Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97957 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-03 23:58 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-10 11:08 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Counted strings jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-03 23:58 +0100
Re: Counted strings supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0800
Counted stringsl Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0800
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 00:20 +0000
Re: Counted strings Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-12-03 21:26 -0500
Re: Counted strings jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-04 18:11 +0100
Re: Counted strings Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 19:25 -0600
Re: Counted strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 18:57 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-04 16:33 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 07:52 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-04 17:10 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:14 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 16:49 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:40 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 05:51 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 16:10 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 07:38 -0800
Re: Counted strings Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-05 16:56 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:04 -0800
Re: Counted strings Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-05 17:16 +0100
Re: Counted strings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:12 -0500
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:24 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-06 10:53 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 03:52 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-06 13:32 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 04:48 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 13:42 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:16 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 14:39 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:24 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:41 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:47 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 14:48 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:54 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 06:21 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 06:24 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 18:06 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:19 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 19:45 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 11:10 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 12:58 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 14:08 -0800
Re: Counted strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:28 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-06 16:21 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 07:39 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 08:32 -0800
Re: Counted strings fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 08:32 -0800
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 16:28 +0000
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:34 -0800
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 18:27 +0000
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:36 -0800
Re: Counted strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 08:19 +1300
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:22 -0800
Re: Counted strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 08:26 +1300
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 19:36 +0000
Re: Counted strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 08:41 +1300
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:48 -0800
Re: Counted strings Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:59 -0800
Re: Counted strings jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 12:12 -0800
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:18 -0800
Re: Counted strings jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 13:17 -0800
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:29 -0800
Re: Counted strings jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 15:37 -0800
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:43 -0800
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-06 13:40 +0100
Re: Counted strings "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-06 12:00 -0500
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:09 -0800
Re: Counted strings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:33 -0500
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-06 21:24 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 12:56 -0800
Re: Counted strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 12:22 -0800
Re: Counted strings supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 08:36 -0800
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 17:31 +0000
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 22:07 +0100
Re: Counted strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:14 +1300
Re: Counted strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:11 +0000
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-06 02:13 +0000
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 21:57 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:01 -0800
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 21:22 +0000
Re: Counted strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:25 +1300
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-05 21:36 +0000
Re: Counted strings jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-05 22:33 +0100
Re: Counted strings "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Counted strings supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:57 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-04 20:19 +0100
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-04 20:24 +0100
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-04 20:37 +0100
Re: Counted strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-04 21:04 +0100
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-04 21:22 +0100
Re: Counted strings BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 22:37 +0000
Re: Counted strings David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-12-10 22:42 -0500
Re: Counted strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-10 23:17 -0800
Re: Counted strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 11:48 +0000
Re: Counted strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 04:40 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 10:56 +0100
Re: Counted strings Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 15:47 -0600
Re: Counted strings Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 22:01 +0000
Re: Counted strings Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 22:28 -0600
Re: Counted strings "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-05 20:18 -0800
Re: Counted strings Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-06 11:05 +0100
Re: Counted strings luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 13:13 -0800
Re: Counted strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-05 09:30 -0800
Re: Counted strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 09:41 -0800
Re: Counted strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-06 11:19 -0800
Re: Counted strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-06 11:44 -0800
Re: Counted strings Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 10:29 -0800
Re: Counted strings supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-10 11:08 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8e414c1-11cb-47f8-9cf8-d23c044e0beb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98192 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 06-12-16 19:19, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > >>> If you dig deep, Robert, you'll find you're incorrect, and that they > >>> are always railing against God, and not against me (or someone like > >>> me). It is merely that I am the physical manifestation here in the > >>> flesh they can attack. > >> > >> So you sincerely believe that NOTHING you do personally can cause others to > >> swear at you. > > > > This is where typewritten text-based messages without looking at > > someone's face, hearing their tone, or having the context of real > > communication, hinders a person's understanding. A bunch of pre- > > conceived assumptions jump in and scream, "Me! Me! Me!" > > You're the one making assumptions. Assumptions about who or wat it is your > opponent is really targeting with his/her profanity. We were created to glorify God, Robert. Human beings are the only part of God's creation made in His image and likeness. He is three- fold: Father, Son, Holy Spirit; just as we are three-fold: soul, body, spirit. No other being was given this distinction. We are even called "gods" in scripture. When a person uses profanity, they are not glorifying God. They are in full-out rebellion against Him. It is for this reason I can say that they are not using profanity toward me, but only toward God. They are simply using the excuse of me and/or my perceived actions to justify their rebellion against God. On the final day of judgment, unless a person comes to faith in this world and is forgiven, then at that point, standing alone and naked before God, stripped of this sinful flesh and all of its ability to lie and cheat and deceive into falseness, then, and only then, will the full force of the truth be known to you. It will smack you upside your soul right into the lake of fire. This the fate hanging over all people who do not come to Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness for their sin. It is for this reason I continue to teach when others tell me, "Hey Rick, stop teaching about Jesus." I care about them too much to listen to them profess things in their own ignorance that they themselves would not profess were they not lost in sin. I do not know who will be saved or when. I am a fisherman. And as a fisherman, I continue to cast out hoping for the catch. > > However, people being > > as they are in sin, there are many things that stir up the flesh. > > It's why Christians are called by God to holiness, so that we are > > not focused upon the flesh, lusts of the flesh, responding to the > > lusts of the flesh, but are, instead, following after His Holy > > Spirit, which allows us to "mortify the flesh" (as the Bible calls > > it). > > > >> I happen to have a colleague who is VERY good at his job, but > >> whenever he does make a mistake, he always blames someone else. Just like > >> you. But we know he is autistic (diagnosed) and just can't help it. What's > >> your excuse? > > > > You will not find me at any point blaming anyone else. > > And yet you maintain that nothing YOU do can cause anyone to swear at you. > > >>> Dig deep, Robert, and seek the truth. The answers you seek are found > >>> in Him. > >> > >> I prefer a simple yes or no from you. You're just avoiding the question. > >> Again, as with the insults, when things get tough you just pass all the dirt on > >> to your god. Very convenient, but not very convincing. > > > [big snip] > > Again, you're avoiding the question. Lots of text, but no answer. Read it again. You'll find the answers you seek if you dig deep, Robert. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 12:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ddb1279e-0350-42e5-bc5a-953e286ff85c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98195 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 20:10:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał: > > This the fate hanging over all people who do not come to Jesus Christ > and ask forgiveness for their sin. It is for this reason I continue > to teach when others tell me, "Hey Rick, stop teaching about Jesus." > what with my teachings about gou?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 14:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d30710f-1dd9-4b9f-a67f-6771a2874361@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98195 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 20:10:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > > On 06-12-16 19:19, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > >>> If you dig deep, Robert, you'll find you're incorrect, and that they > > >>> are always railing against God, and not against me (or someone like > > >>> me). It is merely that I am the physical manifestation here in the > > >>> flesh they can attack. > > >> > > >> So you sincerely believe that NOTHING you do personally can cause others to > > >> swear at you. > > > > > > This is where typewritten text-based messages without looking at > > > someone's face, hearing their tone, or having the context of real > > > communication, hinders a person's understanding. A bunch of pre- > > > conceived assumptions jump in and scream, "Me! Me! Me!" > > > > You're the one making assumptions. Assumptions about who or wat it is your > > opponent is really targeting with his/her profanity. > > We were created to glorify God, Robert. Human beings are the only > part of God's creation made in His image and likeness. He is three- > fold: Father, Son, Holy Spirit; just as we are three-fold: soul, > body, spirit. > > No other being was given this distinction. We are even called "gods" > in scripture. > > When a person uses profanity, they are not glorifying God. They are > in full-out rebellion against Him. It is for this reason I can say > that they are not using profanity toward me, but only toward God. > They are simply using the excuse of me and/or my perceived actions > to justify their rebellion against God. > > On the final day of judgment, unless a person comes to faith in this > world and is forgiven, then at that point, standing alone and naked > before God, stripped of this sinful flesh and all of its ability to > lie and cheat and deceive into falseness, then, and only then, will > the full force of the truth be known to you. It will smack you upside > your soul right into the lake of fire. > > This the fate hanging over all people who do not come to Jesus Christ > and ask forgiveness for their sin. It is for this reason I continue > to teach when others tell me, "Hey Rick, stop teaching about Jesus." > > I care about them too much to listen to them profess things in their > own ignorance that they themselves would not profess were they not > lost in sin. > > I do not know who will be saved or when. I am a fisherman. And as > a fisherman, I continue to cast out hoping for the catch. > > > > However, people being > > > as they are in sin, there are many things that stir up the flesh. > > > It's why Christians are called by God to holiness, so that we are > > > not focused upon the flesh, lusts of the flesh, responding to the > > > lusts of the flesh, but are, instead, following after His Holy > > > Spirit, which allows us to "mortify the flesh" (as the Bible calls > > > it). > > > > > >> I happen to have a colleague who is VERY good at his job, but > > >> whenever he does make a mistake, he always blames someone else. Just like > > >> you. But we know he is autistic (diagnosed) and just can't help it. What's > > >> your excuse? > > > > > > You will not find me at any point blaming anyone else. > > > > And yet you maintain that nothing YOU do can cause anyone to swear at you. > > > > >>> Dig deep, Robert, and seek the truth. The answers you seek are found > > >>> in Him. > > >> > > >> I prefer a simple yes or no from you. You're just avoiding the question. > > >> Again, as with the insults, when things get tough you just pass all the dirt on > > >> to your god. Very convenient, but not very convincing. > > > > > [big snip] > > > > Again, you're avoiding the question. Lots of text, but no answer. > > Read it again. You'll find the answers you seek if you dig deep, Robert. > > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin i was recently thinking about your relation to gou (relation to gou of such users as DB is clear, your relation is different and it was not so clear) i dont made a big amount of thinking only a bit but it showed that gou is not happy with you - it is becouse with all that weirdnes you still enforce some quite usual communicate (you use many words but overal its really simple bullshit) gou is not happy maybe even cries for your sins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lny3zs3lmn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #98179 |
Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> writes:
> On 06-12-16 14:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
[SNIP]
> So you sincerely believe that NOTHING you do personally can cause others to
> swear at you.
[SNIP]
Robert, please stop making off-topic posts. If you want to talk to
Rick, he uses a valid e-mail address.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0fdb9fde-b848-4992-bdc6-699df4357bf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98149 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 13:42:53 UTC+1 użytkownik Robert Spanjaard napisał: > On 06-12-16 12:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > David Brown wrote: > >> [snip] > > > > You all know me. I am no mystery to you. > > > > It is the cost of doing business with me. If you want to comnunicate with me, > > you will honor my God. If not, then I will not communicate with you. > > How does this work? Do you assume that anyone who replies to you honors your > god unless proven otherwise, or do you only reply to people who explicitly > honor your god? You know that the first case is false in many cases, and in > the second case you're going to get very quiet in this group from now on. > > And when a person feels he or she is losing a discussion with you, can he/she > stop you from replying with a simple bit of profanity? > i wonder if i mayve should renew my church (or maybe monastery) of 'uncommonism' (this is becouse some ideologies or "vectros of thought" (or attitude) may bring some interesting results - in my case i would like to value vector of logical 'unusuality' - when people usually like to react in more common way it would be fun to turn it out and go more uncommon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o26l05$tf3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98133 |
On 06/12/16 10:53, David Brown wrote: > On 05/12/16 22:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: My apologies to the group for having provoked more religious nonsense from Rick. I really did want to have him avoid the stupid "please don't swear here" auto-responder mess that turns up regularly in c.l.c++. But common sense, logic, and basic human politeness are the first victims of Rick's blend of religious fanaticism, narcissism, megalomania, and arrogance. And I should have known better. (There is no need to reply here, Rick. We all know you are itching to give more out-of-context quotations and accusations of devilish possessions. We also all know that neither I nor anyone else will pay the slightest attention to them, so they are just wasted effort.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 07:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <681a5313-117b-4497-b3c6-8c124d45aef3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98167 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:22:05 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > On 06/12/16 10:53, David Brown wrote: > > On 05/12/16 22:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > My apologies to the group for having provoked more religious nonsense > from Rick. I really did want to have him avoid the stupid "please don't > swear here" auto-responder mess that turns up regularly in c.l.c++. But > common sense, logic, and basic human politeness are the first victims of > Rick's blend of religious fanaticism, narcissism, megalomania, and > arrogance. And I should have known better. > > (There is no need to reply here, Rick. We all know you are itching to > give more out-of-context quotations and accusations of devilish > possessions. We also all know that neither I nor anyone else will pay > the slightest attention to them, so they are just wasted effort.) God teaches people rightly. He is the authority and wellspring of truth and proper behavior. Look to Him for how to live. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fed31553-0d73-4967-975a-63b4dcdbc13c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98167 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 16:22:05 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > On 06/12/16 10:53, David Brown wrote: > > On 05/12/16 22:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > My apologies to the group for having provoked more religious nonsense > from Rick. I really did want to have him avoid the stupid "please don't > swear here" auto-responder mess that turns up regularly in c.l.c++. But > common sense, logic, and basic human politeness are the first victims of > Rick's blend of religious fanaticism, narcissism, megalomania, and > arrogance. And I should have known better. > > (There is no need to reply here, Rick. We all know you are itching to > give more out-of-context quotations and accusations of devilish > possessions. We also all know that neither I nor anyone else will pay > the slightest attention to them, so they are just wasted effort.) in fact hodgin is very polite and i personally think he is good man - his mix of sense and nonsense is other story tooke your eyes on yourself as youre probably bigger gou sinner than hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0294f4ac-ad9c-4023-8b4e-fe2ea032bae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98169 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 16:39:25 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 16:22:05 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > On 06/12/16 10:53, David Brown wrote: > > > On 05/12/16 22:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > > > My apologies to the group for having provoked more religious nonsense > > from Rick. I really did want to have him avoid the stupid "please don't > > swear here" auto-responder mess that turns up regularly in c.l.c++. But > > common sense, logic, and basic human politeness are the first victims of > > Rick's blend of religious fanaticism, narcissism, megalomania, and > > arrogance. And I should have known better. > > > > (There is no need to reply here, Rick. We all know you are itching to > > give more out-of-context quotations and accusations of devilish > > possessions. We also all know that neither I nor anyone else will pay > > the slightest attention to them, so they are just wasted effort.) > > in fact hodgin is very polite and i personally think he is good man - his mix of sense and nonsense is other story > > tooke your eyes on yourself as youre probably bigger gou sinner than hodgin may add that for gou probably each one who is stating something common is gou sinner (it is nearly equal to the thing than nearly one who is stating something is a gou sinner) well im tired
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48941971-a987-4dee-a75e-914799560d54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98169 |
W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 16:39:25 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 16:22:05 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > On 06/12/16 10:53, David Brown wrote: > > > On 05/12/16 22:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > > > My apologies to the group for having provoked more religious nonsense > > from Rick. I really did want to have him avoid the stupid "please don't > > swear here" auto-responder mess that turns up regularly in c.l.c++. But > > common sense, logic, and basic human politeness are the first victims of > > Rick's blend of religious fanaticism, narcissism, megalomania, and > > arrogance. And I should have known better. > > > > (There is no need to reply here, Rick. We all know you are itching to > > give more out-of-context quotations and accusations of devilish > > possessions. We also all know that neither I nor anyone else will pay > > the slightest attention to them, so they are just wasted effort.) > > in fact hodgin is very polite and i personally think he is good man - his mix of sense and nonsense is other story > > tooke your eyes on yourself as youre probably bigger gou sinner than hodgin may add that for gou probably each one who is stating something common is gou sinner (it is nearly equal to the thing than nearly one who is stating something is a gou sinner) well im tired
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o244gj$9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98015 |
On 05/12/2016 15:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> C is already much faster than other languages. It's why I use it.
Take this simple implementation of a counted string type and character
append routine (see below).
To append 'A' 10 million times starting with an empty string took about
13 seconds (gcc -O3, Windows CRT).
My little *interpreted* language took under 0.2 seconds.
Then I tried 100 million appends. My language took 1.7 seconds (ten
times as long). As for the C, I started it around ten minutes ago, and
it's still running...
Yes, the C can be nearly as fast, with enough effort. But it's about
algorithms rather than language.
------------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef struct {
char* str;
int length;
} Cstr;
void appendchar(Cstr* S, char c){
if (S->length==0) {
S->length=1;
S->str=malloc(2);
*(S->str)=c;
*(S->str+1)=0;
}
else {
++S->length;
S->str=realloc(S->str,S->length+1);
*(S->str+S->length-1)=c;
*(S->str+S->length)=0;
}
}
int main(void){
Cstr S = {NULL,0};
int i;
for (i=0; i<10000000; ++i) {
appendchar(&S,'A');
}
printf("S.length = %d\n",S.length);
printf("strlen(S.str) = %d\n",strlen(S.str));
}
------------------------------------------
Interpreted code:
s:=""
to 10 million do
| s+:='A'
od
println s.len
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <746f527b-ff8b-4768-9347-3d03170f686c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98021 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 15:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> > C is already much faster than other languages. It's why I use it.
>
> Take this simple implementation of a counted string type and character
> append routine (see below).
>
> To append 'A' 10 million times starting with an empty string took about
> 13 seconds (gcc -O3, Windows CRT).
>
> My little *interpreted* language took under 0.2 seconds.
>
> Then I tried 100 million appends. My language took 1.7 seconds (ten
> times as long). As for the C, I started it around ten minutes ago, and
> it's still running...
>
> Yes, the C can be nearly as fast, with enough effort. But it's about
> algorithms rather than language.
The features exposed through this "append 'A'" ability mandates a
different design. Since you know the ability exists, it would behoove
you to create an allocation algorithm which rounds up to the nearest
larger size, like 64 bytes, and to include a length of allocated space
along with used space.
If you rewrite your C algorithm to use those two additional facets,
you'll likely see a notable performance increase.
I'm curious how your interpreted algorithm operates.
> ------------------------------------------
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> typedef struct {
> char* str;
> int length;
> } Cstr;
>
> void appendchar(Cstr* S, char c){
>
> if (S->length==0) {
> S->length=1;
> S->str=malloc(2);
> *(S->str)=c;
> *(S->str+1)=0;
> }
> else {
> ++S->length;
> S->str=realloc(S->str,S->length+1);
> *(S->str+S->length-1)=c;
> *(S->str+S->length)=0;
> }
> }
>
> int main(void){
> Cstr S = {NULL,0};
> int i;
>
> for (i=0; i<10000000; ++i) {
> appendchar(&S,'A');
> }
>
> printf("S.length = %d\n",S.length);
> printf("strlen(S.str) = %d\n",strlen(S.str));
>
> }
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Interpreted code:
>
> s:=""
> to 10 million do
> | s+:='A'
> od
>
> println s.len
FWIW, Bart, I am routinely impressed with your knowledge and views
on compiler design, and even in more general areas like the processing
of data.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o24bfu$s32$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98022 |
On 05/12/2016 16:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> Take this simple implementation of a counted string type and character
>> append routine (see below).
>>
>> To append 'A' 10 million times starting with an empty string took about
>> 13 seconds (gcc -O3, Windows CRT).
>>
>> My little *interpreted* language took under 0.2 seconds.
> The features exposed through this "append 'A'" ability mandates a
> different design. Since you know the ability exists, it would behoove
> you to create an allocation algorithm which rounds up to the nearest
> larger size, like 64 bytes, and to include a length of allocated space
> along with used space.
Why wouldn't malloc or realloc do that?
I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
slow). That is much better:
C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
100M ? 2.2 1.7
500M ?? 18.0 17.0
However, the interpreted code is still faster...
> If you rewrite your C algorithm to use those two additional facets,
> you'll likely see a notable performance increase.
Yes, of course, but now you have to start thinking about algorithms, or
find some existing string library to import.
But if you're just throwing something together quickly, you might end up
with something like my code. (Building strings by appending - sometimes
before being written out as files - is something I do a lot. This is not
just a meaningless benchmark)
> I'm curious how your interpreted algorithm operates.
Nothing special. My memory allocator (sitting on top of malloc)
over-allocates, usually with a power-of-two block size (until it hits
16MB or so anyway then the increase is linear).
String types store a length and allocation size.
malloc() would only be called 13 times for the 10 million appends (2KB,
4KB, ... 16MB), and the current string is copied 13 times. (Strings up
to 1KB along are handled locally.)
With the C, realloc is called 10M-1 times, and if the internal
over-allocation is small, the string might be copied millions of times.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f5e59fd-fd6b-4660-b74a-88f5c11d7312@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98035 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:27:32 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 16:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
> >> Take this simple implementation of a counted string type and character
> >> append routine (see below).
> >>
> >> To append 'A' 10 million times starting with an empty string took about
> >> 13 seconds (gcc -O3, Windows CRT).
> >>
> >> My little *interpreted* language took under 0.2 seconds.
>
> > The features exposed through this "append 'A'" ability mandates a
> > different design. Since you know the ability exists, it would behoove
> > you to create an allocation algorithm which rounds up to the nearest
> > larger size, like 64 bytes, and to include a length of allocated space
> > along with used space.
>
> Why wouldn't malloc or realloc do that?
>
> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
> slow). That is much better:
>
> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
>
> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
>
> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
>
> > If you rewrite your C algorithm to use those two additional facets,
> > you'll likely see a notable performance increase.
>
> Yes, of course, but now you have to start thinking about algorithms, or
> find some existing string library to import.
I would argue that given the ability you propose, and the potential
for use as your sample program indicates, that the necessity of the
existence of the ability itself mandates that you think about your
algorithm design. And, of course, this precludes the fundamental need
in any system to actually consider deeply your algorithm designs.
> But if you're just throwing something together quickly, you might end up
> with something like my code. (Building strings by appending - sometimes
> before being written out as files - is something I do a lot. This is not
> just a meaningless benchmark)
Agreed. But after one run you'd smack yourself on the forehead and say
out loud to the monitor, "Doh!" And then you'd re-design your algorithm
to over-allocate, as you have done, but I don't think the extent to which
you over-allocate is a good solution. A tradeoff is needed. I think
only over-allocating to the next higher 64-byte or 128-byte boundary is
a good solution. And, given such an ability, I would further author my
allocation API functions to include:
void* malloc(size_t size);
void* malloc2(size_t size, int allocation_protocol);
With malloc2() taking two arguments, one for the size to allocate, and
one for a protocol to follow, where it aggressively over-allocates,
over-allocates somewhat, or does not over-allocate. I would then make
malloc() a wrapper for the version which does not over-allocate.
> > I'm curious how your interpreted algorithm operates.
>
> Nothing special. My memory allocator (sitting on top of malloc)
> over-allocates, usually with a power-of-two block size (until it hits
> 16MB or so anyway then the increase is linear).
My thought exactly. Well done on your base design, by the way. :-)
You've built quite an interpreter as is demonstrated by multiple
examples.
> String types store a length and allocation size.
>
> malloc() would only be called 13 times for the 10 million appends (2KB,
> 4KB, ... 16MB), and the current string is copied 13 times. (Strings up
> to 1KB along are handled locally.)
>
> With the C, realloc is called 10M-1 times, and if the internal
> over-allocation is small, the string might be copied millions of times.
C is designed to do what you tell it, not what is possible. It
requires that extra consideration in the algorithm layer which employs
C's abilities in a particular way to then introduce features beneficial
to each application or application-exposed ability.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:19 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ealsuoFkmtmU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98035 |
On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
>
> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
> slow). That is much better:
>
> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
>
> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
>
> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
#include <string>
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
std::string s;
for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
s += 'A';
}
printf("s.length = %d\n",s.size());
}
C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c39a2f8-5dee-447f-a82d-70be76bf6ec0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98042 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
> > I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
> > slow). That is much better:
> > C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
> > 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
> > 100M ? 2.2 1.7
> > 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
> >
> > However, the interpreted code is still faster...
>
> Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
> for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
100M.
> C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
> 500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
500M.
Which is it?
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:26 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ealtauFkmtmU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98043 |
On 12/ 6/16 08:22 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
>>> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
>>> slow). That is much better:
>>> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
>>> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
>>> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
>>> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
>>>
>>> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
>>
>> Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
>> for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
>
> 100M.
>
>> C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
>> 500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
>
> 500M.
>
> Which is it?
500M, I copied the code at the wrong time!
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o24fh0$c19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98042 |
On 05/12/2016 19:19, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
>>
>> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
>> slow). That is much better:
>>
>> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
>>
>> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
>> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
>> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
>>
>> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
>
> Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
>
> #include <string>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main()
> {
> std::string s;
>
> for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
> s += 'A';
> }
>
> printf("s.length = %d\n",s.size());
> }
>
> C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
> 500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
What's the C timing; is that for my code?
If so, it hasn't done too badly!
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:41 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ealu79FkmtmU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98047 |
On 12/ 6/16 08:36 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 19:19, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
>>>
>>> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
>>> slow). That is much better:
>>>
>>> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
>>>
>>> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
>>> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
>>> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
>>>
>>> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
>>
>> Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
>>
>> #include <string>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> std::string s;
>>
>> for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
>> s += 'A';
>> }
>>
>> printf("s.length = %d\n",s.size());
>> }
>>
>> C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
>> 500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
>
> What's the C timing; is that for my code?
>
> If so, it hasn't done too badly!
Yes.
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b96ded1b-6988-4741-8387-f7684f030e95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98049 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:41:37 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 12/ 6/16 08:36 AM, BartC wrote:
> > On 05/12/2016 19:19, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> On 12/ 6/16 07:27 AM, BartC wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've tested the C again on Linux (as Windows C libraries are known to be
> >>> slow). That is much better:
> >>>
> >>> C/Win C/Linux Interpreted/Windows
> >>>
> >>> 10M 13 0.4 0.2 seconds
> >>> 100M ? 2.2 1.7
> >>> 500M ?? 18.0 17.0
> >>>
> >>> However, the interpreted code is still faster...
> >>
> >> Or you could just use a horribly slow and bloated language like C++:
> >>
> >> #include <string>
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> std::string s;
> >>
> >> for (int i=0; i<100000000; ++i) {
> >> s += 'A';
> >> }
> >>
> >> printf("s.length = %d\n",s.size());
> >> }
> >>
> >> C C++ C(64bit) C++(64Bit)
> >> 500M 15.5 8.6 11.2 7.0
> >
> > What's the C timing; is that for my code?
> >
> > If so, it hasn't done too badly!
>
> Yes.
Where's the source code for std::string? I'd like to see how its
allocator works.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web