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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16792 > unrolled thread

Self-taught C

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

Contents

  Self-taught C Sleepy Duke <josh.izzard@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 09:24 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C "Bl0ckeduser ." <bl0ckedusersoft@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 11:54 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-05 04:34 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-04 05:38 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-08 16:42 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-08 11:50 -0500
          Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:07 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 17:25 -0500
        Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:42 -0800
          Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 05:05 -0800
            Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-09 13:31 +0000
              Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 06:39 -0800
              Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 07:53 -0800
                Re: Self-taught C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-09 09:32 -0800
                  Re: Self-taught C Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-09 12:34 -0800
                    Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-09 16:06 -0500
                      Re: Self-taught C Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-09 14:17 -0800
                        Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-09 17:46 -0500
                          Re: Self-taught C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-18 01:08 +0000
                            Re: Self-taught C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-19 18:23 +0100
                    Re: Self-taught C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-09 14:38 -0800
                  Re: Self-taught C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-09 21:52 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-09 16:08 -0600
                Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-09 16:16 -0600
                  Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 00:39 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-10 10:50 -0600
                      Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 22:21 +0000
                Re: Self-taught C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-09 23:45 +0000
                  Re: Self-taught C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-09 16:32 -0800
                    Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 11:24 +0000
                    Re: Self-taught C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-21 23:19 +0200
                      Re: Self-taught C Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-22 08:54 +0100
                Re: Self-taught C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-10 00:38 +0000
              Re: Self-taught C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 00:07 -0500
              Re: Self-taught C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-10 20:34 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-09 23:36 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-02-09 22:14 -0700
              Re: Self-taught C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 03:49 -0800
          Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:12 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-02-14 14:50 +0000
          Re: Self-taught C 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-02-14 09:49 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-05 04:32 -0800
      Re: Self-taught C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 04:23 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-02-06 22:34 -0700
          Re: Self-taught C Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-07 10:26 +0100
            Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-07 02:18 -0800
              Re: Self-taught C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-07 22:28 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-02-08 04:05 +0000
      Re: Self-taught C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-08 10:31 +0000
        Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:51 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-09 21:26 -0500
    Re: Self-taught C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-07 07:53 -0500
    Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 14:29 +0000
      Re: Self-taught C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-02-07 09:26 -0800
        Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 17:45 +0000
          Re: Self-taught C notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-02-07 18:07 +0000
            Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:56 -0800
    Re: Self-taught C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 00:53 -0800

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

#17008

Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:

> blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
>
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
>>> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
>>> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
>>> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
>>> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
>>> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
>>> type in the next character.
>>
>> I've seen people do that, but I've never understood why.  If
>> you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".  Don't type "x" and
>> wait for it to appear, then type "e" and wait for it for appear.
>> It's a great way to waste your own time.
>
> Not everyone can touch-type.

If you are typing, but not touch-typing, then you are looking at
the keyboard, so you should have no uncertainty about what you
have typed.
-- 
"All code should be deliberately written for the purposes of instruction. 
 If your code isn't readable, it isn't finished yet."
--Richard Heathfield

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

#17003

In article <87ehu352vq.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org>,
Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>If you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".

I'm used to using a VT100 against a less-than-crisp machine.
But sometimes when people see me do that, they are all 'whoa' like it's
some kind of wizard skill.

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

#17004

On 09-Feb-12 15:52, Joe keane wrote:
> In article <87ehu352vq.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org>,
> Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> If you're going to type "xerxes", type "xerxes".
> 
> I'm used to using a VT100 against a less-than-crisp machine.
> But sometimes when people see me do that, they are all 'whoa' like it's
> some kind of wizard skill.

I learned touch-typing long ago since I was able to outpace my modem
when chatting on bulletin boards, though that only lasted a few years.

Today, I can often outpace my phone's on-screen keyboard with just my
thumbs, which amazes friends.  I don't see what's so difficult about it,
especially if you're looking at the keyboard while typing like most
hunt-and-peckers do.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#17005

On 09-Feb-12 09:53, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:31 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
>>> which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
>>> sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
>>> that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
>>> remote.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
>> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
>> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>>
>> Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving
>> streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a
>> graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the
>> world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level,
>> it's essentially the same thing.
>
> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
> type in the next character.
> With the web interface the server says "put up an edit box". The
> client then allows the user to enter text. It then tells the server
> "the user has finished putting text into the boxes you told me to put
> up, and here's what he wrote".

Yes, the Web was the new "green screen" application.

However, the cycle of reincarnation continued to turn and now many
poorly-written AJAX applications need a round-trip (or several) to the
server before they'll update the page...

The "problem" with X was/is really that people tried to use it over
networks that simply didn't have the bandwidth to support what they were
trying to do.  Like any interactive application, once the network starts
buffering and/or dropping packets, performance goes to heck.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#17019

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
<snip>
> The "problem" with X was/is really that people tried to use it over
> networks that simply didn't have the bandwidth to support what they were
> trying to do.

Small niggle: it's often the latency rather than the bandwidth that
kills X applications.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#17061

On 09-Feb-12 18:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> <snip>
>> The "problem" with X was/is really that people tried to use it over
>> networks that simply didn't have the bandwidth to support what they were
>> trying to do.
> 
> Small niggle: it's often the latency rather than the bandwidth that
> kills X applications.

Raw latency is rarely a problem; even the RTT of a trip around the
entire planet borders on acceptable performance.

However, if a network link is congested, packets get buffered and that
can increase the _effective_ latency by an order of magnitude or two.
And buffers have a finite size, so when they fill up packets start
getting dropped--and detecting and retransmitting those packets will
increase the effective latency by _another_ order of magnitude.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#17089

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

> On 09-Feb-12 18:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> The "problem" with X was/is really that people tried to use it over
>>> networks that simply didn't have the bandwidth to support what they were
>>> trying to do.
>> 
>> Small niggle: it's often the latency rather than the bandwidth that
>> kills X applications.
>
> Raw latency is rarely a problem; even the RTT of a trip around the
> entire planet borders on acceptable performance.

X was designed when that was very far from true.  You said "was/is" so I
though you were covering this historical situation.

> However, if a network link is congested, packets get buffered and that
> can increase the _effective_ latency by an order of magnitude or two.
> And buffers have a finite size, so when they fill up packets start
> getting dropped--and detecting and retransmitting those packets will
> increase the effective latency by _another_ order of magnitude.

It sounds like we agree.

-- 
Ben.

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

#17011

On 2012-02-09, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:31 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> > X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
>> > which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
>> > sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
>> > that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
>> > remote.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
>> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
>> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>>
>> Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving
>> streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a
>> graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the
>> world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level,
>> it's essentially the same thing.
>>
> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
> type in the next character.

I sat in a lab full of X window terminals at university and don't remember
any of these problems.

X does require a fairly low latency connection to the server in order
to be useful.

> With the web interface the server says "put up an edit box". The
> client then allows the user to enter text. It then tells the server
> "the user has finished putting text into the boxes you told me to put
> up, and here's what he wrote".

But this basically brings you back to a command line interface. You can't
compare a window system with detailed mouse and keyboard events to form
submission (which requires some kind of GUI underneath it). That is completely
moronic.

If form submission were enough, we wouldn't have Javascript for developing
"desktop-like" apps (which don't even come close, usually). Javascript can
render the browser unresponsive, and is a gaping security hole.

I use the NoScript FireFox extension to explicitly allow Javascript
on a site-by-site basis.

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

#17016

On Feb 9, 11:45 pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-09, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > With the web interface the server says "put up an edit box". The
> > client then allows the user to enter text. It then tells the server
> > "the user has finished putting text into the boxes you told me to put
> > up, and here's what he wrote".
>
> But this basically brings you back to a command line interface. You can't
> compare a window system with detailed mouse and keyboard events to form
> submission (which requires some kind of GUI underneath it). That is completely
> moronic.
>
For some applications you do need to be able to send keystrokes to the
main logic cruncher. But usually you don't. Someplace somewhere you
need the logic to detect the keystroke, decode it, convert it to a
character stream, and display the text. Users like instantaneous
feedback for this. Also, it's not very processor heavy, and virtually
always the task is very standardised, just a case of entering text
into an edit box. So the obvious place to do this is in the terminal.
That's not a moronic design decision at all.

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

#17048

Malcolm McLean wrote:

> Also, it's not very processor heavy, and virtually
> always the task is very standardised, just a case of entering text
> into an edit box. So the obvious place to do this is in the terminal.
> That's not a moronic design decision at all.

Maybe you are forgetting that, when X was developed, terminals were truly 
"thin", and therefore they only had the processing power to barely handle 
stuff such as networking.

Nowadays, the thinnest of clients has more computational power than the 
typical server of that time.  So, with such a resource abundance, it is 
terribly easy to make bold claims about where a certain data should be 
processed, how a protocol should be designed and about what messages should 
be sent to whom.  

It is also easy to lose perspective when we have the same system internally 
performing the job of the client and the server.

Yet, forgetting about these details isn't a good reason to start assuming 
that back then everyone was a fool who only took bad decisions and couldn't 
put together an acceptable system that was able to work reasonably well.  If 
we aren't aware of what constraints lead to a specific design decision then 
we might actually not learn anything from it.


Rui Maciel

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

#17749

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Feb 9, 11:45 pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-02-09, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > With the web interface the server says "put up an edit box". The
> > > client then allows the user to enter text. It then tells the server
> > > "the user has finished putting text into the boxes you told me to put
> > > up, and here's what he wrote".
> >
> > But this basically brings you back to a command line interface. You can't
> > compare a window system with detailed mouse and keyboard events to form
> > submission (which requires some kind of GUI underneath it). That is completely
> > moronic.
> >
> For some applications you do need to be able to send keystrokes to the
> main logic cruncher. But usually you don't. Someplace somewhere you
> need the logic to detect the keystroke, decode it, convert it to a
> character stream, and display the text. Users like instantaneous
> feedback for this. Also, it's not very processor heavy, and virtually
> always the task is very standardised, just a case of entering text
> into an edit box. So the obvious place to do this is in the terminal.
> That's not a moronic design decision at all.

If I'm not mistaken, when I briefly enabled javascript for translate.google.com,
every single keypress would cause a network transaction. It wouldn't even wait 
for me to reach whitespace or punctuation. Add a corporate VPN to the mix, and 
you have a nightmare. NoScript was happy to save me from google's dumbarsery.
I believe their search boxes are the same (but I've never had JS enabled for 
those pages). And google's not alone. The decision to process text entry purely
in the client is falling out of fashion in a big way.

Phil (big fan of the "don't send it until return's pressed" interfaces)
-- 
> I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God.
Pics or it didn't happen.
-- Tom (/. uid 822)

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

#17776

> Phil (big fan of the "don't send it until return's pressed" interfaces)

First thing I've heard from you I agree with ;-)

Up with MVS, down with UNIX!

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

#17018

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Feb 9, 1:31 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> > X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
>> > which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
>> > sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
>> > that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
>> > remote.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
>> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
>> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>>
>> Fast-forward 30 years, nowadays we have clients sending and receiving
>> streams of bytes over a network to/from a server in order to provide a
>> graphical user interface, but instead of the X window system we have the
>> world wide web.  So, although it's a slightly different abstraction level,
>> it's essentially the same thing.
>>
> The problem is that the messages were wrong. In X the server sends a
> message "A key was pressed" and the client has to send back a mesage
> "please draw the letter X in such and such a font in that window". So
> of course the poor user would hammer the key again, then get a row of
> xes, then press delete several times, delete the lot, then tap the x
> key once, deliberately and smartly, and go for a coffee until he could
> type in the next character.

I've been using X based systems for more than a quarter of a century and
I've never had that problem.  I'm using X right now and there's no such
problem.  I used thin clients in the '80s and never had that problem.

I am sure it's possible, but it's not obviously X's problem if it is
used where it is inappropriate to do so.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#17037

On 2/9/2012 08:31, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
>> which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
>> sever", which means client. However virtually no systems work like
>> that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
>> remote.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients
> in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in
> mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.
>

I remember using X on terminals that were diskless and had mouse, 
keyboard, monitor, network.  It startled me.

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

#17081

In article <jh0hrn$n6a$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
Rui Maciel  <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>If I'm not mistaken, the X window system was developed with remote clients 
>in mind and in a time where remote clients were the norm.  So, with that in 
>mind, I don't agree that X was fundamentally misdesigned.

Using Andrew wm, it was helpful, because the machines were chronically
short on memory.  Running your big apps on different machines [if
they're available] improved the experience quite a bit.

After we switched to X, i found that what people were using it for is to
run a remote xterm!  Does that make any sense?  Sending X protocol over
the wires when you could send VT52 protocol?

OT OT OT OT

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

#17010

On 2012-02-09, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
> which means sever,

Blast from the past! I haven't heard this bullshit in some 20 years.

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

#17039

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Feb 9, 8:42 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Nowadays simple GUI/graphics stuff is probably about evens. But when
>> it was X-Window verses Win32 I humbly submit Windows was streets
>> ahead!
>>
> X is fundamentally misdesigned, because the idea is that the "client",
> which means sever, sends a stream of bytes over a network to the "X
> sever", which means client.

Sigh.  Are there stil people left who want to pretend that they don't
understand why the X server is referred to as the server, and then want
to use that as a criticism of X?  Apparently.

> However virtually no systems work like
> that, and in fact it's hard to get interactivity if the client is
> remote. But that consideration dominates the interface.

Well, yeah, the idea is to be able to work easily on a LAN.  If you're
still trying to run X over a 1200 baud modem or something, you're a
*really* slow learner.

> Then it's stupidly hard to get up a wondow because you've got to mess
> about with defining colormaps.

So learn about toolkits.

> I did try to solve these problems with BabyX, which was going to be a
> simple interface to X. But I never finished it, and there were some
> difficulties. It worked on one system, but not when I tried it on
> another.

Seems like everybody tried to solve these problems at one time or
another, and created yet another toolkit, that they never
finished.... (in my case, it least it was a student project... and the
student did learn a lot...).

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

#17049

On Feb 10, 5:14 am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> Sigh.  Are there stil people left who want to pretend that they don't
> understand why the X server is referred to as the server, and then want
> to use that as a criticism of X?  Apparently.

Staggering, isn't it?  The UNIX Haters Handbook was ill-conceived even
in 1994, and nearly 20 years later people are still parroting its
idiocies as insight.

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

#17254

On Thu, 2012-02-09, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:42 pm, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-02-04, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> > On Feb 3, 5:24 pm, Sleepy Duke <josh.izz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> What are the best methods you all have found for teaching yourselves > >> how to code proficiently in C?
>
> [...]
>
>> > [...] get graphics working as fast as you
>> > can. It's harder now than it was to get a simple character-based
>> > raster that can be used for moving space invaders round the screen.
>>
>> It's still easy on Unix, where you have the curses library.
>>
>> {{Unix bigot mode|
>> Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
>> have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
>> imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}
>
> simple filters that work in Unix work fine in windows. You may even be
> able to run the same code.

Yes, but you have no data to feed into them (you can't sort(1) a
Powerpoint) and you aren't, as a user, exposed to the idea of building
systems by chaining small tools and file formats together.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#17311

Jorgen Grahn wrote:
) It's still easy on Unix, where you have the curses library.
)
) {{Unix bigot mode|
) Unix in general makes it easier to write programs which are small and
) have a simple interface, yet are useful. I haven't tried it, but I
) imagine the threshold is much higher on Windows.}}

Disagree.  I come from Unix, and I'm now working in a Windows shop, as a
sort-of-admin, and I often write small programs with a simple interface to
get stuff done.

I mainly use Perl and C#, although must 'real' .NET programmers would
probably qualify my code as 'dirty hacks', as it contains one file, with
one class, and only 'static' functions.

So, basically, I write C# like it's ordinary C but with all those extra
neato library functions (LINQ ftw!)


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

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

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

csiph-web