Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #129666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-24 13:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-04-27 00:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 131 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 13:39 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-24 16:38 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:40 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-24 08:38 -0700
[Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 18:06 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-25 07:33 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 07:49 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-25 21:28 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-28 14:26 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 20:25 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-29 15:12 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-29 16:49 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-30 15:30 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 17:06 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:12 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-02 15:19 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:54 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:45 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-05-05 14:22 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 08:42 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:37 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:19 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 11:31 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:53 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 09:24 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-25 18:10 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 10:48 -0700
Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-25 19:23 +0000
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:55 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 16:03 -0700
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 18:02 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 17:14 -0700
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:31 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-26 03:27 +0000
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-26 11:06 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-04-25 18:41 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 07:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:26 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-25 21:50 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 01:47 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 02:18 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-26 11:18 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-26 11:33 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 05:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 00:09 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 10:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 00:02 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 02:35 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 11:34 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-04-27 04:14 -0700
STDIO.H vs stdio.h (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-27 13:08 +0000
Re: STDIO.H vs stdio.h (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2018-04-27 18:52 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 07:08 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 10:36 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-27 19:04 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 11:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-27 18:45 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 03:43 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-30 09:10 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 23:32 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 07:33 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2018-04-26 08:38 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-04-27 03:30 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-27 08:41 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-27 17:04 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 11:06 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 13:47 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-27 22:06 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 14:51 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-28 00:25 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-28 01:39 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 19:22 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:36 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 11:21 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 04:03 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:03 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:19 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 11:00 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-05 18:39 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 16:23 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 12:11 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 12:21 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 13:31 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 17:19 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 21:55 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-21 03:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-06-14 03:00 -0700
Mixing declarations and statements in C code (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-12-26 06:43 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-12-26 19:02 +0300
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-12-31 18:01 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-12-31 17:16 -0500
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-12-31 22:44 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2019-01-01 19:14 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 13:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-01 12:49 -0800
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 15:55 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-01 16:05 -0800
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 22:17 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-01 20:25 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 11:48 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> - 2018-04-24 16:40 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:01 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-24 15:50 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:21 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:20 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:42 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 18:26 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-25 19:19 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-25 21:30 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-27 08:49 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 09:27 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-04-26 13:22 +0200
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-27 08:16 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-27 09:36 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:41 +0200
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:27 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-24 11:09 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-04-25 18:59 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 10:42 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 00:23 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpducru.1ub.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
Hope this isn't too far off the mark for this group -- long story short, I'm trying to get back into C programming after not having touched it in nearly a decade (since university -- and barely passing, as I recall). Most of what I'm getting from Google is some variant of "use C++" (blogs, random "articles" that're probably trying to sell something, etc.). I did come across the clc-wiki.net "C Tutorial" the other night as a potential source to get my wits about me. The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some suggestions? -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 16:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87in8gobru.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #129666 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > ... I did come across the clc-wiki.net "C Tutorial" the other night > as a potential source to get my wits about me. > > The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement > for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C > book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some > suggestions? I found the original to be the best: C Programming Language, 2nd edition Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie Prentice Hall, 1988 Even the second edition (which you must get since the 1st is little more than a collector's item these days) is rather out of date. There have been two major revisions of the language standard since the original "ANSI" standard but the book has not been updated. There are others, but I would definitely await suggestions since writing a bad book on C appears to be no obstacle to sales and success. Finally, you may get better answers if you say more about what your previous education and experience. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbnq1l$1qgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #129668 |
On 24/04/2018 16:38, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I found the original to be the best: > > C Programming Language, 2nd edition > Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie > Prentice Hall, 1988 > > The OP said "since university -- and barely passing, as I recall". Therefore he must have used that book so what made you think that he can manage it now? He has to move on and find something modern that teaches him how to do things from page one rather than reading theory and not making any progress. The reason he didn't succeed at University is because he was struggling with algorithms and linked lists and all that non sense when the university should be teaching students how to do things and start making money and learn the advanced stuff after they know how to succeed in life like Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and other billionaires did. they didn't spend time learning Linked lists and Algorithms at University. They learned all these things after they started making money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnzi1s1unz.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #129666 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > Hope this isn't too far off the mark for this group -- long story short, > I'm trying to get back into C programming after not having touched it in > nearly a decade (since university -- and barely passing, as I recall). > > Most of what I'm getting from Google is some variant of "use C++" > (blogs, random "articles" that're probably trying to sell something, > etc.). I did come across the clc-wiki.net "C Tutorial" the other night > as a potential source to get my wits about me. > > The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement > for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C > book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some > suggestions? How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? If you don't have a copy of "The C Programming Language", by Kernighan and Ritchie, get one. As you done some C programming before, read that - either as a refresher or for the first time, it's an excellent resource. At the very least it will bring up specific topics or questions for you to ask about. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpdushh.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #129669 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: >> [...] >> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement >> for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C >> book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some >> suggestions? > > How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What > experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a > specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, > or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the prevailing concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and it's still in that stash of programming books I kept). I think all the questions back to me reflect Tim's above, and he had the most - so just sending this one follow-up. C experience - not too much. Two semesters in university, plus breaks, *maybe* a bit of highschool (although I think that was BASIC), and general trying to learn it myself around that time. In case editing cropped it out the first time around - uni ended a decade ago. Other experience - day job is mostly perl, with a smattering of bash. Although, I would hardly say I'm an expert in either. The prevailing need for them is "quick and dirty", and generally one-time / limited use to deal with the problem of the day. I'm also somewhat familiar with Java, although I haven't touched it in 5+ years. Never really got into any of the newer languages (go, rust, etc.). Specifics, I suppose, stem from seeing the fun projects people do with Arduinos (I got one last Christmas) -- but knowing just enough of programming in general to realize that the majority of "do $thing with an Arduino!!" tutorials are going to result in picking up dubious programming habits. Thanks again! -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 07:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <kfnvacfmk3n.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #129678 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: >> >>> [...] >>> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a >>> replacement for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any >>> examples of "a good C book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone >>> be able to make some suggestions? >> >> How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What >> experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a >> specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, >> or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? > > Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the > prevailing concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and > it's still in that stash of programming books I kept). [...] After reading your followup comments it occurred to me there is some other advice that might be valuable. What people call "programming" actually covers a bunch of different skill areas - to be sure, related and overlapping areas to some degree, but still different. Let me mention four, with brief explanations following: language, techniques, application, program design. By application I mean the particular domain where the program will be operating. For example programming a video game is very different from programming a compiler. In some domains a lot of application-specific knowledge will be needed; in others comparatively less. If you know what domain of application you are interested in it might be good to look at that at the same time as getting back into learning the language. By techniques I mean common conceptual elements that occur in essentially all areas of programming. Often these elements are algorithms or data structures, but sometimes just kind of an idea that shows up in different guises (an example of that might be a "trivial reject" test, where a simple calculation will either discard an item quickly or indicate that a more involved test is needed). These things pop up in every programming language, but how they are expressed depends a lot on which language is used. You might be familiar with a particular technique or you might not be. Even if you are though there is still the matter of how to express it in a particular language. An example is dealing with error conditions. Some languages have an "exception handling" mechanism as part of the language, and often programs will use that to deal with error conditions. C doesn't have that. There is a more rudimentary mechanism (see "setjmp") available, but it takes more discipline to use, so C programs commonly deal with errors by passing extra information back along the call chain so it can be either dealt with by the direct caller or passed along again. As a rule it helps to distinguish a technique in a language-independent form and how it is realized in a particular language. I think this is especially true in C, because C is a more "primitive" language than more recent languages such as Java. By language of course I mean the particular language in question. Every language has its own rules, whys and wherefores, and it's important to understand the key mechanisms the language provides, not just in a general way but more specifically and concretely. Two examples relevant to C: arrays and abstract data types. How arrays are handled in C is much closer to how they are dealt with at the machine level. If you are familiar with machine-level or assembly-level programming, great, I expect you won't have too much trouble with arrays in C; if you aren't though they may seem a bit mysterious. For abstract data types, C doesn't provide these directly the way using a class in Java does. But you can do something similar by declaring a struct type in a header but without giving a definition, and define functions to operate on "those things" that take a /pointer/ to the struct type rather than the struct type itself. All operations on the struct proper are localized in the source file corresponding to the header file, giving much the same effect as an abstract data type. One other thing worth mentioning: unlike many more contemporary languages, C is an unforgiving language. If you do something wrong, your C program will most likely misbehave rather than do something useful like printing a message that says "array index out of bounds". An important aspect of this "misbehaving" is that /it won't necessarily be obvious that any misbehavor has occurred/. Programming in C is like fighting in the UFC but without referees. Depending on your other background, that may take a lot of getting used to. The last area mentioned is program design. It often happens that people learn a programming language, or languages, but don't learn how to think about programming. The process of writing programs - sketching an overall view, devising organizational structure, composing individual functions or small groups of functions - is learned by osmosis, or treated as an afterthought, or sometimes not at all. While you are learning, or re-learning, the C language, try to keep this broader skill area in the forefront of your thoughts. One way you might do this when you are working on small programming exercises is to try solving the problem in several different ways. Examples: loops might be done with while() or for() or goto; a function might use iteration or recursion; processing an array might use indexing or pointer arithmetic. By exploring different design choices you will gain an appreciation not only for what different choices offer but also how to think about the activity of programming as opposed to just learning the language. So those are some miscellaneous related thoughts. I hope they were useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 07:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <b2ab3f7a-8c55-44c8-8a04-930b4718efa0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129715 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:33:45 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > > > Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > >> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > >> > >>> [...] > >>> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a > >>> replacement for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any > >>> examples of "a good C book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone > >>> be able to make some suggestions? > >> > >> How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What > >> experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a > >> specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, > >> or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? > > > > Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the > > prevailing concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and > > it's still in that stash of programming books I kept). [...] > > After reading your followup comments it occurred to me there is > some other advice that might be valuable. > > What people call "programming" actually covers a bunch of > different skill areas - to be sure, related and overlapping areas > to some degree, but still different. Let me mention four, with > brief explanations following: language, techniques, application, > program design. > > By application I mean the particular domain where the program > will be operating. For example programming a video game is > very different from programming a compiler. In some domains a > lot of application-specific knowledge will be needed; in others > comparatively less. If you know what domain of application > you are interested in it might be good to look at that at the > same time as getting back into learning the language. > > By techniques I mean common conceptual elements that occur in > essentially all areas of programming. Often these elements are > algorithms or data structures, but sometimes just kind of an idea > that shows up in different guises (an example of that might be a > "trivial reject" test, where a simple calculation will either > discard an item quickly or indicate that a more involved test is > needed). These things pop up in every programming language, but > how they are expressed depends a lot on which language is used. > You might be familiar with a particular technique or you might > not be. Even if you are though there is still the matter of how > to express it in a particular language. An example is dealing > with error conditions. Some languages have an "exception > handling" mechanism as part of the language, and often programs > will use that to deal with error conditions. C doesn't have > that. There is a more rudimentary mechanism (see "setjmp") > available, but it takes more discipline to use, so C programs > commonly deal with errors by passing extra information back along > the call chain so it can be either dealt with by the direct > caller or passed along again. As a rule it helps to distinguish > a technique in a language-independent form and how it is realized > in a particular language. I think this is especially true in C, > because C is a more "primitive" language than more recent > languages such as Java. > > By language of course I mean the particular language in question. > Every language has its own rules, whys and wherefores, and it's > important to understand the key mechanisms the language provides, > not just in a general way but more specifically and concretely. > Two examples relevant to C: arrays and abstract data types. How > arrays are handled in C is much closer to how they are dealt with > at the machine level. If you are familiar with machine-level or > assembly-level programming, great, I expect you won't have too > much trouble with arrays in C; if you aren't though they may > seem a bit mysterious. For abstract data types, C doesn't > provide these directly the way using a class in Java does. But > you can do something similar by declaring a struct type in a > header but without giving a definition, and define functions to > operate on "those things" that take a /pointer/ to the struct > type rather than the struct type itself. All operations on > the struct proper are localized in the source file corresponding > to the header file, giving much the same effect as an abstract > data type. > > One other thing worth mentioning: unlike many more contemporary > languages, C is an unforgiving language. If you do something > wrong, your C program will most likely misbehave rather than do > something useful like printing a message that says "array index > out of bounds". An important aspect of this "misbehaving" is > that /it won't necessarily be obvious that any misbehavor has > occurred/. Programming in C is like fighting in the UFC but > without referees. Depending on your other background, that may > take a lot of getting used to. > > The last area mentioned is program design. It often happens that > people learn a programming language, or languages, but don't > learn how to think about programming. The process of writing > programs - sketching an overall view, devising organizational > structure, composing individual functions or small groups of > functions - is learned by osmosis, or treated as an afterthought, > or sometimes not at all. While you are learning, or re-learning, > the C language, try to keep this broader skill area in the > forefront of your thoughts. One way you might do this when you > are working on small programming exercises is to try solving > the problem in several different ways. Examples: loops might > be done with while() or for() or goto; a function might use > iteration or recursion; processing an array might use indexing > or pointer arithmetic. By exploring different design choices > you will gain an appreciation not only for what different choices > offer but also how to think about the activity of programming > as opposed to just learning the language. > > So those are some miscellaneous related thoughts. I hope they > were useful. The Doctor is again seen alleging "CANNOT BE FOUND" when it comes to data on Animal abuser Paul F. Riddle's post where it does exist... but The Doctor is just too dopey and/or lost to interpret any info he sees. Can you stop pleading for my attention? The cult-like herd of convenient friends value the lowest common denominator instead of choice. -- This Trick Gets Women Hot For You http://www.5z8.info/dont-just-drizzle_y8q4ut_5waystokillwithamelon https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfkup/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/= https://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpe1sna.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #129715 |
Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a
>>>> replacement for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any
>>>> examples of "a good C book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone
>>>> be able to make some suggestions?
>>>
>>> How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What
>>> experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a
>>> specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program,
>>> or is it more that you just want to pick up C again?
>>
>> Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the
>> prevailing concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and
>> it's still in that stash of programming books I kept). [...]
>
> After reading your followup comments it occurred to me there is
> some other advice that might be valuable.
>
> [...]
>
> By application I mean the particular domain where the program
> will be operating. For example programming a video game is
> very different from programming a compiler. In some domains a
> lot of application-specific knowledge will be needed; in others
> comparatively less. If you know what domain of application
> you are interested in it might be good to look at that at the
> same time as getting back into learning the language.
I suppose this is at least two things for the immediate future
(1) x86 ("maybe" a game or something else that'd keep my interest long
enough to really develop my skills again)
(2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for
sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before
trying to tackle its specific stuff.
>
> By techniques I mean common conceptual elements that occur in
> essentially all areas of programming.
Hopefully this one won't be too much a mess -- I figure my biggest
challenge here will be "but in perl...".
> [...] An example is dealing with error conditions. Some languages
> have an "exception handling" mechanism as part of the language, and
> often programs will use that to deal with error conditions. C doesn't
> have that. There is a more rudimentary mechanism (see "setjmp")
> available, but it takes more discipline to use, so C programs commonly
> deal with errors by passing extra information back [...]
Sounds a bit like bash in that regard. Maybe a little different, but
not altogether alien ... until I start assuming things work in one way,
when they don't.
> [...]
> The last area mentioned is program design. It often happens that
> people learn a programming language, or languages, but don't
> learn how to think about programming. The process of writing
Sounds like my university days all ocer again :) . Though I thankfully
have gotten (slightly) better in "it needs to do X, and I can break that
down into 'A-W' ... "
> [...]
> So those are some miscellaneous related thoughts. I hope they
> were useful.
Definitely good to be reminded that there's more to it than just "sit
there and bang on the keyboard."
--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 14:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <pc20am$cu7$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #129750 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
> >
> >> Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a
> >>>> replacement for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any
> >>>> examples of "a good C book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone
> >>>> be able to make some suggestions?
> >>>
> >>> How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What
> >>> experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a
> >>> specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program,
> >>> or is it more that you just want to pick up C again?
> >>
> >> Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the
> >> prevailing concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and
> >> it's still in that stash of programming books I kept). [...]
> >
> > After reading your followup comments it occurred to me there is
> > some other advice that might be valuable.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > By application I mean the particular domain where the program
> > will be operating. For example programming a video game is
> > very different from programming a compiler. In some domains a
> > lot of application-specific knowledge will be needed; in others
> > comparatively less. If you know what domain of application
> > you are interested in it might be good to look at that at the
> > same time as getting back into learning the language.
>
> I suppose this is at least two things for the immediate future
>
> (1) x86 ("maybe" a game or something else that'd keep my interest long
> enough to really develop my skills again)
> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for
> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before
> trying to tackle its specific stuff.
Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 20:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpe9m5b.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #129899 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for >> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before >> trying to tackle its specific stuff. > > Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C as well. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 15:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <pc4ndl$1v0$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #129909 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for
> >> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before
> >> trying to tackle its specific stuff.
> >
> > Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++.
>
> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That
> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C
> as well.
"understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their
own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and
supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well
that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 16:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <TPlFC.118740$Vm6.24268@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #129935 |
On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff. >>> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. >> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C >> as well. > > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process. When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a language which was an extra layer around C++. It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to get your code into the device: avr-g++ (compile) avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) avrdude (upload .hex to device) avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <pc7cqi$1p4$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #129936 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for
> >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before
> >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff.
> >>>
> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++.
> >>
> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That
> >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C
> >> as well.
> >
> > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their
> > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and
> > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well
> > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process.
>
> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a
> language which was an extra layer around C++.
>
> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but
> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to
> get your code into the device:
>
> avr-g++ (compile)
> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf)
> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex)
> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep)
> avrdude (upload .hex to device)
>
> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know
> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it
> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter.
>
> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write
> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.)
>
du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/
139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/
so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr
fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial.
And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes
(at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered
I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently
you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of
useless code...
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 17:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <eaHFC.27394$6D.22842@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #129968 |
On 30/04/2018 16:30, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a >> language which was an extra layer around C++. >> >> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but >> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to >> get your code into the device: >> >> avr-g++ (compile) >> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) >> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) >> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) >> avrdude (upload .hex to device) >> >> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know >> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it >> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. >> >> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write >> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) >> > > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial. > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of > useless code... My last experience of using embedded microprocessors (Z80, 80188, and I forget which but it might have been 8035 or 8051) was early 80s. I had no proper hardware or software [for putting code into the device's memory] but I got the job done just the same. That amount of software would have required 28 entire hard disk drives of the time, at 5MB each, or 400 360KB floppy disks. From that point of view, then yes it does look like a little much! We're talking about transfering 16KB or 32KB of data from one machine to the memory of another. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 09:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <aaec3441-9383-4e9f-ab6b-d09e86024ce8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129968 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:30:34 AM UTC-7, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > > >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > > >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for > > >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before > > >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff. > > >>> > > >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. > > >> > > >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That > > >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C > > >> as well. > > > > > > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their > > > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and > > > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well > > > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process. > > > > When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a > > language which was an extra layer around C++. > > > > It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but > > there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to > > get your code into the device: > > > > avr-g++ (compile) > > avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) > > avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) > > avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) > > avrdude (upload .hex to device) > > > > avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know > > the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it > > has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. > > > > (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write > > in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) > > > > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial. > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of > useless code... > > -- > Waldek Hebisch It's like a crank call. Robert Wessel has already decided what he is going to say before he calls. What you say just a reaction. What Andre G. Isaak says just a reaction. BTW, I've already discussed that his use of "herd" to describe true advocates is ad hominem, since he's likening them to pack of wolves. Robert Wessel is the upshot of the truth that Socialists have been appointed to subvert instructing the next generation. It is not mere happenstance that he is an idiotic Russian sympathizer. I bet he thinks his life was rough. Pull up a background report on Robert Wessel and you will get proof that he was in the big house earlier this year. Anyone know what for? The online reports can not go into that extent of specificity and legal lists in his area need to be subpoenaed. But when the charts were produced, it turns out beyond any doubt, Robert Wessel was far more "dishonest" than even I imagined. Being independent as it is, usenet will never go away but it'll never be well known. GnuPG's update system failed over and over again. -- Do not click this link! https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfkup/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/= http://www.5z8.info/add-worm_z4r9qk_fakelogin Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 15:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <mvtore-uv2.ln1@tanner.seckford.org> |
| In reply to | #129968 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for >> >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before >> >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff. >> >>> >> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. >> >> >> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That >> >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C >> >> as well. >> > >> > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their >> > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and >> > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well >> > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process. >> >> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a >> language which was an extra layer around C++. >> >> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but >> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to >> get your code into the device: >> >> avr-g++ (compile) >> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) >> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) >> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) >> avrdude (upload .hex to device) >> >> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know >> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it >> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. >> >> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write >> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) >> > > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial. > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of > useless code... > The avr-gcc related binaries are about 4M, and the AVR C library about 17M; that includes all the 8-bit AVR variants. Programming AVRs in C using Make is straightforward; standard Arduino libraries are pretty messy, so I find it best to avoid them. Will -- To retain respect for sausages and programming languages, one must not watch them in the making. Otto von Bismark, paraphrased.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 07:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <4258a9fd-d8ea-4d48-9a88-ada2f6baaf49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130039 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:26:37 AM UTC-7, C W Rose wrote: > antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > >> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > >> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > >> >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for > >> >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before > >> >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff. > >> >>> > >> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. > >> >> > >> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That > >> >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C > >> >> as well. > >> > > >> > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their > >> > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and > >> > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well > >> > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process. > >> > >> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a > >> language which was an extra layer around C++. > >> > >> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but > >> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to > >> get your code into the device: > >> > >> avr-g++ (compile) > >> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) > >> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) > >> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) > >> avrdude (upload .hex to device) > >> > >> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know > >> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it > >> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. > >> > >> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write > >> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) > >> > > > > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > > > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr > > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial. > > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes > > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered > > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently > > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of > > useless code... > > > > The avr-gcc related binaries are about 4M, and the AVR C library > about 17M; that includes all the 8-bit AVR variants. > > Programming AVRs in C using Make is straightforward; standard > Arduino libraries are pretty messy, so I find it best to avoid them. > > Will > > -- > To retain respect for sausages and programming languages, one must > not watch them in the making. > Otto von Bismark, paraphrased. I have worked in or with the retail business for 50 years. I've had a contract with large OEMs making deals with government agencies and the worlds largest companies. Never were we on any occasion instructed to not install any OS the customer wanted. We sold AIX, Ultix, Red Hat, and so on as well as MS OSs very successfully. Paul F. Riddle can't get anything else to work, either. You are mere seconds away from being in everyone's kill file. Turns out Paul F. Riddle's constant mentioning of Manfred met the agreed on criteria of trolling, so he accused Manfred of making that up. I noted examples of Paul F. Riddle flooding every group I post to -- lying, etc. His response: to claim I am Paul F. Riddle. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 12:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpem12j.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #130039 |
C W Rose wrote: > Programming AVRs in C using Make is straightforward; standard > Arduino libraries are pretty messy, so I find it best to avoid them. I figured it was mostly because "amateurs" and all -- which is probably one of the precursors to "hey self, learn C again". I mean, looking at a lot of them, I have a voice going "this looks uglier than it needs, something's wrong here". -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 14:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <pckenv$6ii$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #130039 |
C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> wrote:
> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> >> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for
> >> >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before
> >> >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++.
> >> >>
> >> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That
> >> >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C
> >> >> as well.
> >> >
> >> > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their
> >> > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and
> >> > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well
> >> > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process.
> >>
> >> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a
> >> language which was an extra layer around C++.
> >>
> >> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but
> >> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to
> >> get your code into the device:
> >>
> >> avr-g++ (compile)
> >> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf)
> >> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex)
> >> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep)
> >> avrdude (upload .hex to device)
> >>
> >> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know
> >> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it
> >> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter.
> >>
> >> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write
> >> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.)
> >>
> >
> > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/
> > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/
> >
> > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr
> > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial.
> > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes
> > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered
> > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently
> > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of
> > useless code...
> >
>
> The avr-gcc related binaries are about 4M, and the AVR C library
> about 17M; that includes all the 8-bit AVR variants.
You must be writing about some old/restricted version. Let
me reiterate: the 140 MB above is just GNU toolchain. AFAIK
Arduino uses generic C + C++ toolchain with no modifications.
Arduino libraries are separate and I did not count them
(the whole Arduino stuff adds another 270 MB). In more detail:
ls -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/libexec/gcc/avr/4.8.1/
razem 29064
9232 cc1 4 liblto_plugin.la 8596 lto1
10248 cc1plus 0 liblto_plugin.so 532 lto-wrapper
360 collect2 0 liblto_plugin.so.0 4 plugin
4 install-tools 84 liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0
so C compiler cc1 is 9.2MB, if you want whole program optimization
you need another 8.5 MB for lto1. You can skip 10MB for cc1plus.
Then there is 19MB for compiler drivers, binutils, gdb and avr
tools:
ls -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/bin/
razem 19260
572 avr-addr2line 28 avr-elfedit 3800 avr-gdb 600 avr-ranlib
600 avr-ar 740 avr-g++ 644 avr-gprof 404 avr-readelf
824 avr-as 736 avr-gcc 1020 avr-ld 604 avr-run
740 avr-c++ 736 avr-gcc-4.8.1 1020 avr-ld.bfd 584 avr-size
568 avr-c++filt 28 avr-gcc-ar 4 avr-man 572 avr-strings
736 avr-cpp 28 avr-gcc-nm 584 avr-nm 752 avr-strip
4 avrdude 28 avr-gcc-ranlib 752 avr-objcopy 4 libusb-config
372 avrdude_bin 304 avr-gcov 872 avr-objdump
18MB is taken by include files (they contain documentation so are
much larger than minimal possible incude files). Toolchain contains
16 variants of libgcc.a, each about 3.2MB. I looked at one
variant. There are about 900 routines in library totaling about
90 kB, but presumably metadata (and possibly debug info) blow up
space to more than 3 MB. AFAICS routines deal mostly with
arithmetic (IIUC among other they provide software implementation
of single precision floating point).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 08:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <4f6ae25d-8eb6-4948-b793-5e8ab3dae915@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130234 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 7:23:03 AM UTC-7, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> wrote: > > antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > >> On 29/04/2018 16:12, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > > >> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > >> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > > >> >>>> (2) Arduino (this one's going to need a lot of specific knowledge for > > >> >>>> sure. But I really think I need a core competency in C before > > >> >>>> trying to tackle its specific stuff. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Just for clarity: Arduino uses C++. > > >> >> > > >> >> True, the Arduino Project decided to go with C++ for their code. That > > >> >> being said, the Atmel chips that they're based on understand straight C > > >> >> as well. > > >> > > > >> > "understand straight C" is quite imprecise. Atmel chips understand their > > >> > own machine language. To program them in C you need C compiler and > > >> > supporting environment. And programming them in C works so well > > >> > that you may easily forget about complexities of the whole process. > > >> > > >> When I tried Arduino, it had a GUI program which required you code in a > > >> language which was an extra layer around C++. > > >> > > >> It was possible to remove that layer (and program in straight C++), but > > >> there still seemed to be the following programs to be run in order to > > >> get your code into the device: > > >> > > >> avr-g++ (compile) > > >> avr-gcc (looks like linking to .elf) > > >> avr-objcopy (.elf to .hex) > > >> avr-objcopy (run again, something to do with .hex and .eep) > > >> avrdude (upload .hex to device) > > >> > > >> avr-objcopy is a 800KB program, and avrdude is 500KB (plus people know > > >> the size of gcc/g++), so either the process is really not trivial, or it > > >> has been somewhat over-engineered. I suspect the latter. > > >> > > >> (It's possible you could forget about avr-g++, and use avr-gcc to write > > >> in straight C, but I haven't tried it.) > > >> > > > > > > du -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > > 139996 /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/ > > > > > > so the support in Arduino (which is essentially GNU toolchain for avr > > > fainily) is takes about 140 MB. And yes, the thing is not trivial. > > > And it is bloated. And if you not want C++ you can save few megabytes > > > (at least 10MB but probably less than 20MB). Concerning over-engineered > > > I think that implementation is adequate to the goals. Apparently > > > you do not accept the goals so for you it looks like tons of > > > useless code... > > > > > > > The avr-gcc related binaries are about 4M, and the AVR C library > > about 17M; that includes all the 8-bit AVR variants. > > You must be writing about some old/restricted version. Let > me reiterate: the 140 MB above is just GNU toolchain. AFAIK > Arduino uses generic C + C++ toolchain with no modifications. > Arduino libraries are separate and I did not count them > (the whole Arduino stuff adds another 270 MB). In more detail: > > ls -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/libexec/gcc/avr/4.8.1/ > razem 29064 > 9232 cc1 4 liblto_plugin.la 8596 lto1 > 10248 cc1plus 0 liblto_plugin.so 532 lto-wrapper > 360 collect2 0 liblto_plugin.so.0 4 plugin > 4 install-tools 84 liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 > > so C compiler cc1 is 9.2MB, if you want whole program optimization > you need another 8.5 MB for lto1. You can skip 10MB for cc1plus. > > Then there is 19MB for compiler drivers, binutils, gdb and avr > tools: > > ls -s /opt/arduino-1.6.7/hardware/tools/avr/bin/ > razem 19260 > 572 avr-addr2line 28 avr-elfedit 3800 avr-gdb 600 avr-ranlib > 600 avr-ar 740 avr-g++ 644 avr-gprof 404 avr-readelf > 824 avr-as 736 avr-gcc 1020 avr-ld 604 avr-run > 740 avr-c++ 736 avr-gcc-4.8.1 1020 avr-ld.bfd 584 avr-size > 568 avr-c++filt 28 avr-gcc-ar 4 avr-man 572 avr-strings > 736 avr-cpp 28 avr-gcc-nm 584 avr-nm 752 avr-strip > 4 avrdude 28 avr-gcc-ranlib 752 avr-objcopy 4 libusb-config > 372 avrdude_bin 304 avr-gcov 872 avr-objdump > > 18MB is taken by include files (they contain documentation so are > much larger than minimal possible incude files). Toolchain contains > 16 variants of libgcc.a, each about 3.2MB. I looked at one > variant. There are about 900 routines in library totaling about > 90 kB, but presumably metadata (and possibly debug info) blow up > space to more than 3 MB. AFAICS routines deal mostly with > arithmetic (IIUC among other they provide software implementation > of single precision floating point). > > > -- > Waldek Hebisch He inconveniences an entire group of people who are just bystanders, but that's a narcissist for you. What Ant and I care about isn't a factor. What is your evidence? Wolffan can not help but grasp everyone knows he is just being a moron! Asking Wolffan to confess to his actions, as fruitless as it is, is not the same as showing his lies. My idea was that people post here in order to catch deniers. It's not as if we all do not know what this place is, Ant included. It's easy as pie to distort the truth by focusing on hardly any exceptions unrepresentative from what's typical. What is more important from an honest advocates vantage point are the average uses. What did you assume from the lying imbecile? That Wolffan bozo has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else, especially not confidence. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web