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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #95831 > unrolled thread

[OT] What can we talk about here?

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

Contents

  [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 22:09 +0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-05 14:14 -0400
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:04 +0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:15 +0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-11-06 19:31 +0100
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 14:07 -0500
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-11-06 20:17 +0100
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 11:56 -0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 15:01 -0500
              Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 20:32 +0000
              Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? (Was: [OT] What can we talk about here?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-07 16:08 +0000
                Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 19:31 +0000
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-07 21:17 +0000
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 19:13 -0500
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:17 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:31 +0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:00 -0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:06 -0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:08 +0800
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:22 -0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:31 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:37 -0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:53 -0800
              Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:06 +0800
                Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:12 -0800
                  Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:19 +0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:22 -0800
                      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:24 +0800
                        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:26 +0800
                          Inheritance and single point of failure "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:28 +0800
                  Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:20 -0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:22 +0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:29 -0800
                      [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:36 +0800
                        Re: [OT] fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:46 -0800
                          Re: [OT] fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:49 -0800
                            Re: [OT] Time to sleep! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:51 +0800
                              Re: [OT] Time to sleep! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:52 +0800
                      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:58 -0800
                        Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 01:37 +0800
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 14:25 +0000
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:33 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:35 +0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:16 -0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 20:02 +0000
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-13 09:57 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#95928

On 6/11/2016 10:22 PM, fir wrote:
>
> some c coders know js but some not (maybe most not, i know it slightly) thats why discussing it could bring value (some people would learn something new, some could have occasion to make some additional observations) - but this group like to discuss thing already knows for 10 years and carefull avoid case to learn somenting new [that is part of some problem of this group i alredy wrote on this]

There are brains we just cannot understand. :)

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

#95931

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:22:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:08:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> > On 6/11/2016 10:06 PM, fir wrote:
> > >
> > > i could practically like to discuss javascript here
> > > (im serious - this is becouse i qould find interesting to discuss javascript on a ground of c-like way of viewing things ) but it will not go from the reason i talked befrore - just not enough people able of interested
> > 
> > Javascript syntax does look like C. I think even Java looks like C.
> 
> some c coders know js but some not (maybe most not, i know it slightly) thats why discussing it could bring value (some people would learn something new, some could have occasion to make some additional observations) - but this group like to discuss thing already knows for 10 years and carefull avoid case to learn somenting new [that is part of some problem of this group i alredy wrote on this]

some example, doday morning i was talking with some of my familiar people who are rather totally koding kids (absolutely basic coders) and learning
python, (i dont know python at all) with a few minutes we made some 
code

class Somebody:

    def __init__(self, name):
      self.health = 100
      self.name = name

    def kick(self, x):
        self.health = self.health - x
        if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))

################# 

enemy = Somebody("jim")

x = input("write the strenght of your kick (number from 0 to 100): ")

enemy.kick(x)

while enemy.health > 0: 
    x = input(enemy.name + " is still alive, try another kick - write strenght: ")
    enemy.kick(x);

print("he s dead");

half mady by them half by me - you will lern there with few hours a 100 times more than here by reading balablings thet are so popular here  - this is said condition about this group

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

#95933

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:37:34 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:22:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> > W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:08:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> > > On 6/11/2016 10:06 PM, fir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i could practically like to discuss javascript here
> > > > (im serious - this is becouse i qould find interesting to discuss javascript on a ground of c-like way of viewing things ) but it will not go from the reason i talked befrore - just not enough people able of interested
> > > 
> > > Javascript syntax does look like C. I think even Java looks like C.
> > 
> > some c coders know js but some not (maybe most not, i know it slightly) thats why discussing it could bring value (some people would learn something new, some could have occasion to make some additional observations) - but this group like to discuss thing already knows for 10 years and carefull avoid case to learn somenting new [that is part of some problem of this group i alredy wrote on this]
> 
> some example, doday morning i was talking with some of my familiar people who are rather totally koding kids (absolutely basic coders) and learning
> python, (i dont know python at all) with a few minutes we made some 
> code
> 
> class Somebody:
> 
>     def __init__(self, name):
>       self.health = 100
>       self.name = name
> 
>     def kick(self, x):
>         self.health = self.health - x
>         if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))
> 
> ################# 
> 
> enemy = Somebody("jim")
> 
> x = input("write the strenght of your kick (number from 0 to 100): ")
> 
> enemy.kick(x)
> 
> while enemy.health > 0: 
>     x = input(enemy.name + " is still alive, try another kick - write strenght: ")
>     enemy.kick(x);
> 
> print("he s dead");
> 

so some thougts on python maybe:
1) as to this second part - it looks very c-ish to be honest except
totally hiden types (not even 'var' keyword), this is good/interesting idea
but othervise it looks just totally C (100%)

2) the first part - i cant really balive they couldnt do it better,
mainly talking about those "self" keywords and also those __init__ with just look bad, and is antypythonic as i understand python should be totally 
newbie friendly, it would be probably not much hard to give improved simpler looking syntax



> half mady by them half by me - you will lern there with few hours a 100 times more than here by reading balablings thet are so popular here  - this is said condition about this group

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

#95936

On 6/11/2016 10:53 PM, fir wrote:
>> class Somebody:
>>
>>     def __init__(self, name):
>>       self.health = 100
>>       self.name = name
>>
>>     def kick(self, x):
>>         self.health = self.health - x
>>         if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))

Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)

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

#95937

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:06:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> On 6/11/2016 10:53 PM, fir wrote:
> >> class Somebody:
> >>
> >>     def __init__(self, name):
> >>       self.health = 100
> >>       self.name = name
> >>
> >>     def kick(self, x):
> >>         self.health = self.health - x
> >>         if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))
> 
> Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)

im also not interested in oop shit but this above is not neccesarry op
yu could think this more like structure with namespace - which is yet not as bad

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

#95938

On 6/11/2016 11:12 PM, fir wrote:
>>
>> Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)
>
> im also not interested in oop shit but this above is not neccesarry op
> yu could think this more like structure with namespace - which is yet not as bad

I don't know why C programmers need to *RE-WRITE* everything in new 
syntax. Other than trying to drive them mad or/and out of business... 
again the story of Babylon in the Old Testament.

Rosetta Stone... um... IT MUST BE DESTROYED. EXECUTE ORDER 666. Ha ha 
ha.... :)

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

#95942

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:19:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> On 6/11/2016 11:12 PM, fir wrote:
> >>
> >> Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)
> >
> > im also not interested in oop shit but this above is not neccesarry op
> > yu could think this more like structure with namespace - which is yet not as bad
> 
> I don't know why C programmers need to *RE-WRITE* everything in new 
> syntax. Other than trying to drive them mad or/and out of business... 
> again the story of Babylon in the Old Testament.
> 
> Rosetta Stone... um... IT MUST BE DESTROYED. EXECUTE ORDER 666. Ha ha 
> ha.... :)

i like to se how some ideas fits to c ground - but this is some kind of my personal specialisiation

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

#95943

On 6/11/2016 11:22 PM, fir wrote:
>
> i like to se how some ideas fits to c ground - but this is some kind of my personal specialisiation
>

You need to find out what they are and were trying to achieve first. The 
C++ syntax must be developed to speed up some tasks.

Object-oriented? Or ObjectIVE-oriented? :)

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

#95944

On 6/11/2016 11:24 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> You need to find out what they are and were trying to achieve first. The
> C++ syntax must be developed to speed up some tasks.

Inheritance is definitely amazing when you wanna made some catastrophic 
changes, sorry, damages, to a system. :)

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

#95945 — Inheritance and single point of failure

On 6/11/2016 11:26 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 11:24 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> You need to find out what they are and were trying to achieve first. The
>> C++ syntax must be developed to speed up some tasks.
>
> Inheritance is definitely amazing when you wanna made some catastrophic
> changes, sorry, damages, to a system. :)
>

Yes, it's call the self-destruct sequence. :)

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

#95939

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:12:21 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:06:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> > On 6/11/2016 10:53 PM, fir wrote:
> > >> class Somebody:
> > >>
> > >>     def __init__(self, name):
> > >>       self.health = 100
> > >>       self.name = name
> > >>
> > >>     def kick(self, x):
> > >>         self.health = self.health - x
> > >>         if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))
> > 
> > Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)
> 
> im also not interested in oop shit but this above is not neccesarry op
> yu could think this more like structure with namespace - which is yet not as bad

in c syntax as some extension it could look like 

struct Somebody 
{
  int health ;
  char* name ;
  
  void (char* name)
  {
    name = arg name  ;
    health = 100     ;
  }

  void kick()
  {
      health -=  x;
      if(health > 0) printf("%s current life status is %d", name, health))
  }
} 

void main()
{
 Somebody s("jim");
 s.kick(10);
}

this itself is not yet OOp disaster which i hate much but some structure with initialisation function and some kind of namespace

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

#95940

On 6/11/2016 11:20 PM, fir wrote:
> in c syntax as some extension it could look like
> ...
> this itself is not yet OOp disaster which i hate much but some structure with initialisation function and some kind of namespace

Forget about it. Turn off your computer. Have some sleep! And do NOT 
dream of C++. :)

You need a reason to write a program. You don't write a program because 
you want to type some C syntax, very much like what those Islamic and 
Buddhists are doing in their temples. :)

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

#95946

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:20:36 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:12:21 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> > W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:06:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> > > On 6/11/2016 10:53 PM, fir wrote:
> > > >> class Somebody:
> > > >>
> > > >>     def __init__(self, name):
> > > >>       self.health = 100
> > > >>       self.name = name
> > > >>
> > > >>     def kick(self, x):
> > > >>         self.health = self.health - x
> > > >>         if self.health > 0: print ("%s current life status is %s" %(self.name,  self.health))
> > > 
> > > Not interested in C++. I will exit() now. :)
> > 
> > im also not interested in oop shit but this above is not neccesarry op
> > yu could think this more like structure with namespace - which is yet not as bad
> 
> in c syntax as some extension it could look like 
> 
> struct Somebody 
> {
>   int health ;
>   char* name ;
>   
>   void (char* name)
>   {
>     name = arg name  ;
>     health = 100     ;
>   }
> 
>   void kick()
>   {
>       health -=  x;
>       if(health > 0) printf("%s current life status is %d", name, health))
>   }
> } 
> 
> void main()
> {
>  Somebody s("jim");  //1
>  s.kick(10);         //2
> }
> 

this btw has open some ideological questions (quite old one, form the time of c++ beginig or so) but maybe i will talk on this later esp the second line (//2) 

> this itself is not yet OOp disaster which i hate much but some structure with initialisation function and some kind of namespace

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

#95947 — [OT]

Are you entering into your own endless loop?

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

#95948 — Re: [OT]

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:36:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> Are you entering into your own endless loop?

if you have some stetaments to provide put them then 
they can be answered - to be honest im not interested to this extent 
to ask on this - This is how groups work you anwer on things that gets 
your interest - and leave another

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

#95950 — Re: [OT]

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:47:05 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 16:36:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> > Are you entering into your own endless loop?
> 
> if you have some stetaments to provide put them then 
> they can be answered - to be honest im not interested to this extent 
> to ask on this - This is how groups work you anwer on things that gets 
> your interest - and leave another

this way i most often answer to my own points ;c but this is kinda normal 
imo (others ale welcome to answewr to or skip it and move to another topic or state their ovn - as you do state something - i do not answer becouse im not much interested in rosetta stones and things - this you should also understand i think)

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

#95951 — Re: [OT] Time to sleep!

On 6/11/2016 11:49 PM, fir wrote:
> if you have some stetaments to provide put them then
> they can be answered - to be honest im not interested to this extent
> to ask on this - This is how groups work you anwer on things that gets
> your interest - and leave another
>
> this way i most often answer to my own points ;c but this is kinda normal
> imo (others ale welcome to answewr to or skip it and move to another topic or state their ovn - as you do state something - i do not answer becouse im not much interested in rosetta stones and things - this you should also understand i think)

Turn off the computer. Sleep! DO NOT dream! :)

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

#95952 — Re: [OT] Time to sleep!

On 6/11/2016 11:51 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 11:49 PM, fir wrote:
>> if you have some stetaments to provide put them then
>> they can be answered - to be honest im not interested to this extent
>> to ask on this - This is how groups work you anwer on things that gets
>> your interest - and leave another
>>
>> this way i most often answer to my own points ;c but this is kinda normal
>> imo (others ale welcome to answewr to or skip it and move to another
>> topic or state their ovn - as you do state something - i do not answer
>> becouse im not much interested in rosetta stones and things - this you
>> should also understand i think)
>
> Turn off the computer. Sleep! DO NOT dream! :)
>

Turn off ALL mobile and wireless devices as well!

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

#95954

> > 
> > void main()
> > {
> >  Somebody s("jim");  //1
> >  s.kick(10);         //2
> > }
> > 
> 
> this btw has open some ideological questions (quite old one, form the time of c++ beginig or so) but maybe i will talk on this later esp the second line (//2) 
> 
a few words on //1 maybe

structure 'initialisiators' in c seem to be not quite complex 
problem
the problem is you could initialise given structure in a couple 
of ways, probably one would only take a handy and nice syntax to it


void (char* name) 
  { 
    name = arg name  ; 
    health = 100     ; 
  } 

this way as above is simple some problem is that structure 
initialisations works more in static time so im not sure if
they should mimick function call or not (being really mo0stly static)
but this is maybe not 'pivotal' problem, so i maybe mention as 
mentioned that such initialisers imo could be used and are natural (not big deal) imo (probably) but some syntax should be chosen (and should be chosen probably craefully, that is worse;c)

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

#95958 — Re: [OT]

Turn off the computer. Sleep! DO NOT dream!

Turn off ALL mobile and wireless devices as well!

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web