Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #141169 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-23 21:59 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-03-01 19:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 308 — 53 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-23 22:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-02-23 16:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-24 08:37 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:12 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:11 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:19 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-02-25 09:01 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 01:55 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:31 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:57 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:46 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:34 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 08:48 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 00:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-26 01:33 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 13:18 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 21:48 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 17:54 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-01 20:19 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 03:05 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-01 11:29 +0000
The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-03-01 12:19 +0000
Re: The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:28 -0800
Re: The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:34 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:32 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 14:28 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 15:57 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 06:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 09:21 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 11:23 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-04 14:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 15:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 07:02 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-05 06:36 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 05:14 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jadill33@gmail.com - 2019-03-05 05:44 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 16:47 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-01 14:02 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 15:50 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 06:11 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 16:50 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 07:22 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 07:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-03 19:55 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-02 08:39 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-02 08:37 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 11:43 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-02 07:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 04:18 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-02 12:28 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 05:19 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-02 23:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 18:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-03-02 16:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-03 06:53 +1300
Yep, I'm not surprised. (Was: C is not a low level language) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-03-01 07:31 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wes Newell <w.newell@tx.rr.com> - 2019-03-01 06:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wes Newell <w.newell@tx.rr.com> - 2019-03-01 06:11 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 01:35 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 07:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 07:36 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 02:43 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:33 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
You were not meant to undersand this was: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-26 09:47 -0800
Re: You were not meant to undersand this was: C is not a low level language pjp <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-26 16:05 -0400
Re: C is not a low level language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 20:16 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:57 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 05:15 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 09:00 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 01:58 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 12:19 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 10:01 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 09:04 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 13:25 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:16 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 10:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-27 03:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 10:26 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 12:41 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-25 07:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 09:51 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-02-24 09:37 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-24 22:52 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 16:30 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 07:50 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:14 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-24 17:16 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:42 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language bart4858@gmail.com - 2019-02-24 09:38 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:09 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:13 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:23 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:48 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-24 19:07 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 11:10 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-24 19:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 10:32 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 20:49 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 18:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-24 21:56 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 23:00 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-28 17:07 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:34 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 23:04 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-24 14:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-25 07:12 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-24 10:41 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 06:47 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 16:32 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 03:19 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-02-24 11:11 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "l.s." <l.s@cryptolab.net> - 2019-02-28 19:17 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-28 21:09 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 13:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 10:27 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-03-01 14:18 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 15:10 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-03-01 19:30 +0100
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225071523.f667d85ab00a83d7f8c78eb9@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141201 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:48:49 -0500 "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language How is JavaScript not a programming language ? Last I looked it fell into the "functional language" class of programming languages and has several stand alone implementations as well as being the default language for web page (dis)enhancement. It's not one I would choose but it most certainly is a programming language. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 02:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07acf9b8-9263-4d21-9c2f-328b2edd7263@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141275 |
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:30:11 AM UTC+2, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:48:49 -0500 > "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > > > Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language > > How is JavaScript not a programming language ? Last I looked it > fell into the "functional language" class of programming languages No, javascript language core is imperative. It has enough of support for other styles to be called "multi-paradigm" in wikipedia article, but then again what non-toy language is not "multi-paradigm"? > and has > several stand alone implementations as well as being the default language > for web page (dis)enhancement. It's not one I would choose but it most > certainly is a programming language. > Why wouldn't you use it? It appears much better than many widely used languages. E.g. better than Java or Perl to name just two. > -- > Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays > C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun > The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see > You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q50tvm$tto$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141275 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote | | > Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language | | How is JavaScript not a programming language ? Last I looked it | fell into the "functional language" class of programming languages and has | several stand alone implementations as well as being the default language | for web page (dis)enhancement. It's not one I would choose but it most | certainly is a programming language. | It's an interesting situation. More and more, things that people call "apps" are little more than webpages, while webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see how you might call js programming code. But then, why not HTML? It's code. It's interpreted to produce a useful result. CSS? Of course. AutoIt? Apple script? If someone pastes a few lines of js code they found online, along with a line to call in a copy of jquery, are they programmers or inexperienced web designers? Then should we say that any text, such as a commandline, is programming, while clicking a button is using? I used to know someone who spent his day using Perl to move various files around on a big company network. Is he a programmer? I'd call him a secretary. I don't mean that smugly. I just mean that's really the job he's doing. The actual code writing is minor, menial work. He's not a programmer any more than a secretary is a writer for using a typewriter. And he didn't call himself a programmer. I guess he probably thought of himself as a clerk. I'm currently working on a little HTA Windows utility, powered by VBScript in IE, to clean up and reformat HTML files that have been converted from PDF. I've made similar tools to unpack program installers, extract icons; I even wrote an image editor. It's fun, quick and easy. The IE DOM is so powerful and adaptable that one can basically write complex GUI software using only script. But I wouldn't call VBScript a programming language. It's simple, intepreted and most of its power comes from using COM objects. At some level of wrapper it begins to seem misleading to talk about programming. For me that's all the more relevant these days, as big companies begin to create rental software. Much of that, like Adobe CS or Office 365, is fullscale compiled desktop software that pretends to be online in order to justify rental fees. Other things are mostly online and act like they're local. Then there are Java and .Net, in the middle, not actually running directly on an OS platform. We can call those programming code, but the distinction is important. A 2 MB editor written in C/C++ is a 2 MB editor. A 2 MB editor written in Java or .Net is going to require that I install an OS wrapper of hundreds of MB. It's really glorified, OO script. So I don't have a problem with you calling js a programming language, but I just call it a scripting language. A programming language is something I'd use to write compiled software that runs on top of an OS platform. And while I use a lot of software, I have no intention of using Microsoft's Metro webpage-based thingies. Ironically, for a lot of companies and programmers now, writing to an OS API is viewed like a horse and buggy. People are largely unaware that they're writing to levels of wrappers. A lot of .Net programmers think they're using a newer, separate API. I noticed recently with the Google and Bing REST APIs for maps that compiled software is being "deprecated" and the terms of use for various map services are vague when it comes to compiled desktop software. Bing doesn't even allow streetside images via REST. Those companies are so focused on services and ad income from phones that their APIs have also become services of a kind. You don't use a toolbox they've provided, as with an OS API. Rather, you get a few simple tools that are designed to use their services. The programmers, if you want to call them that, are more like pizza delivery drivers where they used to be pizza chefs.... But I suppose that once all pizza is microwaved and delivered, a pizza delivery driver will be called a "chef". And their status will be valorized by putting lots of obscure words, curly brackets, and pointless semi-colons on their uniforms. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225150358.604bf474ed395da3ee965d80@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141307 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:25:26 -0500 "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > It's an interesting situation. More and more, things > that people call "apps" are little more than webpages, > while webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized > software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So > it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see > how you might call js programming code. But then, why > not HTML? It's code. It's interpreted to produce a JavaScript is (ignoring resource limits) a Turing complete language, HTML is not. > useful result. CSS? Of course. AutoIt? Apple script? CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop), AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes. Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q517kq$326$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141317 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote | CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop), | AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes. | | Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself. | That's one way to look at it, but you completely missed the points I was making. By your definition an abacus is a programming language. So what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225175834.d9e1d974040f1aa309baf04c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141328 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:10:17 -0500 "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote > > | CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop), > | AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes. > | > | Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself. > | > > That's one way to look at it, but you completely > missed the points I was making. By your definition > an abacus is a programming language. So what? Nope, an abacus does nothing without a human being. Turing completeness has been the effective definition of a programming language for longer than I have been in the business. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5C741B6A.58E03FC@Berger-Odenthal.De> |
| In reply to | #141307 |
Mayayana wrote: > webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized > software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So > it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see > how you might call js programming code. JS is not single task. You can include it in PDF and as far as I know you can also use it for general purpose programming. You might need some very small HTML to wrap around, but then other languages too have APIs for in- and output. -- /¯\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067 \ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Straße 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069 X in | D-50829 Köln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de / \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gkkdkf-esi.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #141323 |
On 25/02/2019 18:44, Axel Berger wrote: [Javascript] > You can include it in PDF and as far as I know > you can also use it for general purpose programming. You might need some > very small HTML to wrap around, No, you don't. node.js allows to run Javascript outside of a browser environment. It's focused on server-side web development -- but that kinda makes sense: if you're developing a web thing, it helps if the server- and the browser-side of the equation are written in the same language (so you don't always have to switch language when you switch from server to client or vice versa; and you can share some code between the two where that makes sense)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #141201 |
On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote: > 2) What do you need in the result? > > Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java > and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the > ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful, > but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore > not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and > cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be > allowed to survive. :) Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C. Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is easily maintained. Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YvvWcMx6b8ccFwKI@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #141283 |
In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes: >On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote: >> 2) What do you need in the result? >> >> Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java >> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the >> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful, >> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore >> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and >> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be >> allowed to survive. :) > >Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C. > >Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is >easily maintained. Or C, or any language - even BASIC. > >Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or the beer holder! That applies to more than just pulchritude: one should not code when under the affluence! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf What's awful about weird views is not the views. It's the intolerance. If someone wants to worship the Duke of Edinburgh or a pineapple, fine. But don't kill me if I don't agree. - Tim Rice, Radio Times 15-21 October 2011.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q50n3i$gvu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141296 |
On 25/02/2019 10:44, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst > <w@uter.be> writes: <snip> >> >> Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C. >> >> Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is >> easily maintained. > > Or C, or any language - even BASIC. *Any* language? I think I would draw the line at BrainF**k, or Ook!, or Whitespace, or Piet. These languages were *designed* not to be readable. >> Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive. -- 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 | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141302 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive.
This program is pretty ...
#define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_
}
... but far from readable.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8_adnfNyv47PvOnBnZ2dnUU78e9QAAAA@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #141308 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather
>> attractive.
>
> This program is pretty ...
>
> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> {
> _-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_
> }
>
>
> ... but far from readable.
I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do, but when I
compile and run it on my Pi it prints out "0.250". Mind you, it does
generate loads of compiler warnings so I bet it's not doing what it was
intended to do, even though it compiles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vhndkf-qfm.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #141327 |
On 25/02/2019 19:08, NY wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather
>>> attractive.
>>
>> This program is pretty ...
>>
>> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
>> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
>> {
>> _-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_
>> }
>>
>>
>> ... but far from readable.
>
> I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do,
It's not that hard.
The first line defines the symbol "_" to expand to the second part.
We'll come back to that later.
The next line defines the global variables 'F' and 'OO', which are both
initialized to 0 (written as "00", but that's the same thing), and then
defines the main function.
The main function calls the function F_OO, then prints the result of
multiplying 4 by -F divided by OO divided (again) by OO. The dot beween
the 4 and the * turns the 4 into a floating-point number, which is
necessary for the printf format, but is otherwise uninteresting.
The function F_OO simply has several lines of the _ and - characters.
The latter is simply retained; the former gets expanded because it's a
macro.
_-_ would turn into:
|-----macro----| |-----macro----|
-F<00||--F-OO--;--F<00||--F-00--;
The minus between the two underscores gets prepended to the macro
expansion. However, macro expansion cannot turn a unary minus operator
into a prefix decrement operator, so that means that you should read the
second expansion as "-(-F)< 00".
As such, for every first expansion, the single unary minus there turns
the negative value in the F variable into a positive value (or it
remains at zero on the first line, which is also not negative and
therefore also triggers the logical or), which means that the F and OO
variable get decremented. They then get subtracted from one another, but
the result of that subtraction is not stored anywhere so it is thrown
away (or optimized away by most modern compilers).
For every second and later expansion of every line, the condition
"--F<00" must be true, and therefore the "--F-00--" part is not called.
So, every line, F is decremented once, and OO is decremented once.
There are 16 lines, so that must mean that at the end of the function,
both F and OO contain the value -16.
The result is that main calculates 4 * -(-16) / -16 / -16, which is 4 *
16 / -16 / -16, which is 4 / 16, which is indeed 0.25.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225180038.2f35364b4531904d6d79725a@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141327 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:08:50 -0000
"NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather
> >> attractive.
> >
> > This program is pretty ...
> >
> > #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> > int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> > {
> > _-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_
> > }
> >
> >
> > ... but far from readable.
>
> I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do, but
> when I compile and run it on my Pi it prints out "0.250". Mind you, it
> does generate loads of compiler warnings so I bet it's not doing what it
> was intended to do, even though it compiles.
It's in K&R C rather than ANSI C so it needs some fiddling with
compiler options to make it compile correctly on a modern system. It
calculates pi by measuring the area of the crude circle drawn in the source
code.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln1s3so1tu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141308 |
[Dropped extraneous newsgroups]
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive.
>
> This program is pretty ...
>
> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> {
> _-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_
> }
>
>
> ... but far from readable.
That program is from the 1989 IOCCC (International Obfuscated C Code
Contest). It doesn't produce the expected result because it makes an
assumption about the behavior of the C preprocessor.
Changing the #define line to
#define _ F-->00||F-OO--;
fixes the problem. (It still produces some warnings, and strictly
speaking has undefined behavior, fixable by updating adding an #include
directive and updating the function declarations.)
With this change, the output is
3.141
https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c
https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnwolkmcp5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141488 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
>> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
>> {
>> _-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_
>> }
>>
>>
>> ... but far from readable.
>
> That program is from the 1989 IOCCC (International Obfuscated C Code
> Contest). It doesn't produce the expected result because it makes an
> assumption about the behavior of the C preprocessor.
Correction: 1988.
> Changing the #define line to
>
> #define _ F-->00||F-OO--;
>
> fixes the problem. (It still produces some warnings, and strictly
> speaking has undefined behavior, fixable by updating adding an #include
> directive and updating the function declarations.)
>
> With this change, the output is
>
> 3.141
>
> https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c
> https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAA08EFC6E7874HT1@doCX0.74.zmu4y91> |
| In reply to | #141296 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> news:YvvWcMx6b8ccFwKI@ 255soft.uk Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:44:10 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: > In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst > <w@uter.be> writes: >>On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote: >>> 2) What do you need in the result? >>> >>> Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java >>> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the >>> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful, >>> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore >>> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and >>> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be >>> allowed to survive. :) >> >>Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C. >> >>Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is >>easily maintained. > > Or C, or any language - even BASIC. >> >>Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. > > Or the beer holder! That applies to more than just pulchritude: one > should not code when under the affluence! Oh, one can. but.. some very interesting umm, new features can be introduced in your code when doing so. <G> -- Confucius say: Man who abuse his computer get bad bytes!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225122751.232aac1f5c0a697d0c04f834@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141283 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:35:50 +0200 Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote: > Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is > easily maintained. Quite so, writing unreadable code in any language is stupid unless it's for a stunt like the three line RSA implementation or the obfuscated code competitions. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q50ul2$2lv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141283 |
"Wouter Verhelst" <w@uter.be> wrote | > Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be | > allowed to survive. :) | | Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C. | | Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is | easily maintained. | | Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yes. I was just teasing. It seems to me that different languages suit different personalities. In general it seems that the more math-oriented people like terser languages. But that's just my observation. I don't have any evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web