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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #94267 > unrolled thread

the main problem of this group (as i see it)

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

Contents

  the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 14:28 -0700
    the main problem of this group (as i see it) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 17:00 -0700
      Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:16 -0700
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-30 09:45 +0200
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 00:51 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:47 -0700
              Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-30 19:06 +0200
                Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:00 -0700
                Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 22:02 +0100
                Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2016-10-01 10:02 -0700
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 00:50 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:45 -0700
      Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 22:59 +0300
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 01:18 -0700
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 01:37 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:47 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 09:55 -0700
              Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 10:40 -0700
                Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 11:04 -0700
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 03:06 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 03:21 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 05:57 -0700
              Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-01 15:08 -0700
        Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:45 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:59 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-08 12:43 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 13:22 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 14:48 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-10-08 15:37 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 03:01 -0700
              Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 03:24 -0700
                Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 03:41 -0700
            Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-09 11:21 -0400
              Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 09:00 -0700
          Re: the main problem of this group (as i see it) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 16:28 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#94267 — the main problem of this group (as i see it)

this is maybe boring (as i am bored) but i see it as a main (and quite heavy)
problem of this group, so aybe i just state it (some may comment but seeing this group as it is probably people do not find it too much a problem as me (and dwell in this problem probably)

the problem is:
i really not quite belive that various c coders do not want to do something 
(make some program/programs).. to ake some program one need to stop dwelling 
in all this not quite usefull (more like totally useless) things this group is dwellin.. check out the last or random 100 threads or posts here on this group 
this is all roughly totally useles in respect to write some code.. maybe some people do not realize it but being somewhat experienced imo people should really realize it and i dont quite see it - people here dwell in some details or curiosities for years like not noticing thet dwellin in that is being years back from the more useful goal 

the usefull things which should be exact topics and discussion how to create some oryginal programs (in real reasonable time) ale not touched at all  - and this make this group useless (its only chatting on some curiosities, which may be sometimes (rarely) a bit more interesting but still bein a waste of real time leading to good production

(it may be sad and it may be vague or what (im a bit overcofeinated today and feelin sick (as often)) but this is my real trouble and worry about this group),
it would be good imo if people would realize such problem and change, but i got no high hope to this

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#94271

fir wrote:
> the usefull things which should be exact topics and discussion
> how to create some oryginal programs (in real reasonable time)
> ale not touched at all - and this make this group useless

C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers resolved most of
the development issues in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  And they were
discussed ad nauseum in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.  To find examples,
search the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups, find a C
project and study its source code, look at the source code for
the C standard library, etc.

FWIW, the threads in this group generally provide useful
information, not always in merely language mechanics, but
often philosophy or form-of-thinking models.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#94275

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 02:00:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> fir wrote:
> > the usefull things which should be exact topics and discussion
> > how to create some oryginal programs (in real reasonable time)
> > ale not touched at all - and this make this group useless
> 
> C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers resolved most of
> the development issues in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  And they were
> discussed ad nauseum in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.  To find examples,
> search the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups, find a C
> project and study its source code, look at the source code for
> the C standard library, etc.
> 
> FWIW, the threads in this group generally provide useful
> information, not always in merely language mechanics, but
> often philosophy or form-of-thinking models.
> 
you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group provides
nearly total useless information yet in mass amount (being nearly totaly useless except for total newbies)

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

#94277

On 30/09/16 08:16, fir wrote:
> you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group provides 
> nearly total useless information yet in mass amount (being nearly
> totaly useless except for total newbies)
> 

Fir, /nobody/ understands what you said - or pretty much anything of
what you write.  I don't believe you understand it yourself.

You used make occasional technical posts.  They were hard to follow
because you don't care about communicating with people, but they showed
that you were at least interested in programming in C.  But in recent
times, you have written nothing but moans about why you don't like
comp.lang.c.  Why bother?  If you don't like what is discussed here, or
the way it is discussed, simply don't read or post to this group.  You
can be sure that the group will not change to suit /you/.

When you want to discuss C, and you are willing to make an effort to
write in a way that other people can understand, then your posts will be
welcome here.  But your moans will simply be ignored by almost everyone.

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

#94279

On Friday, 30 September 2016 08:45:51 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
> On 30/09/16 08:16, fir wrote:
> > you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group provides 
> > nearly total useless information yet in mass amount (being nearly
> > totaly useless except for total newbies)
> > 
> 
> Fir, /nobody/ understands what you said - or pretty much anything of
> what you write.  I don't believe you understand it yourself.
> 
> You used make occasional technical posts.  They were hard to follow
> because you don't care about communicating with people, but they showed
> that you were at least interested in programming in C.  But in recent
> times, you have written nothing but moans about why you don't like
> comp.lang.c.  Why bother?  If you don't like what is discussed here, or
> the way it is discussed, simply don't read or post to this group.  You
> can be sure that the group will not change to suit /you/.
> 
> When you want to discuss C, and you are willing to make an effort to
> write in a way that other people can understand, then your posts will be
> welcome here.  But your moans will simply be ignored by almost everyone.

<Takes popcorn, sits back and waits for fir's incomprehensible, but
presumably insulting, response>

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

#94307

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 09:51:17 UTC+2 użytkownik mark.b...@gmail.com napisał:
> On Friday, 30 September 2016 08:45:51 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
> > On 30/09/16 08:16, fir wrote:
> > > you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group provides 
> > > nearly total useless information yet in mass amount (being nearly
> > > totaly useless except for total newbies)
> > > 
> > 
> > Fir, /nobody/ understands what you said - or pretty much anything of
> > what you write.  I don't believe you understand it yourself.
> > 
> > You used make occasional technical posts.  They were hard to follow
> > because you don't care about communicating with people, but they showed
> > that you were at least interested in programming in C.  But in recent
> > times, you have written nothing but moans about why you don't like
> > comp.lang.c.  Why bother?  If you don't like what is discussed here, or
> > the way it is discussed, simply don't read or post to this group.  You
> > can be sure that the group will not change to suit /you/.
> > 
> > When you want to discuss C, and you are willing to make an effort to
> > write in a way that other people can understand, then your posts will be
> > welcome here.  But your moans will simply be ignored by almost everyone.
> 
> <Takes popcorn, sits back and waits for fir's incomprehensible, but
> presumably insulting, response>

you may be sure of that, obviously brown gave a banal and mightly stupid aoti ( answer of total idiot (no offence i dont wanna to get laugh on DB this was for me just merithorical to the poor mental quality of its content) )  but who was expecting something other (not me obviously, but im too bored to answer)

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

#94311

On 30/09/16 17:47, fir wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 09:51:17 UTC+2 użytkownik mark.b...@gmail.com napisał:
<snip>
>> <Takes popcorn, sits back and waits for fir's incomprehensible, but
>> presumably insulting, response>

Ask, and it shall be given :-)

>
> you may be sure of that, obviously brown gave a banal and mightly
> stupid aoti ( answer of total idiot (no offence i dont wanna to get
> laugh on DB this was for me just merithorical to the poor mental
> quality of its content) )  but who was expecting something other (not
> me obviously, but im too bored to answer)
>

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

#94328

fir wrote:
> i dont thing you understand, (at least no signs of it)

Okay.  My mistake.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#94333

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 30/09/16 17:47, fir wrote:
>> W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 09:51:17 UTC+2 użytkownik mark.b...@gmail.com napisał:
> <snip>
>>> <Takes popcorn, sits back and waits for fir's incomprehensible, but
>>> presumably insulting, response>
>
> Ask, and it shall be given :-)

And how!

>>
>> you may be sure of that, obviously brown gave a banal and mightly
>> stupid aoti ( answer of total idiot (no offence i dont wanna to get
>> laugh on DB this was for me just merithorical to the poor mental
>> quality of its content) )  but who was expecting something other (not
>> me obviously, but im too bored to answer)
>>

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

#94373

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 6:06:44 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/09/16 17:47, fir wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 09:51:17 UTC+2 użytkownik mark.b...@gmail.com napisał:
> <snip>
> >> <Takes popcorn, sits back and waits for fir's incomprehensible, but
> >> presumably insulting, response>
> 
> Ask, and it shall be given :-)

Amusingly, if you read the group using Google Groups, Fir's responses have a block by them saying "Translate message to English".

> 
> >
> > you may be sure of that, obviously brown gave a banal and mightly
> > stupid aoti ( answer of total idiot (no offence i dont wanna to get
> > laugh on DB this was for me just merithorical to the poor mental
> > quality of its content) )  but who was expecting something other (not
> > me obviously, but im too bored to answer)
> >

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

#94278

fir wrote:
> you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group
> provides nearly total useless information yet in mass amount
> (being nearly totaly useless except for total newbies)

I understood.

My point was: how many times can you rehash the same subjects?
So many of the questions or issues people would have with C
were already discussed multiple times in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and
00s.  Since C is so old, here in the 10s they'd just be repeating much
of what was already said, because it's all been said multiple times.
But still, they often say it.  And there are new things that come up
from time to time.

I also disagree with you.  I think this group provides useful
information.  My favorite discussions are those which involve
philosophical discussion on things C does and why.  Supercat and
Keith Thompson provide varying philosophies, for example, and I
find the ensuing discussions most interesting.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#94306

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 09:50:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> fir wrote:
> > you do not understood what i said, in my opinion this group
> > provides nearly total useless information yet in mass amount
> > (being nearly totaly useless except for total newbies)
> 
> I understood.
> 
> My point was: how many times can you rehash the same subjects?
> So many of the questions or issues people would have with C
> were already discussed multiple times in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and
> 00s.  Since C is so old, here in the 10s they'd just be repeating much
> of what was already said, because it's all been said multiple times.
> But still, they often say it.  And there are new things that come up
> from time to time.
> 
> I also disagree with you.  I think this group provides useful
> information.  My favorite discussions are those which involve
> philosophical discussion on things C does and why.  Supercat and
> Keith Thompson provide varying philosophies, for example, and I
> find the ensuing discussions most interesting.
> 

i dont thing you understand, (at least no signs of it)

talking around and bad but maybe simpler [this is nothing interesting as only repeating what i said in more shallow way as the problem is not showed here in any way deeper] (as you be seen not able to understand more precise thought) - when you think this group is usefull  tell it where it will lead you (or its other users) ? - it will lead you to N O W H E R E (to the 
grave to be more precise) - to obtain something you must  start doin something thet will real lead you somewhere (this group as it is now and probably for years will not lead you there ) - this way i find this group to be harmfull, real real harmfull every hour spended here is harmfull 
[this is my thesis, some my said it is philosophical or humanistic but it is imo just real and quite practical and yet just real (or may be as this is some kind of thesis but quite grounded)]

i dont think it will be some change - but the problem remains 
(this all is part of my personal trouble when i was reading and writing here (besides some small valuable pieces ) i realize i dont get real progress (this group is not useful it is harmfull, this group teaches you not how to be a good programer it teaches you how to be bad) and to do something i must some way change (why this is so bad i wrote in initial post, it dwells in details which are not usefull to code things you cannot dwell in details as it eats tie and gains too little back)

i know it is not interesting but this is just serious problem 
(but who knows maybe some day i will add something to it - doubt it but maybe )

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

#94327

Rick C. Hodgin:

> C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers re-
> solved most of the development issues in the  70s,
> 80s,  and 90s.  And they were discussed ad nauseum
> in the 80s,  90s,  and  00s.   To  find  examples,
> search  the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups,
> find a C project and study its source  code,  look
> at  the  source  code  for the C standard library,
> etc.

I have seen many, and read some, books  on  software
design  and  the philosophy of programming, but they
all were rooted in OOP, e.g.

  1.  Clean code, by Robert C. Martin,
  2.  Object Thinking by David West,
  3.  Refactoring by Martin Fowler,
  4.  Code Complete by Steve McConnell,
  5.  and anytning about "patterns", as if they were
      impossible in produral languages.

Where  are books that answer the same questions from
within the realm of  classical  procedural  program-
ming?

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

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

#94351

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 21:59:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Anton Shepelev napisał:
> Rick C. Hodgin:
> 
> > C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers re-
> > solved most of the development issues in the  70s,
> > 80s,  and 90s.  And they were discussed ad nauseum
> > in the 80s,  90s,  and  00s.   To  find  examples,
> > search  the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups,
> > find a C project and study its source  code,  look
> > at  the  source  code  for the C standard library,
> > etc.
> 
> I have seen many, and read some, books  on  software
> design  and  the philosophy of programming, but they
> all were rooted in OOP, e.g.
> 
>   1.  Clean code, by Robert C. Martin,
>   2.  Object Thinking by David West,
>   3.  Refactoring by Martin Fowler,
>   4.  Code Complete by Steve McConnell,
>   5.  and anytning about "patterns", as if they were
>       impossible in produral languages.
> 
> Where  are books that answer the same questions from
> within the realm of  classical  procedural  program-
> ming?
> 

they are also total useless, if you will dwell into such problems like how to structurize your code it means you dwell in same dead point like you would dwell in a great porblem if to wtite int* a or int *a and such
milions of problems

the obvious solution to all this problems is not to dwell in it, not waste time - i guarantee to you that even if you make all this problem nonexistant (at least as uch a possible) you will still have much more than enough of the other more real problems - and this group great fault is not to even get to those more real problems

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

#94354

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 8:59:43 PM UTC+1, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin:
> 
> > C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers re-
> > solved most of the development issues in the  70s,
> > 80s,  and 90s.  And they were discussed ad nauseum
> > in the 80s,  90s,  and  00s.   To  find  examples,
> > search  the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups,
> > find a C project and study its source  code,  look
> > at  the  source  code  for the C standard library,
> > etc.
> 
> I have seen many, and read some, books  on  software
> design  and  the philosophy of programming, but they
> all were rooted in OOP, e.g.
> 
>   1.  Clean code, by Robert C. Martin,
>   2.  Object Thinking by David West,
>   3.  Refactoring by Martin Fowler,
>   4.  Code Complete by Steve McConnell,
>   5.  and anytning about "patterns", as if they were
>       impossible in produral languages.
> 
> Where  are books that answer the same questions from
> within the realm of  classical  procedural  program-
> ming?
> 
I'm planning such a book as a companion to Basic Algorithms.
But it's been a long time in planning. I have far too many 
things on my to do list at present. 

I think there is a gap in the market. Paradigms like OOP and 
functional programming are all the rage, and imperative,
procedural, structured programming is seen as the rustic
simpleton. But actually many people don't really "get"
structured programming - they've picked up "goto is bad"
and maybe a bit of the jargon, but they don't have a sort of
overview of the principle of how it structures programs.
And structured programming is effective.

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

#94368

W dniu sobota, 1 października 2016 10:37:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 8:59:43 PM UTC+1, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > Rick C. Hodgin:
> > 
> > > C is not a new language.  Brilliant developers re-
> > > solved most of the development issues in the  70s,
> > > 80s,  and 90s.  And they were discussed ad nauseum
> > > in the 80s,  90s,  and  00s.   To  find  examples,
> > > search  the comp.lang.c archives on Google Groups,
> > > find a C project and study its source  code,  look
> > > at  the  source  code  for the C standard library,
> > > etc.
> > 
> > I have seen many, and read some, books  on  software
> > design  and  the philosophy of programming, but they
> > all were rooted in OOP, e.g.
> > 
> >   1.  Clean code, by Robert C. Martin,
> >   2.  Object Thinking by David West,
> >   3.  Refactoring by Martin Fowler,
> >   4.  Code Complete by Steve McConnell,
> >   5.  and anytning about "patterns", as if they were
> >       impossible in produral languages.
> > 
> > Where  are books that answer the same questions from
> > within the realm of  classical  procedural  program-
> > ming?
> > 
> I'm planning such a book as a companion to Basic Algorithms.
> But it's been a long time in planning. I have far too many 
> things on my to do list at present. 
> 
> I think there is a gap in the market. Paradigms like OOP and 
> functional programming are all the rage, and imperative,
> procedural, structured programming is seen as the rustic
> simpleton. But actually many people don't really "get"
> structured programming - they've picked up "goto is bad"
> and maybe a bit of the jargon, but they don't have a sort of
> overview of the principle of how it structures programs.
> And structured programming is effective.

wander what that knowledge could be, as for example my main 
concern is how to divide content on files and modules - the rest seem to be flat and strightforward

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

#94372

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:47:50 PM UTC+1, fir wrote:
>
> > I'm planning such a book as a companion to Basic Algorithms.
> > But it's been a long time in planning. I have far too many 
> > things on my to do list at present. 
> > 
> > I think there is a gap in the market. Paradigms like OOP and 
> > functional programming are all the rage, and imperative,
> > procedural, structured programming is seen as the rustic
> > simpleton. But actually many people don't really "get"
> > structured programming - they've picked up "goto is bad"
> > and maybe a bit of the jargon, but they don't have a sort of
> > overview of the principle of how it structures programs.
> > And structured programming is effective.
> 
> wander what that knowledge could be, as for example my main 
> concern is how to divide content on files and modules - the rest
> seem to be flat and strightforward
>
Is there actually enough to say? In a sense, that's a sign of the 
strength of imperative programming. People shouldn't be experts
in it and go on webinars and even take university modules in it.
The complexity should be in the algorithms themselves, not the 
language used to define them to the computer.

But I think there is. We need a major push for C and against all the
various flavours, enhancements and fads.

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

#94376

W dniu sobota, 1 października 2016 18:55:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:47:50 PM UTC+1, fir wrote:
> >
> > > I'm planning such a book as a companion to Basic Algorithms.
> > > But it's been a long time in planning. I have far too many 
> > > things on my to do list at present. 
> > > 
> > > I think there is a gap in the market. Paradigms like OOP and 
> > > functional programming are all the rage, and imperative,
> > > procedural, structured programming is seen as the rustic
> > > simpleton. But actually many people don't really "get"
> > > structured programming - they've picked up "goto is bad"
> > > and maybe a bit of the jargon, but they don't have a sort of
> > > overview of the principle of how it structures programs.
> > > And structured programming is effective.
> > 
> > wander what that knowledge could be, as for example my main 
> > concern is how to divide content on files and modules - the rest
> > seem to be flat and strightforward
> >
> Is there actually enough to say? In a sense, that's a sign of the 
> strength of imperative programming. People shouldn't be experts
> in it and go on webinars and even take university modules in it.
> The complexity should be in the algorithms themselves, not the 
> language used to define them to the computer.
> 
> But I think there is. We need a major push for C and against all the
> various flavours, enhancements and fads.

well i dont know if this is all - just for my own present knowledge this 
is all 1.(those mentioned divisions on files and modules are btw not totally clear yet worse this is more like psychological topic not strictly technical and thats real scary imo)
2. c-procedural  structurisation may evolve into agent based model (which is imo good way yet practically obtainable though people do not use it - i mentioned my experiments with that like 3/4 of the year ago
where i made 

environment.exe, agent_brown.dll, agent_smith.dll, agent_jones.dll

where environment exle links to agents and calls its internal run() routines where all sides comunicates thru small api - this is probably the future of code structurisation (but recent times i was to wearyu of programming at all, thuis winter maybe i will build up some more tests)

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

#94377

W dniu sobota, 1 października 2016 19:40:50 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu sobota, 1 października 2016 18:55:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:47:50 PM UTC+1, fir wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm planning such a book as a companion to Basic Algorithms.
> > > > But it's been a long time in planning. I have far too many 
> > > > things on my to do list at present. 
> > > > 
> > > > I think there is a gap in the market. Paradigms like OOP and 
> > > > functional programming are all the rage, and imperative,
> > > > procedural, structured programming is seen as the rustic
> > > > simpleton. But actually many people don't really "get"
> > > > structured programming - they've picked up "goto is bad"
> > > > and maybe a bit of the jargon, but they don't have a sort of
> > > > overview of the principle of how it structures programs.
> > > > And structured programming is effective.
> > > 
> > > wander what that knowledge could be, as for example my main 
> > > concern is how to divide content on files and modules - the rest
> > > seem to be flat and strightforward
> > >
> > Is there actually enough to say? In a sense, that's a sign of the 
> > strength of imperative programming. People shouldn't be experts
> > in it and go on webinars and even take university modules in it.
> > The complexity should be in the algorithms themselves, not the 
> > language used to define them to the computer.
> > 
> > But I think there is. We need a major push for C and against all the
> > various flavours, enhancements and fads.
> 
> well i dont know if this is all - just for my own present knowledge this 
> is all 1.(those mentioned divisions on files and modules are btw not totally clear yet worse this is more like psychological topic not strictly technical and thats real scary imo)
> 2. c-procedural  structurisation may evolve into agent based model (which is imo good way yet practically obtainable though people do not use it - i mentioned my experiments with that like 3/4 of the year ago
> where i made 
> 
> environment.exe, agent_brown.dll, agent_smith.dll, agent_jones.dll
> 
> where environment exle links to agents and calls its internal run() routines where all sides comunicates thru small api - this is probably the future of code structurisation (but recent times i was to wearyu of programming at all, thuis winter maybe i will build up some more tests)

btw i mentioned it here there, but may repeat (as it was long time ago an is some observation): windows dll way works but is burdensome  - it may not need terribly big effort to link and code those linking interfacings but in coding work even such reletively sal burdens are 
unpleasant and burdensoe - c burdenless way of noral static linking seem to be better (though also bad as you need provide headers/declarations) this way the conclusion is dynamic linking should be mada a part of c (or C 2.0 im working on) standard and it should be simplificated to minium, like

//file environment.c

void main()
{
  agent_brown_run();
}

// file agent_brown.c

void agent_brown_run()
{

}

c:\> compile environment.c environment.exe
c:\> compile agent_brown.c agent_brown.dll

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

#94359

Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Where are books that answer the same questions from
> within the realm of classical procedural program-ming?

In the 1990s, I used to spend a lot of time in bookstores.  I liked
Star Trek books, and programming books (mostly related to
low-level programming).  I have difficulty reading, so the books
I would get had a particular writing style with extra spacing, etc.
I have a library of about a hundred books related to low-level
computer programming from that era, and into the 00s.  I don't
think I have a single book on basic procedural programming
philosophy.

I have a few books on C, and they discuss basics.  Also Pascal.
I'll make it a point to visit my local Barnes & Noble mega-bookstore
and see what they have to offer.

I did a search on Amazon just now for "procedural programming
in c" and this book came up:

    Programming in Methodology:
    4th Informatik Symposium,
    IBM Germany Wildbad, September 25-27, 1974
    (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)
    (English and German Edition)

It occurred to me that most programming books before the 1990s
will probably be on procedural programming, but they would've
just called it "programming" because there was no need for a
qualifier as OOP was still fledgling.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web