if we knew what you were comparing Unix with.

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

#17252

On Wed, 2012-02-08, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 11:42 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> ...
>> {{Unix bigot mode|
>> Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
>> have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
>> imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}
>
> If you haven't tried doing it on Windows yet, what is it you're
> comparing Unix against when you say it's "easier"? I know there's things
> other than Unix and Windows, but the significance of your statement
> would be easier to evaluate if we knew what you were comparing Unix with.

With Windows, like I wrote. I base that on what I see as a Windows
user: none of the tools I use there are ones I could easily write
myself. On Unix, several of them are.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#17256

On 02/13/2012 05:07 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-08, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 02/08/2012 11:42 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> ...
>>> {{Unix bigot mode|
>>> Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
>>> have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
>>> imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}
>>
>> If you haven't tried doing it on Windows yet, what is it you're
>> comparing Unix against when you say it's "easier"? I know there's things
>> other than Unix and Windows, but the significance of your statement
>> would be easier to evaluate if we knew what you were comparing Unix with.
> 
> With Windows, like I wrote. I base that on what I see as a Windows
> user: none of the tools I use there are ones I could easily write
> myself. On Unix, several of them are.

I'll agree with your observation, and your conclusion might be correct,
but your argument connecting the two doesn't hold up. The lack of
Windows programs with small, simple interfaces might not be because it's
hard to create such programs. To mention one alternative possibility
(which is inconsistent with my own prior experience with Windows - but
that's 20 years out of date), it might be so easy to create such
programs that as soon as developers get them working, they almost
immediately decide to add more features, so they're no longer small and
simple. Without actual recent experience with Windows development,
neither of us is qualified to speculate on how the developer's design
decisions might be shaped by the features of the Windows API.

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

#16965

On Feb 8, 4:42 pm, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-02-04, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 5:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves > >> how to code proficiently in C?

[...]

> > [...] get graphics working as fast as you
> > can. It's harder now than it was to get a simple character-based
> > raster that can be used for moving space invaders round the screen.
>
> It's still easy on Unix, where you have the curses library.
>
> {{Unix bigot mode|
> Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
> have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
> imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}

simple filters that work in Unix work fine in windows. You may even be
able to run the same code.

Nowadays simple GUI/graphics stuff is probably about evens. But when
it was X-Window verses Win32 I humbly submit Windows was streets
ahead!

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

#16981

On Feb 9, 8:42 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Nowadays simple GUI/graphics stuff is probably about evens. But when
> it was X-Window verses Win32 I humbly submit Windows was streets
> ahead!
>
X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
remote. But that consideration dominates the interface.
Then it's stupidly hard to get up a wondow because you've got to mess
about with defining colormaps.

I did try to solve these problems with BabyX, which was going to be a
simple interface to X. But I never finished it, and there were some
difficulties. It worked on one system, but not when I tried it on
another.


--
MiniBasic - how to write a script interpreter
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

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

#16982

Malcolm McLean wrote:

> X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
> which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
> sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
> that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
> remote. 

If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients 
in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in 
mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.

Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving 
streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a 
graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the 
world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level, 
it's essentially the same thing.

But on the same abstraction level there is the Wayland display server 
protocol, and it appears their developers haven't moved away from the same 
type of design adopted for X.


> But that consideration dominates the interface.
> Then it's stupidly hard to get up a wondow because you've got to mess
> about with defining colormaps.

Maybe a better way to put it is that, since then, things got to be a whole 
lot simpler.  The technical limitations at the time didn't made it possible 
to get away with some tricks that are employed today.  After all, a 
considerable number of GUI toolkits which are widely used today basically 
provide an abstraction layer over X, and they work quite well.



Rui Maciel

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

#16984

On Feb 9, 1:31 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
> > which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
> > sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
> > that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
> > remote.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>
> Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving
> streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a
> graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the
> world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level,
> it's essentially the same thing.
>
> But on the same abstraction level there is the Wayland display server
> protocol, and it appears their developers haven't moved away from the same
> type of design adopted for X.
>
> > But that consideration dominates the interface.
> > Then it's stupidly hard to get up a wondow because you've got to mess
> > about with defining colormaps.
>
> Maybe a better way to put it is that, since then, things got to be a whole
> lot simpler.  The technical limitations at the time didn't made it possible
> to get away with some tricks that are employed today.  After all, a
> considerable number of GUI toolkits which are widely used today basically
> provide an abstraction layer over X, and they work quite well.

that's why I said they were about evens. You program in some
abstraction and tweak it for particular implementations. probably not
good enough for serious games but for a learner ok.

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

#16985

On Feb 9, 1:31 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
> > which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
> > sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
> > that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
> > remote.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>
> Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving
> streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a
> graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the
> world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level,
> it's essentially the same thing.
>
The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
"please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
type in the next character.
With the web interface the server says "put up an edit box". The
client then allows the user to enter text. It then tells the server
"the user has finished putting text into the boxes you told me to put
up, and here's what he wrote".
--
Visit my webiste. Lots of C programming material
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

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

#16986

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
> type in the next character.

I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
It's a great way to waste your own time.
-- 
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

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

#16995

blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:

> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
>> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
>> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
>> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
>> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
>> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
>> type in the next character.
>
> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
> It's a great way to waste your own time.

Not everyone can touch-type.

-- Patrick

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

#16997

On 02/09/2012 03:34 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
> 
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
>>> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
>>> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
>>> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
>>> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
>>> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
>>> type in the next character.
>>
>> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
>> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
>> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
>> It's a great way to waste your own time.
> 
> Not everyone can touch-type.

If you can't touch-type, writing code must be a real pain. Writing
documentation must be even worse. You have my sympathies!

However, it seems to me that you can still write "xerxes" using
hunt-and-peck without having to wait for the first 'x' to display. The
only difference I see is that with hunt-and-peck you're more likely to
still be hunting for the 'e' when the 'x' finally shows up. I've often
touch-typed an entire paragraph while waiting for the first character of
that paragraph to display on screen.

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

#17006

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 02/09/2012 03:34 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
>> 
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
>>>> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
>>>> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
>>>> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
>>>> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
>>>> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
>>>> type in the next character.
>>>
>>> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
>>> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
>>> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
>>> It's a great way to waste your own time.
>> 
>> Not everyone can touch-type.
>
> If you can't touch-type, writing code must be a real pain. Writing
> documentation must be even worse. You have my sympathies!

Your sympathies are misplaced.  I touch-type.  But people who aren't
sure if they typed correctly understandably wait for the echo.

-- Patrick

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

#17009

On 02/09/2012 05:17 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> 
>> On 02/09/2012 03:34 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
...
>>>> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
>>>> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
>>>> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
>>>> It's a great way to waste your own time.
>>>
>>> Not everyone can touch-type.
>>
>> If you can't touch-type, writing code must be a real pain. Writing
>> documentation must be even worse. You have my sympathies!
> 
> Your sympathies are misplaced.  I touch-type.  But people who aren't
> sure if they typed correctly understandably wait for the echo.

Sure, but hunt-and-peck typists have just hunted for the character, they
shouldn't be uncertain about whether they hit the right one. Such
uncertainty is more common among inexperienced touch typists, who can't
see what they're doing, than it is with either expert touch typists or
hunt-and-peck typists.

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

#17550

"James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4F344CBA.9030001@verizon.net...
> On 02/09/2012 05:17 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 02/09/2012 03:34 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>>> blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
> ...
>>>>> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
>>>>> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
>>>>> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
>>>>> It's a great way to waste your own time.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone can touch-type.
>>>
>>> If you can't touch-type, writing code must be a real pain. Writing
>>> documentation must be even worse. You have my sympathies!
>>
>> Your sympathies are misplaced.  I touch-type.  But people who aren't
>> sure if they typed correctly understandably wait for the echo.
>
> Sure, but hunt-and-peck typists have just hunted for the character, they
> shouldn't be uncertain about whether they hit the right one. Such

I usually type with two fingers but without having to look at the keyboard
too often. But this way I sometimes don't hit a key squarely (because my
fingers have to travel across many keys) and have to look at the screen to
see what's come out. (That also explains why I find typing C source code a
challenge!)

Thirty years ago with the 8-bit microprocessor systems I was building, I was
getting instant echoing to the screen, in text *or* graphic modes.

With machines now ten thousand times faster, a million times more memory,
and up to a hundred thousand times faster networking than the rs232 I was
using, you're saying you can sometimes type a whole paragraph before the
first character is echoed?

In that case, what's gone wrong?

[Repost of something that seems to have vanished.]

-- 
Bartc 

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

#17612

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jhmtpq$5js$1@dont-email.me...
> I usually type with two fingers but without having to look at the keyboard

i try to use all the fingers, i put the 2 indeces where are the _ in the
f key and in the j key and try to write
now afther some year,
what i think, i write, without think on what fingers do
with some error sometime...

> too often. But this way I sometimes don't hit a key squarely (because my
> fingers have to travel across many keys) and have to look at the screen to
> see what's come out. (That also explains why I find typing C source code a
> challenge!)

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web