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 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
| From | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.22244FD40549FFD170000F02C2EF@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141249 |
On 24 Feb 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote (in article <q4v076$v0p$1@dont-email.me>): > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > > On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote > > (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): > > > > > On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > > On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > > > If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your > > > > > data, there's nothing wrong with using str. > > > > > > > > c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); > > > > if(c) > > > > strcpy (c,str); > > > > > > Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find > > > it twice: > > > > > > size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; > > > c = malloc(len); > > > if(c) > > > memcpy(c, str, len); > > > > > > but it's a minor point. > > > > There is language in which you can write: > > > > copy : String := source; > > > > The compiler does all the work. No need to use the heap. > > Instead it uses some sort of memory management that may do garbage > collection at any time not under your control No, it does not. You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. > > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding. > > It is used when lives are at stake. > > It puts lives at risk Bollocks. > > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. It is available on the R Pi. > > Any guesses? > could be any one of a dozen me too languages. Name one. -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 08:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <25144fe0-de2a-4a73-bb74-e7362f8cb95f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141322 |
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:31:25 PM UTC+2, Bill Findlay wrote: > On 24 Feb 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote > (in article <q4v076$v0p$1@dont-email.me>): > > > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote > > > (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): > > > > > > > On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > > > On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > > > > If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your > > > > > > data, there's nothing wrong with using str. > > > > > > > > > > c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); > > > > > if(c) > > > > > strcpy (c,str); > > > > > > > > Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find > > > > it twice: > > > > > > > > size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; > > > > c = malloc(len); > > > > if(c) > > > > memcpy(c, str, len); > > > > > > > > but it's a minor point. > > > > > > There is language in which you can write: > > > > > > copy : String := source; > > > > > > The compiler does all the work. No need to use the heap. > > > > Instead it uses some sort of memory management that may do garbage > > collection at any time not under your control > > No, it does not. You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. > If you just use 'copy' locally then it does not have to use heap. However most popular implementation, which name I wouldn't mention here, probably does use heap even in this case. And if you want to return 'copy' to the caller or to pass it to different task then all reasonable implementations are extremely likely to use heap. As to garbage collection, it's not necessary, but in complex long-running program you don't really have any other choice if you don't force programmers into using generic procedure Un*****ed_De*********on. And if you do force then into using it then your programs are no longer "safe" to the same degree of safety as GC-based languages. > > > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding. > > > It is used when lives are at stake. > > > > It puts lives at risk > > Bollocks. > > > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. It is available on the R Pi. > > > Any guesses? > > could be any one of a dozen me too languages. > > Name one. > > -- > Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnmumjo7cw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141228 |
Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> There is language in which you can write:
>
> copy : String := source;
>
> The compiler does all the work.
> No need to use the heap.
> The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding.
> It is used when lives are at stake.
> It runs, at least some, code faster than C.
> It is available on the R Pi.
>
> Any guesses?
No.
You've posted at least two more followups without telling us what
language you're talking about.
So, what language are you talking about? I, for one, am not interested
in guessing.
Please consider trimming the newsgroups to which this discussion is
being inappropriately cross-posted.
--
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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Hv_cE.106749$qz5.28149@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #141337 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>[...]
>> There is language in which you can write:
>>
>> copy : String := source;
>>
>> The compiler does all the work.
>> No need to use the heap.
>> The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding.
>> It is used when lives are at stake.
>> It runs, at least some, code faster than C.
>> It is available on the R Pi.
>>
>> Any guesses?
>
>No.
>
>You've posted at least two more followups without telling us what
>language you're talking about.
>
>So, what language are you talking about? I, for one, am not interested
>in guessing.
>
>Please consider trimming the newsgroups to which this discussion is
>being inappropriately cross-posted.
I'm pretty sure it is ADA.
type ALIs_Record is record
Afile : File_Name_Type;
-- Name of ALI file
Ofile_Full_Name : Name_Id;
-- Full name of object file corresponding to the ALI file
Sfile : File_Name_Type;
-- Name of source file that generates this ALI file (which is equal
-- to the name of the source file in the first unit table entry for
-- this ALI file, since the body if present is always first).
...
Which would make the above example simple string assignment; in C
strcpy(copy, source);
I believe that ADA strings, however, have an implicit length field.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnimx7o25s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141373 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>[...]
>>> There is language in which you can write:
>>>
>>> copy : String := source;
>>>
>>> The compiler does all the work.
>>> No need to use the heap.
>>> The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding.
>>> It is used when lives are at stake.
>>> It runs, at least some, code faster than C.
>>> It is available on the R Pi.
>>>
>>> Any guesses?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>You've posted at least two more followups without telling us what
>>language you're talking about.
>>
>>So, what language are you talking about? I, for one, am not interested
>>in guessing.
>>
>>Please consider trimming the newsgroups to which this discussion is
>>being inappropriately cross-posted.
>
> I'm pretty sure it is ADA.
It's spelled "Ada"; the name is not an acronym.
That's certainly one possibility, but the question I'm asking is
not which languages Bill *might* be talking about. I see no point
in continuing the discussion unless Bill tells us which language
he *is* talking about.
[...]
> I believe that ADA strings, however, have an implicit length field.
Not exactly. It's more complicated than that.
--
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 | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 00:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b188e44-3d80-487f-b085-cfb81fd87a4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141378 |
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+2, Keith Thompson wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> >>Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> >>[...]
> >>> There is language in which you can write:
> >>>
> >>> copy : String := source;
> >>>
> >>> The compiler does all the work.
> >>> No need to use the heap.
> >>> The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding.
> >>> It is used when lives are at stake.
> >>> It runs, at least some, code faster than C.
> >>> It is available on the R Pi.
> >>>
> >>> Any guesses?
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>You've posted at least two more followups without telling us what
> >>language you're talking about.
> >>
> >>So, what language are you talking about? I, for one, am not interested
> >>in guessing.
> >>
> >>Please consider trimming the newsgroups to which this discussion is
> >>being inappropriately cross-posted.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it is ADA.
>
> It's spelled "Ada"; the name is not an acronym.
>
> That's certainly one possibility, but the question I'm asking is
> not which languages Bill *might* be talking about. I see no point
With Bill there is no "might". You can be 100% sure.
> in continuing the discussion unless Bill tells us which language
> he *is* talking about.
>
> [...]
>
> > I believe that ADA strings, however, have an implicit length field.
>
> Not exactly. It's more complicated than that.
>
> --
> 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 | 2019-02-26 01:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnef7uopvv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141402 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com writes:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+2, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> That's certainly one possibility, but the question I'm asking is
>> not which languages Bill *might* be talking about. I see no point
>
> With Bill there is no "might". You can be 100% sure.
>
>> in continuing the discussion unless Bill tells us which language
>> he *is* talking about.
I don't know who Bill is, so no, I can't be 100% sure until and unless
he chooses to speak for himself. If he doesn't, that's fine; I'll just
lose all interest in discussing it with him.
--
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 | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.22283EB60635FD2770000F02C2EF@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141373 |
On 25 Feb 2019, Scott Lurndal wrote (in article <Hv_cE.106749$qz5.28149@fx37.iad>): > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > > Bill Findlay<findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > > [...] > > > There is language in which you can write: > > > > > > copy : String := source; > > > > > > The compiler does all the work. > > > No need to use the heap. > > > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding. > > > It is used when lives are at stake. > > > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. > > > It is available on the R Pi. > > > > > > Any guesses? > > > > No. > > > > You've posted at least two more followups without telling us what > > language you're talking about. > > > > So, what language are you talking about? I, for one, am not interested > > in guessing. > > > > Please consider trimming the newsgroups to which this discussion is > > being inappropriately cross-posted. > > I'm pretty sure it is ADA. Ada (2012). > type ALIs_Record is record > Afile : File_Name_Type; > -- Name of ALI file > > Ofile_Full_Name : Name_Id; > -- Full name of object file corresponding to the ALI file > > Sfile : File_Name_Type; > -- Name of source file that generates this ALI file (which is equal > -- to the name of the source file in the first unit table entry for > -- this ALI file, since the body if present is always first). > ... > > Which would make the above example simple string assignment; in C > > strcpy(copy, source); > > I believe that ADA strings, however, have an implicit length field. There are actually several kinds of string type. One has an explicit length field. One is actually allocated on the heap. String, as you say, may have an implicit length field, although the compiler can discard that if the length is known at compile type. -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q51gu2$1o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141228 |
Den 2019-02-25 kl. 18:55, skrev Bart: > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: >> On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote >> (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): >> >>> On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your >>>>> data, there's nothing wrong with using str. >>>> >>>> c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); >>>> if(c) >>>> strcpy (c,str); >>> >>> Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find >>> it twice: >>> >>> size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; >>> c = malloc(len); >>> if(c) >>> memcpy(c, str, len); >>> >>> but it's a minor point. >> >> There is language in which you can write: >> >> copy : String := source; >> >> The compiler does all the work. >> No need to use the heap. > > That depends on exactly what your line does. (Which actually is not that > clear: is String the name of a type or of a variable? >What's the 'copy:' > for? I assume it copies one string to another, but if so, does it copy > by value, or does it share the original string? Are the strings mutable? > What is the maximum string length (since non-heap space is usually > limited). etc.) It pretty obvious. 'copy' is the name of a varible of type String. String is mos likely an array of characters. 'Source' is also a name of a string varible. So, 'copy' will become a string varible with a copy of the content of 'source', and it will have the sme size. and same boundaries. (an array does not have to start with index zero) strings are mutable as any array. max size is dependend on heap-size. > >> The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive >> coding. >> It is used when lives are at stake. >> It runs, at least some, code faster than C. >> It is available on the R Pi. >> >> Any guesses? > > No. Which one was it? Ada -- Björn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.22283DFA0635D11A70000F02C2EF@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141350 |
On 25 Feb 2019, Björn Lundin wrote (in article <q51gu2$1o6$1@dont-email.me>): > Den 2019-02-25 kl. 18:55, skrev Bart: > > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote > > > (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): > > > > > > > On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > > > On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > > > > If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your > > > > > > data, there's nothing wrong with using str. > > > > > > > > > > c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); > > > > > if(c) > > > > > strcpy (c,str); > > > > > > > > Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find > > > > it twice: > > > > > > > > size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; > > > > c = malloc(len); > > > > if(c) > > > > memcpy(c, str, len); > > > > > > > > but it's a minor point. > > > > > > There is language in which you can write: > > > > > > copy : String := source; > > > > > > The compiler does all the work. > > > No need to use the heap. > > > > That depends on exactly what your line does. (Which actually is not that > > clear: is String the name of a type or of a variable? > > > What's the 'copy:' > > for? I assume it copies one string to another, but if so, does it copy > > by value, or does it share the original string? Are the strings mutable? > > What is the maximum string length (since non-heap space is usually > > limited). etc.) > > It pretty obvious. > > 'copy' is the name of a varible of type String. > String is mos likely an array of characters. > 'Source' is also a name of a string varible. > > So, 'copy' will become a string varible with a copy of the content of > 'source', and it will have the sme size. and same boundaries. > (an array does not have to start with index zero) > > strings are mutable as any array. > max size is dependend on heap-size. > > > > > > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive > > > coding. > > > It is used when lives are at stake. > > > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. > > > It is available on the R Pi. > > > > > > Any guesses? > > > > No. Which one was it? > > Ada Yup! 8-) -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dZ33ROaSuAecFw5T@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #141498 |
In message <0001HW.22283DFA0635D11A70000F02C2EF@news.individual.net>, Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >On 25 Feb 2019, Björn Lundin wrote >(in article <q51gu2$1o6$1@dont-email.me>): > >> Den 2019-02-25 kl. 18:55, skrev Bart: >> > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: [] >> > > There is language in which you can write: >> > > >> > > copy : String := source; [] >> > That depends on exactly what your line does. (Which actually is not that >> > clear: is String the name of a type or of a variable? [] >> It pretty obvious. [] I'm sorry, but the above is why this sort of discussion never ends. When someone is intimately familiar with the syntax of a language, the meaning/functioning of a line like the above - or, say, in C, something like *a++=b(&c--) - _is_ obvious; to anyone else, it is far from so. And the person to whom it _is_ second nature sees no point in explaining it with a comment, either: (a) it just _does_ seem so obvious to them, (b) they'd actually find it difficult _to_ explain, in much the same way as describing the mechanics of walking isn't easy, even though most of us can do it. (Forgetting it took us some _years_ to learn!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ... a series about a grumpy old man who lives in a phone box is unlikely to have been commissioned these days. 798 episodes later ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q593ve$pih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141500 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote | I'm sorry, but the above is why this sort of discussion never ends. When | someone is intimately familiar with the syntax of a language, the | meaning/functioning of a line like the above - or, say, in C, something | like *a++=b(&c--) - _is_ obvious; to anyone else, it is far from so. And | the person to whom it _is_ second nature sees no point in explaining it | with a comment, either: (a) it just _does_ seem so obvious to them, (b) | they'd actually find it difficult _to_ explain, in much the same way as | describing the mechanics of walking isn't easy, even though most of us | can do it. (Forgetting it took us some _years_ to learn!) You're generous to ascribe honest intentions. It's usually just a case of swagger: "I dare you to grovel and ask me what this means." People do it. Officials do it. Trades do it. Just look at the tech world, "leveraging solutions across the enterprise". Their jargon is gibberish to everyone else but they think they sound technical. My favorite example is "micturate". Medical doctors like to use obscure words to sound authoritative. So when the general public got used to "urinate" they had to switch to micturate to make sure people wouldn't know what they were talking about. I'm waiting for penis and vagina to get overused to the point that they sound like swears and can no longer be used in polite company. (It's getting close to that time, I think.) Somehow the experts will cook up somethnig more obscure, probably derived from Greek, so that doctors and TV commentators can talk about sex in an offical capacity. | *a++=b(&c--) Get out of town!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <25qdnfHAbtXwp-XBnZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #141501 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:q593ve$pih$1@dont-email.me... > I'm waiting for > penis and vagina to get overused to the point that > they sound like swears and can no longer be used in > polite company. I read somewhere that in some African countries where English is spoken (maybe as a second language), the "correct" words such as "penis" and vagina" are regarded as foul-mouthed and offensive, whereas our four-letter words are regarded as the correct ones to use in polite company. Reminds me of that Greek chap in Shirley Valentine who told Shirley that he wanted to "make fuck" with her.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6_VcE.2540$lRX.2246@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #141228 |
On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote > (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): > >> On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your >>>> data, there's nothing wrong with using str. >>> >>> c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); >>> if(c) >>> strcpy (c,str); >> >> Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find >> it twice: >> >> size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; >> c = malloc(len); >> if(c) >> memcpy(c, str, len); >> >> but it's a minor point. > > There is language in which you can write: > > copy : String := source; > > The compiler does all the work. > No need to use the heap. That depends on exactly what your line does. (Which actually is not that clear: is String the name of a type or of a variable? What's the 'copy:' for? I assume it copies one string to another, but if so, does it copy by value, or does it share the original string? Are the strings mutable? What is the maximum string length (since non-heap space is usually limited). etc.) > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding. > It is used when lives are at stake. > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. > It is available on the R Pi. > > Any guesses? No. Which one was it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.22283DDB0635C9A470000F02C2EF@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141361 |
On 25 Feb 2019, Bart wrote (in article <6_VcE.2540$lRX.2246@fx12.am4>): > On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > > On 24 Feb 2019, Richard Heathfield wrote > > (in article <q4ucji$vqc$1@dont-email.me>): > > > > > On 24/02/2019 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > > On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > > > If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your > > > > > data, there's nothing wrong with using str. > > > > > > > > c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); > > > > if(c) > > > > strcpy (c,str); > > > > > > Indeed, although I'd cache the length rather than make the compiler find > > > it twice: > > > > > > size_t len = strlen(str) + 1; > > > c = malloc(len); > > > if(c) > > > memcpy(c, str, len); > > > > > > but it's a minor point. > > > > There is language in which you can write: > > > > copy : String := source; > > > > The compiler does all the work. > > No need to use the heap. > > That depends on exactly what your line does. Well, this discussion has a context, copying strings. > (Which actually is not that clear: is String the name of a type or of a variable? type > What's the 'copy: for? It's the copy > I assume it copies one string to another, but if so, does it copy by value, or does it share the original string? by value > Are the strings mutable? yes > What is the maximum string length (since non-heap space is usually limited). etc.) limited by the available store > > The errors being discussed cannot happen, so no need for defensive coding. > > It is used when lives are at stake. > > It runs, at least some, code faster than C. > > It is available on the R Pi. > > > > Any guesses? > > No. Which one was it? Not saying yet. 8-) -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnsgw7n29t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141497 |
Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[...]
>> On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote:
[...]
>> > There is language in which you can write:
>> >
>> > copy : String := source;
>> >
>> > The compiler does all the work.
>> > No need to use the heap.
[...]
>> > Any guesses?
>>
>> No. Which one was it?
>
> Not saying yet. 8-)
Please don't waste everyone's time.
--
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 | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8FWdE.416$Af.92@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #141504 |
On 28/02/2019 19:25, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > [...] >>> On 24/02/2019 17:56, Bill Findlay wrote: > [...] >>>> There is language in which you can write: >>>> >>>> copy : String := source; >>>> >>>> The compiler does all the work. >>>> No need to use the heap. > [...] >>>> Any guesses? >>> >>> No. Which one was it? >> >> Not saying yet. 8-) > > Please don't waste everyone's time. It's been suggested that this was Ada, and that has been confirmed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 13:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed93c6b1-3c56-46a6-9994-4df1ab013647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141505 |
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 2:30:20 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > [snip] Do you have a "Bart Compiler Debugger" that you've created, one that handles Windows debug events and allows you to look at your own languages' source code in your own debugger at the source code level? -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QGYdE.5219$Apg.2350@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #141511 |
On 28/02/2019 21:18, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 2:30:20 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: >> [snip] > > Do you have a "Bart Compiler Debugger" that you've created, one > that handles Windows debug events and allows you to look at your > own languages' source code in your own debugger at the source > code level? > No I've never used a debugger nor created one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 17:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b698155-86eb-45f7-aaf8-caf204725ca1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141513 |
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:48:41 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > On 28/02/2019 21:18, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > Do you have a "Bart Compiler Debugger" that you've created, one > > that handles Windows debug events and allows you to look at your > > own languages' source code in your own debugger at the source > > code level? > > No I've never used a debugger nor created one. I could not get by without one. My first true experience with a debugger was CodeView 3.x, then later CodeView 4.x. It set the baseline standard for what I expect in a debugger. Today, Visual Studio provides an amazing integrated edit-and- continue code and debug environment. It served for the baseline for my own development suite. I place value on a debugger to such an extent that I basically designed my entire language and compiler framework around the basic concept of a true edit-and-continue environment, even for runtime (optimized) code. -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web