Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #55447 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-26 05:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 06:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2014-12-26 15:18 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-26 09:54 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-26 17:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-30 12:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-30 16:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 15:21 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 16:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 18:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-01 06:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 14:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 01:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 03:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 16:22 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 17:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 18:24 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 22:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 14:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 11:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:20 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 16:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 06:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-30 21:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk - 2015-01-04 06:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 00:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-31 01:07 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-01 08:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 10:29 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 09:51 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 12:55 -0600
Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:30 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:37 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:40 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 01:48 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-30 23:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:09 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:43 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:50 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:38 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-06 00:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:59 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 19:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:43 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 14:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 19:38 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:58 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:59 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2015-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 10:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-05 10:01 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 11:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? A Lurker <none@example.com> - 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 13:58 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 22:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 11:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-01-04 15:07 -0400
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 13:01 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 04:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:27 -0700
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:48 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 02:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 04:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:42 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:57 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 01:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:05 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-03 17:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 14:39 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-03 13:47 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:16 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-04 15:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-01-12 15:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <644f53b8-dd68-4770-8bd7-5b5121f77920@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55618 |
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:58:37 PM UTC, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > > (snip) > > > There are some really super C programmers like Linus Torvalds. > > That puts the majority below the arithmetical mean. > > That is why it is often better to use median. > The real answer is to log transform the data. Many distributions are log-normal, because things like plants grow exponentially - the more leaves they have, the more shoots they put out. There might also be an underlying exponential process in programming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc0abb40-7311-4e4e-b883-75cc3dffbd40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55637 |
W dniu środa, 31 grudnia 2014 17:37:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:58:37 PM UTC, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > There are some really super C programmers like Linus Torvalds. > > > That puts the majority below the arithmetical mean. > > > > That is why it is often better to use median. > > > The real answer is to log transform the data. > > Many distributions are log-normal, because things like plants grow > exponentially - the more leaves they have, the more shoots they put > out. There might also be an underlying exponential process in > programming. may be, for sure programming is not a linear activity, when you learn some base (with 100 % price of time and energy) you can repeat next 10 000 steps each with nearly 0% cost of the first (as some very beginner my think) - Sadly it is quite different what most of people painfully learn, each addition step also consumes 100% prize nearly the same as the first. that is some hard doom.. i can do more when learning coding more but it also in pair cost tremendous amount of work
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m7vjo2$plo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55598 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:12:32 PM UTC, John Bode wrote: >> >> Actually, the majority of C programmers are probably below average, because >> they received below-average educations. It's kind of scary how many people >> are *taught* that expressions like "*(a + 2) = *(a--)" have well-defined >> behavior (to pull a recent example from Stack Overflow). >> > There are some really super C programmers like Linus Torvalds. That puts the majority > below the arithmetical mean. > The thing that puts Linus Torvalds ahead of the pack is not his programming. It's more like his leadership ability and his ability to marshall good engineering principles. The idea of "super 'C' programmers" makes me queasy. What makes one a good programmer is wariness and a skeptical sort of humility. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m7vlpl$uhn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55619 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> The idea of "super 'C' programmers" makes me queasy. What makes >> one a good programmer is wariness and a skeptical sort of humility. > > A small island in the South Seas. A man makes breakfast, > he is looking aged but quite happy. Suddenly he frowns, > he is hearing noises - ugly, disgusting noises. > > A fleet of military helicopters is approaching. > > Barack Obama: We need your help. > The super C programmer: Listen man, whoever you are, > I quit programming 20 years ago, when I bought this island. > Barack Obama: My name is Obama. > The super C programmer: Well, yeah, whatever. > LOLz! -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmaf340.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55619 |
On Wed, 2014-12-31, Les Cargill wrote: > The idea of "super 'C' programmers" makes me queasy. Me too. Moreover, I've never met one. > What makes one a good programmer is wariness and a skeptical sort of > humility. Yes, but coupled with a certain level of arrogance. It's in the tension between arrogance and humility that I do my best work. Drop the arrogance -- or the humility -- and the result will be unremarkable. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87mw5z26sw.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #55708 |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes: > On Wed, 2014-12-31, Les Cargill wrote: > > The idea of "super 'C' programmers" makes me queasy. > > Me too. Moreover, I've never met one. > > > What makes one a good programmer is wariness and a skeptical sort of > > humility. > > Yes, but coupled with a certain level of arrogance. It's in the > tension between arrogance and humility that I do my best work. > Drop the arrogance -- or the humility -- and the result will be > unremarkable. I had one job where basically I spent 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, removing crap code put in my half a dozen or so idiots, who quite frankly barely knew C at all, whom I have no idea how they ever passed an interview or coding test. So whilst "super 'C' programmers" may be very thin on the ground, (I've met and worked with quite a few, they aren't unicorns (but certainly aren't rockstars either, the "rockstars" have been some of the worst - Dunning-Kruger, and all that)), there are clearly damn good programmers which are massively more productive, and contribute vastly more to the programming environment, than huge numbers of other programmers. Phil -- The best part of re-inventing the wheel is that you get to pick how many sides the new one has. -- egcagrac0 on SoylentNews
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xqjqw.472925$v42.388973@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #55742 |
Phil Carmody wrote: <snip> > So whilst "super 'C' programmers" may be very thin on the ground, > (I've met and worked with quite a few, they aren't unicorns (but > certainly aren't rockstars either, the "rockstars" have been some > of the worst - Dunning-Kruger, and all that)), There was once a Peanuts cartoon in which Lucy van Pelt complained to her brother Linus that she had become aware of her tongue. This effectively disabled her from doing anything else. Linus ridiculed this at first, but then... he became aware of his tongue. (Don't try this at home! Oh, is it too late? Sorry.) The Dunning-Kruger research can have a similar effect. The first stage is to reflect on one's own experience, both of oneself and of others, and realise that D-K does seem to fit the facts. The second stage is, naturally enough, to wonder where one fits in the D-K scheme. And this is where the problem lies. Unless there is some kind of corrective damping, one's self-appraisal of competence can oscillate wildly between brilliance and uselessness, which can be as disabling as becoming aware of one's tongue. (Oh, I'm sorry. You'd forgotten about that, and then I reminded you again. Don't bite, whatever you do.) Happy New Year. That bite should heal after a good night's sleep. Just remember not to become aware of your tongue ever again. This is so important that you should probably stick a note on your fridge to remind you. -- 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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7vu7h$vjg$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #55598 |
In article <3084bf42-2ecc-4ee4-8177-c9b7f3eb6b31@googlegroups.com>, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:12:32 PM UTC, John Bode wrote: >> >> Actually, the majority of C programmers are probably below average, because >> they received below-average educations. It's kind of scary how many people >> are *taught* that expressions like "*(a + 2) = *(a--)" have well-defined >> behavior (to pull a recent example from Stack Overflow). >> >There are some really super C programmers like Linus Torvalds. That puts the majority >below the arithmetical mean. I'm pretty sure that if Linus posted here, the regs would beat up on him just like they do everyone else. -- I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to the truth than anything on Fox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m7vthr$tng$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55587 |
> "John Bode" wrote in message > news:8980df90-f20d-49c0-afb8-3c52f1d22c3f@googlegroups.com... [...] > No such animal. C is the best language *for certain tasks*, such as > system-level programming and device drivers. It is a *horrible* language > for other tasks (graphical desktop clients, FWIW, I use C all the time for creating some, well, perhaps crappy, art via math and the Cairo library... I have not used it for creating server software lately. C can be so slick, well, one can slip and perhaps injure itself: https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/eLfrjckX6Fe ;^/ However, IMVVHO, the awesome and volatile world of C can indeed allow for the big, nasty and perhaps parasitic, world of _errors_ to let their presence be known in multiple ways: https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/iefM2FdSAaY https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/AwHMNte9ES4 lol. ;^o Anyway, I wish you all a very Happy New Year! :^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmabclv.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55587 |
On Tue, 2014-12-30, Stefan Ram wrote: > John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes: >>C's just another programming language. > > C is number 1 (most popular) on both TIOBE and sourceforge. > C was already number 1 in the 1980s and is still today. > > C is the fastest language on the »language shootout« site. > > Most major operating systems, language implementations and > productivity suites are written in C. > > All other languages that are among the most successful > today have a syntax (curly braces) that is based on C, > often even their names derive from C (C++, C#, Objective-C). > > The ABI of most operating systems is defined to be callable > from C. Of all the arguments you list, this is the only one with merit. It's easier to list the undesireable features C /lacks/: it's not proprietary, slow, exotic or tied to specific environments. It's not a fascist language, forcing ideas upon the user. And so on. > Many microcontrollers only come with an implementation of > one higher language: C. > > »Just another programming language«? More or less. And there's nothing wrong with that. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nxkpw.313394$9b1.218100@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #55587 |
On 30/12/2014 17:50, Stefan Ram wrote: > John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes: >> C's just another programming language. > > C is number 1 (most popular) on both TIOBE and sourceforge. > C was already number 1 in the 1980s and is still today. > > C is the fastest language on the »language shootout« site. /One/ of the fastest, with C++ and Fortran usually, but sometimes another such as Ada or Java takes the top spot, or is not far behind. One problem with C is that any special support needed for a task needs to have a custom implementation for the benchmark, and then the performance can rely on how good that it; it's no longer just about the language. > Most major operating systems, language implementations and > productivity suites are written in C. I can't argue with that (but see below). Next below C is writing in native code for that platform, not an appealing prospect. Other languages may be one level or more too high. > All other languages that are among the most successful > today have a syntax (curly braces) that is based on C, > often even their names derive from C (C++, C#, Objective-C). Ridiculous isn't it? The notion that for a language to be successful, it apparently needs to have curly braces! I can design a copy-cat language tomorrow that does exactly what C does, but that doesn't use curly braces, or a whole other bunch of annoying syntax. (Come to think of it, I already have a version of C where most curly braces have been eliminated.) > The ABI of most operating systems is defined to be callable > from C. Yet, many other languages do manage to run on various OSes without having that as a stumbling block. There are many useful things about C but mainly because most of the competition for this this class of language has been eliminated or marginalised. That in turn makes it harder still to have anything other than C as a primary choice, and then you end up with the observation that many implementations of things use C. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgm43vFm4qrU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55662 |
BartC wrote: > On 30/12/2014 17:50, Stefan Ram wrote: >> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes: >>> C's just another programming language. >> >> C is number 1 (most popular) on both TIOBE and sourceforge. >> C was already number 1 in the 1980s and is still today. >> >> C is the fastest language on the »language shootout« site. > > /One/ of the fastest, with C++ and Fortran usually, but sometimes > another such as Ada or Java takes the top spot, or is not far behind. Lets not forget that C can't be faster than C++, the latter has the same (as well as extras) bag of tricks available. > One problem with C is that any special support needed for a task needs > to have a custom implementation for the benchmark, and then the > performance can rely on how good that it; it's no longer just about the > language. Good point. >> Most major operating systems, language implementations and >> productivity suites are written in C. > > I can't argue with that (but see below). Next below C is writing in > native code for that platform, not an appealing prospect. Other > languages may be one level or more too high. OpenOffice is mainly C++. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m84m74$als$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55664 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: (snip) > Lets not forget that C can't be faster than C++, the latter has > the same (as well as extras) bag of tricks available. Yes, and you can write object-oriented programs in any language. But programmers writing OO tend (though aren't required to) allocate and deallocate lots of objects, and that can be slow. My Java programs probably look more like C than those of many Java programmers, and might run faster. When one says C++, one might assume that they are using at least some of those extra features. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgm4stFm4qrU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55665 |
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > > (snip) > >> Lets not forget that C can't be faster than C++, the latter has >> the same (as well as extras) bag of tricks available. > > Yes, and you can write object-oriented programs in any language. > > But programmers writing OO tend (though aren't required to) > allocate and deallocate lots of objects, and that can be slow. > > My Java programs probably look more like C than those of many > Java programmers, and might run faster. > > When one says C++, one might assume that they are using at least > some of those extra features. When coding for a synthetic benchmark or writing a performance critical library, I would expect the programmer to use the features what would give C++ the edge over C such as templates (instead of void* parameters) and move semantics. C++ code isn't necessarily OO code... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgm9srFm4qrU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55666 |
Stefan Ram wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> When coding for a synthetic benchmark or writing a performance critical >> library, I would expect the programmer to use the features what would >> give C++ the edge over C such as templates (instead of void* parameters) >> and move semantics. C++ code isn't necessarily OO code... > > One does not have to compare templates with void*s. One can compare > them with macros. Then, often, one just loses type safety, but not > speed. Algorithms such as sorting (especially for user defined types) are the obvious example where templates trump macros for performance. > Move semantics copies a struct pointer instead of the whole struct, > which can be done with C, but in C, we do not even need to mark the > move source as invalid, which again is less safe, but faster or not > slower. I agree it's almost always possible to mimic C++ features in C, however move semantics save the (C++) from having to hand code containers to squeeze out extra performance. I guess the C++ solution just makes fewer safety tradeoffs to get the same level of performance. > What is left might be »constexpr«, but the C compiler will do some > calculations at compile time even without »constexpr«, or the C > programmer could use macros for »constexpr« functions or generated > code. I haven't made any direct comparisons, but I expect there are cases such as working with structs where constexpr would be a win over macros. > It is possible that C can't be faster than C++, but the last time > I looked at the shootout web site, it /was/ faster than C++. I haven't looked... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fd23ec4-a275-49b6-ba03-192c6ec541b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55669 |
On Friday, January 2, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
>
> I agree it's almost always possible to mimic C++ features in C, however
> move semantics save the (C++) from having to hand code containers to
> squeeze out extra performance.
>
Cs "move semantics" is
void memswap(void *a, void *b, int len)
{
unsigned char *aptr = a;
unsigned char *bptr = b;
int i;
for(i=0;i<len;i++)
{
temp = aptr[i];
aptr[i] = bptr[i];
bptr[i] = temp;
}
}
What do we notice?
Its very simple to understand, it doesn't tie up the user in complex
OO-ese considerations.
It will work with almost anything, unless the members of your structure
maintain back pointers to the structure itself. Then you have to
write your own swapgraphs() function.
You have to write swapgraphs in C++ anyway, even for simple structures.
It's got micro-inefficiency, solely because memswap() isn't an stdlib
function. It should be, and it should be understood that it's the most
efficient way of swappping two variables (eg using the XOR hack
where it's safe and efficient).
void * doesn't really help.
>
> I guess the C++ solution just makes fewer safety tradeoffs to get the
> same level of performance.
>
Really it's a case of the flexiblity and elegance of void *s over
the risk of interpreting the void * as the wrong data type. From
experience, "type safety" doesn't win you much, yes there are a
few bugs it will catch, but it tends to generate reams of type-
conversion code to do null operations or simple assignments,
which is going to add bugs because more code means more bugs.
"Type safety" is there because its something that compilers can
do. What we really need is a language with variables with units,
so if you add cents to dollars you get an amount in dollars,
if you divide a distance in kilometers by a time in seconds, you
get a velocity, and so on. That would be real type safety.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgnbqgFr1q0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55673 |
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> I agree it's almost always possible to mimic C++ features in C, however
>> move semantics save the (C++) from having to hand code containers to
>> squeeze out extra performance.
>>
> Cs "move semantics" is
>
> void memswap(void *a, void *b, int len)
> {
> unsigned char *aptr = a;
> unsigned char *bptr = b;
> int i;
>
> for(i=0;i<len;i++)
> {
> temp = aptr[i];
> aptr[i] = bptr[i];
> bptr[i] = temp;
> }
> }
>
> What do we notice?
>
> Its very simple to understand, it doesn't tie up the user in complex
> OO-ese considerations.
The C++ equivalent is a function template,
template <class T> void swap( T& a, T& b )
What do we notice?
Its very simple to understand, it doesn't tie up the user in complex OO
considerations.
> It will work with almost anything, unless the members of your structure
> maintain back pointers to the structure itself. Then you have to
> write your own swapgraphs() function.
> You have to write swapgraphs in C++ anyway, even for simple structures.
>
> It's got micro-inefficiency, solely because memswap() isn't an stdlib
> function. It should be, and it should be understood that it's the most
> efficient way of swappping two variables (eg using the XOR hack
> where it's safe and efficient).
>
> void * doesn't really help.
I think that was my point - the C++ compiler knows the type and size of
the parameters, so it can optimise the moves. This is a real win,
possibly more significant with small types that can be swapped in a
couple if machine instructions.
>> I guess the C++ solution just makes fewer safety tradeoffs to get the
>> same level of performance.
>>
> Really it's a case of the flexiblity and elegance of void *s over
> the risk of interpreting the void * as the wrong data type. From
> experience, "type safety" doesn't win you much, yes there are a
> few bugs it will catch, but it tends to generate reams of type-
> conversion code to do null operations or simple assignments,
> which is going to add bugs because more code means more bugs.
Not in C++. If such code is needed (such as struct copy and assignment)
it is generated by the compiler.
> "Type safety" is there because its something that compilers can
> do. What we really need is a language with variables with units,
> so if you add cents to dollars you get an amount in dollars,
> if you divide a distance in kilometers by a time in seconds, you
> get a velocity, and so on. That would be real type safety.
Um...
#include <iostream>
struct Cents
{
int value;
};
struct Dollars
{
int dollars;
int cents;
Dollars& operator+( const Cents& value )
{
cents += value.value;
if( cents > 100 )
{
++dollars;
cents %= 100;
}
return *this;
}
friend std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream& out, const Dollars d )
{
return out << '$' << d.dollars << '.' << d.cents;
}
};
int main()
{
Dollars dollars = { 1, 20 };
Cents cents = { 99 };
std::cout << dollars+cents << std::endl;
return 0;
}
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HAvpw.288434$lM6.54403@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #55674 |
On 02/01/2015 10:56, Ian Collins wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> "Type safety" is there because its something that compilers can
>> do. What we really need is a language with variables with units,
>> so if you add cents to dollars you get an amount in dollars,
>> if you divide a distance in kilometers by a time in seconds, you
>> get a velocity, and so on. That would be real type safety.
> Dollars dollars = { 1, 20 };
> Cents cents = { 99 };
>
> std::cout << dollars+cents << std::endl;
In another language I can also do:
a:=1.20 dollars
b:=99 cents
println a+b
Output:
2.19
It took half a minute to add the definitions of 'dollars' and 'cents'
(just scale factors of 1.0 and 0.01). It's not type safe (the end
results are just floating point numbers) but can add useful extra
information to source code and help reduce errors.
Doing it properly with each unit being a different, incompatible type
rapidly turns into a nightmare just to ensure the usual lot of
arithmetic, compare, string conversion ops etc all work.
That's before you start dealing with all the ways different units can
interact and produce new multi-dimensional units. So metre*metre =>
square_metre, metre/second/second => acceleration, ad infinitum.
(And as you appear to do it, defining differing scales of the same unit
as different types, a whole bunch of conversion ops are needed just
between versions of the same type. If you then try and do every
combination such as centimetre/hour/minute, that's when you start
tearing your hair out!)
(Actually, look at a language called Frink which takes unit handling to
the extreme. Then you will immediately give up on your own puny efforts!)
Sometimes things are best kept simple.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e598e74-6b3a-4122-88ff-e80f1cbefcbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55675 |
On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bart wrote: > > That's before you start dealing with all the ways different units can > interact and produce new multi-dimensional units. So metre*metre => > square_metre, metre/second/second => acceleration, ad infinitum. > Exactly. Tagging variables with types isn't all that simple. However you can set up a system where dimension exponents are stored.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgodvhFr1q0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55675 |
BartC wrote: > > (And as you appear to do it, defining differing scales of the same unit > as different types, a whole bunch of conversion ops are needed just > between versions of the same type. If you then try and do every > combination such as centimetre/hour/minute, that's when you start > tearing your hair out!) In C++ I would probably only need a couple of templates, generalisations of the Cents and Dollars. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web