Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 14:25 +0000
[OI] chat "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:26 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:29 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 20:48 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:51 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 14:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 01:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 17:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 15:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 22:56 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 23:40 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:32 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:09 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:10 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:42 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:46 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 19:29 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 13:45 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:51 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:38 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 00:27 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 21:24 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-14 09:45 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:19 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:22 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:38 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 06:09 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 21:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 14:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 10:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-12 16:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 17:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:08 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 15:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 12:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 12:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:50 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 12:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 12:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-09 13:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 23:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:57 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 16:11 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 21:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:16 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-12 18:14 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 11:38 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 00:44 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 11:45 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 09:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 22:59 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 15:40 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-09 19:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-13 11:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 14:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 08:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:35 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:19 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:01 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-11 16:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0013a$gc3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96218 |
On 09/11/16 20:10, Thiago Adams wrote: <snip> > > I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of > C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers There are still a handful of us left. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o00617$3jt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96221 |
Le 09/11/2016 à 21:32, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of > C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers There are some people (like mr gareth owen for instance) that come here to preach the advantages of c++. They are not such a nuisance like hodgin but sometimes they are quite heavy. Indigest I would even say. jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o006go$5vt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96237 |
On 09/11/16 21:56, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 21:32, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of >> C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers I didn't write that. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0077q$7ng$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96239 |
Le 09/11/2016 à 23:04, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > On 09/11/16 21:56, jacobnavia wrote: >> Le 09/11/2016 à 21:32, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >>> I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of >>> C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers > > I didn't write that. > Yes, I must have done a mistake in the attributions. Sorry. It was mr Adams that said that. Excuse me. jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o007bb$8lt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96241 |
On 09/11/16 22:16, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 23:04, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> On 09/11/16 21:56, jacobnavia wrote: >>> Le 09/11/2016 à 21:32, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >>>> I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of >>>> C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers >> >> I didn't write that. >> > > Yes, I must have done a mistake in the attributions. Sorry. It was mr > Adams that said that. > > Excuse me. No problem. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87pom3zw2o.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96237 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > Le 09/11/2016 à 21:32, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of >> C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers > > There are some people (like mr gareth owen for instance) that come > here to preach the advantages of c++. Having a standardised container library is a good thing that simplifies development. I thought you, of all people, would appreciate that. > They are not such a nuisance like hodgin but sometimes they are quite > heavy. Hey! I've been on a diet!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o00196$hgr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96218 |
On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: > >> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for >> anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. > > What do you thing about these: > > - web servers Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management and good string support. > - javascript engines Maybe C, but you've nothing to lose and a good deal you might gain with C++. Remember that once you have enough resources for a little overhead in code size, there is almost nothing that can be written in C that cannot be written at least as fast and easily in C++, since most all of C is a subset of C++. Thus C++ gives you everything that C has, plus a good deal more. > - Anything that runs on cloud server > - protocols http (e-mail etc , SSL) > - graphics cairo > - git > - industry equipment protocol > - Anything runs on IOT devices > On very resource constrained systems, then C may be the only choice rather than C++. And other considerations, such as developer familiarity and experience with the language and tool quality may also be relevant. But other than that, anything that could be written in C could also be written in C++. > > I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of > C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers, but maybe > curious people about C. > This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people that think that C is the answer to every programming issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20161109215518.66b23ac0@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #96222 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: > > > >> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation > >> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore > >> bit-banging these days. > > > > What do you thing about these: > > > > - web servers > > Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the > bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually > interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the > convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management > and good string support. Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...? C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure C. Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy ones... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ne672ct5jvb59prc7t4o95nj6c8k3bb414@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96223 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:55:18 +0100, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100 >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: >> > >> >> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation >> >> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore >> >> bit-banging these days. >> > >> > What do you thing about these: >> > >> > - web servers >> >> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the >> bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually >> interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the >> convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management >> and good string support. > >Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...? >C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure >C. >Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy >ones... FWIW, IIS is mostly C++, and is a pretty popular web server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01i9v$30v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96223 |
On 09/11/16 21:55, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation
>>>> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore
>>>> bit-banging these days.
>>>
>>> What do you thing about these:
>>>
>>> - web servers
>>
>> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the
>> bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually
>> interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the
>> convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management
>> and good string support.
>
> Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...?
> C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure
> C.
> Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy
> ones...
>
Here is a web server written in Python, using only the standard Python
library:
import SimpleHTTPServer
import SocketServer
PORT = 80
Handler = SimpleHTTPServer.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
httpd = SocketServer.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
print "serving at port", PORT
httpd.serve_forever()
That is /it/. Done. Finished. Put your "index.html" and other web
files in your current directory, and it's running.
And it is fast (though single-threaded) - all the time-consuming parts
are written in C, with a lot more effort put into optimisation than most
C programmers do.
If you want a dynamic web server, Python is a popular choice for your
active pages. With the web server running in Python, the connection
between the server and the active pages can be made more efficiently
than when they are separate programs.
For the next step up, you can use Twisted, which is the de facto
standard for high performance networked server software in Python. It
also supports multi-threading and multi-processing for scalability.
And if you still want it all to go faster, PyPy will give you JIT
compilation of it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01iu9$20c$5@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96280 |
On 2016-11-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 09/11/16 21:55, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation
>>>>> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore
>>>>> bit-banging these days.
>>>>
>>>> What do you thing about these:
>>>>
>>>> - web servers
>>>
>>> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the
>>> bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually
>>> interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the
>>> convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management
>>> and good string support.
>>
>> Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...?
>> C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure
>> C.
>> Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy
>> ones...
>>
>
> Here is a web server written in Python, using only the standard Python
> library:
>
> import SimpleHTTPServer
> import SocketServer
>
> PORT = 80
>
> Handler = SimpleHTTPServer.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
>
> httpd = SocketServer.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
>
> print "serving at port", PORT
> httpd.serve_forever()
>
Does not works....
python simplews.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "simplews.py", line 1, in <module>
import SimpleHTTPServer
ImportError: No module named 'SimpleHTTPServer'
there is also error about missing parenthesis for print which I corrected
first.
>
>
> That is /it/. Done. Finished. Put your "index.html" and other web
> files in your current directory, and it's running.
Well it's quite easy to do that in any language...
Once you have finished web server ;)
>
> And it is fast (though single-threaded) - all the time-consuming parts
> are written in C, with a lot more effort put into optimisation than most
> C programmers do.
I would like to see it perform well.
>
> If you want a dynamic web server, Python is a popular choice for your
> active pages. With the web server running in Python, the connection
> between the server and the active pages can be made more efficiently
> than when they are separate programs.
>
> For the next step up, you can use Twisted, which is the de facto
> standard for high performance networked server software in Python. It
> also supports multi-threading and multi-processing for scalability.
Hm, somehow high performance and Python does not go well with each other ;)
>
> And if you still want it all to go faster, PyPy will give you JIT
> compilation of it all.
>
Can it beat apache at least?
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01nle$l2h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96281 |
On 10/11/16 11:42, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2016-11-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 09/11/16 21:55, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation
>>>>>> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore
>>>>>> bit-banging these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you thing about these:
>>>>>
>>>>> - web servers
>>>>
>>>> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the
>>>> bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually
>>>> interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the
>>>> convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management
>>>> and good string support.
>>>
>>> Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...?
>>> C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure
>>> C.
>>> Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy
>>> ones...
>>>
>>
>> Here is a web server written in Python, using only the standard Python
>> library:
>>
>> import SimpleHTTPServer
>> import SocketServer
>>
>> PORT = 80
>>
>> Handler = SimpleHTTPServer.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
>>
>> httpd = SocketServer.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
>>
>> print "serving at port", PORT
>> httpd.serve_forever()
>>
>
> Does not works....
> python simplews.py
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "simplews.py", line 1, in <module>
> import SimpleHTTPServer
> ImportError: No module named 'SimpleHTTPServer'
>
> there is also error about missing parenthesis for print which I corrected
> first.
>
The code was for Python 2.7 - you are using Python 3.x. The Python
world is not perfect either - there are some incompatibilities between
2.x and 3.x versions. Try this one:
import http.server
import socketserver
PORT = 80
Handler = http.server.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
httpd = socketserver.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
print("serving at port", PORT)
httpd.serve_forever()
(Both my snippets are taken directly from the Python documentation, with
only the PORT changed.)
>
>>
>>
>> That is /it/. Done. Finished. Put your "index.html" and other web
>> files in your current directory, and it's running.
>
> Well it's quite easy to do that in any language...
> Once you have finished web server ;)
>
Well, making the web pages is not always easy - but it is usually an SEP.
>>
>> And it is fast (though single-threaded) - all the time-consuming parts
>> are written in C, with a lot more effort put into optimisation than most
>> C programmers do.
>
> I would like to see it perform well.
>
>>
>> If you want a dynamic web server, Python is a popular choice for your
>> active pages. With the web server running in Python, the connection
>> between the server and the active pages can be made more efficiently
>> than when they are separate programs.
>>
>> For the next step up, you can use Twisted, which is the de facto
>> standard for high performance networked server software in Python. It
>> also supports multi-threading and multi-processing for scalability.
>
> Hm, somehow high performance and Python does not go well with each other ;)
That's the reputation of Python - but it is not always accurate. There
are many aspects of performance to consider:
When Python is doing things like string manipulation, hash tables,
sorting, library functions, etc., much of the time is done in the
run-time library code, which is mostly C. The C code here is often
faster than most people would write it (as there is usually a trade-off
between developer effort and code speed, and like many library
developers, the Python developers put more effort into speed than is
usual in application code).
PyPy and other JIT systems can sometimes generate faster code than you
might write in C, especially for generic code. For example, a generic
sorting algorithm in C will need to call functions through pointers for
comparisons, use memcpy for swaps, and so on. A JIT based system can
generate multiple optimised copies of the sorting function for different
types (at a cost in memory, of course - no one suggests that Python is
memory efficient!).
Development time may be part of the total "performance". If you don't
have much time, your C version of a program might choose simple to code
algorithms with poor run-time performance, compared to a Python program
written in the same time frame that had better algorithms.
And of course, the most important aspect of performance is that it
should be "good enough" - /not/ "as fast as possible".
/Usually/, of course, Python code is significantly slower than C code -
it is just that the real world picture is a little more nuanced.
>
>>
>> And if you still want it all to go faster, PyPy will give you JIT
>> compilation of it all.
>>
> Can it beat apache at least?
>
I don't know - I haven't tried it. I haven't written a web server
(except for a specialised embedded one on a microcontroller, and that
was written in C :-) ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161110153701.ba4e5526701875156bc3ac63@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #96295 |
David Brown: >PyPy and other JIT systems can sometimes generate >faster code than you might write in C, especially for >generic code. For example, a generic sorting algo- >rithm in C will need to call functions through point- >ers for comparisons, use memcpy for swaps, and so on. >A JIT based system can generate multiple optimised >copies of the sorting function for different types (at >a cost in memory, of course -- no one suggests that >Python is memory efficient!). One could save the calling of memcpy if one implemented generic sorting via array index manipulation, as my friend had done in procedural Pascal. He has used his sorting unit ever since in all his code. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d9ccccb-a35a-455e-964d-f822f4484768@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96305 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:37:07 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote: > One could save the calling of memcpy if one implemented > generic sorting via array index manipulation, as my > friend had done in procedural Pascal. He has used his > sorting unit ever since in all his code. Or if one is sorting an array of pointers and one is using a language or dialect that allows code to efficiently load and store items in an array of arbitrary pointer type without having to know or care about the target types of the pointers therein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161110202224.43ae293adca9a3e17db7f882@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #96323 |
supercat to Anton Shepelev >>One could save the calling of memcpy if one imple- >>mented generic sorting via array index manipula- >>tion, as my friend had done in procedural Pascal. >>He has used his sorting unit ever since in all his >>code. > >Or if one is sorting an array of pointers and one >is using a language or dialect that allows code to >efficiently load and store items in an array of ar- >bitrary pointer type without having to know or care >about the target types of the pointers therein. True, but my friend dislikes pointers and uses FreePascal's dynamic arrays instead. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln37izoz7s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96323 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:37:07 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> One could save the calling of memcpy if one implemented
>> generic sorting via array index manipulation, as my
>> friend had done in procedural Pascal. He has used his
>> sorting unit ever since in all his code.
>
> Or if one is sorting an array of pointers and one is using a language or
> dialect that allows code to efficiently load and store items in an array
> of arbitrary pointer type without having to know or care about the target
> types of the pointers therein.
Or use an array of void*.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o025n4$pi3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96295 |
On 2016-11-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 11:42, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On 2016-11-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 09/11/16 21:55, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:35:14 +0100
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation
>>>>>>> language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore
>>>>>>> bit-banging these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you thing about these:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - web servers
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the
>>>>> bottleneck, compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually
>>>>> interpreted) web application. So use a language that has all the
>>>>> convenient libraries in place, as well as automatic memory management
>>>>> and good string support.
>>>>
>>>> Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...?
>>>> C++ can pass, but most popular web servers apache,nginx at all, are pure
>>>> C.
>>>> Speed *is* bottleneck regarding web servers. Well if you run busy
>>>> ones...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a web server written in Python, using only the standard Python
>>> library:
>>>
>>> import SimpleHTTPServer
>>> import SocketServer
>>>
>>> PORT = 80
>>>
>>> Handler = SimpleHTTPServer.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
>>>
>>> httpd = SocketServer.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
>>>
>>> print "serving at port", PORT
>>> httpd.serve_forever()
>>>
>>
>> Does not works....
>> python simplews.py
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "simplews.py", line 1, in <module>
>> import SimpleHTTPServer
>> ImportError: No module named 'SimpleHTTPServer'
>>
>> there is also error about missing parenthesis for print which I corrected
>> first.
>>
>
> The code was for Python 2.7 - you are using Python 3.x. The Python
> world is not perfect either - there are some incompatibilities between
> 2.x and 3.x versions. Try this one:
>
> import http.server
> import socketserver
>
> PORT = 80
>
> Handler = http.server.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
>
> httpd = socketserver.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
>
> print("serving at port", PORT)
> httpd.serve_forever()
>
>
> (Both my snippets are taken directly from the Python documentation, with
> only the PORT changed.)
Hm, only 300 requests per second, try this one (Golang) 44k reqs/sec on my machine ;)
replace dir with some on your machine.
package main
import (
"log"
"net/http"
)
func Log(handler http.Handler) http.Handler {
return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
log.Printf("%s %s %s %s", r.RemoteAddr, r.Method, r.URL, r.Header.Get("User-Agent"))
w.Header().Add("Server","Go")
handler.ServeHTTP(w, r)
})
}
func main() {
// Simple static webserver:
log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe(":8080", Log(http.FileServer(http.Dir("/home/bmaxa/btrfs/bmaxa_data/server/metamorph_shiningearth")))))
}
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o02hg4$l8a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96321 |
On 10/11/16 17:02, Melzzzzz wrote:
> Hm, only 300 requests per second, try this one (Golang) 44k reqs/sec on my machine ;)
> replace dir with some on your machine.
>
> package main
>
> import (
> "log"
> "net/http"
> )
>
> func Log(handler http.Handler) http.Handler {
> return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
> log.Printf("%s %s %s %s", r.RemoteAddr, r.Method, r.URL, r.Header.Get("User-Agent"))
> w.Header().Add("Server","Go")
> handler.ServeHTTP(w, r)
> })
> }
>
> func main() {
> // Simple static webserver:
> log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe(":8080", Log(http.FileServer(http.Dir("/home/bmaxa/btrfs/bmaxa_data/server/metamorph_shiningearth")))))
> }
>
>
Well, there we go - another language that is /way/ better than C for
implementing a web server. I only use Python for examples because I am
familiar with it - I've been programming Python for longer than Go has
existed. But it might be time to add Go to the list of languages I need
to learn - I have been waiting for it to mature and stabilise a bit first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01oi8$o55$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96280 |
On 10/11/2016 10:31, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/11/16 21:55, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> Python and Ruby for web servers? Are you kidding ...?
> Here is a web server written in Python, using only the standard Python
> library:
>
> import SimpleHTTPServer
> import SocketServer
>
> PORT = 80
>
> Handler = SimpleHTTPServer.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler
>
> httpd = SocketServer.TCPServer(("", PORT), Handler)
>
> print "serving at port", PORT
> httpd.serve_forever()
>
>
> That is /it/. Done. Finished. Put your "index.html" and other web
> files in your current directory, and it's running.
If you're simply going to offload most of the effort somewhere else,
into code that's already been written, then you can do that in C too:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) {
system("python dbserver.py");
}
> And if you still want it all to go faster, PyPy will give you JIT
> compilation of it all.
I thought you said all the fiddly bits were already in C? (Anyway I've
no idea what a web server does or how you would go about measuring its
speed. And I hope I haven't compromised my machine by running your code!)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01pji$rj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96299 |
On 10/11/16 12:18, BartC wrote: > (Anyway I've > no idea what a web server does At a high level: a Web server listens on a socket for page requests from Web clients (typically known as browsers). When a page request comes in, the Web server tries to find the page on the the local disk. If it finds that page, it sends it over the socket to the client (browser) that requested it. To write a primitive Web server is not difficult. If you know how to listen on a socket, read data from a socket, and write data to a socket, the rest is little more than observing the HTTP protocol, which is a text protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230 is a good place to start. It really isn't that hard. If you can design and implement your own non-trivial language, writing a basic Web server is like a stroll in the park after Sunday dinner. > or how you would go about measuring its speed. That's easy. How fast is your network? That's roughly how fast your Web server will be. > And I hope I haven't compromised my machine by running your code!) Extraordinarily unlikely in this case. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web