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 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q4uvsl$t27$3@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #141204 |
On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your >> data, there's nothing wrong with using str. > > c=malloc(strlen(str)+1); > if(c) > strcpy (c,str); > > or > > c=stdup(str); > > .... > > free (c); or alloc_sprintf(.... but someone cross-posted this to windows newsgroups. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q4v2bh$dfk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141256 |
On 24/02/2019 20:47, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your
>>> data, there's nothing wrong with using str.
>>
>> c=malloc(strlen(str)+1);
>> if(c)
>> strcpy (c,str);
>>
>> or
>>
>> c=stdup(str);
>>
>> ....
>>
>> free (c);
>
>
> or alloc_sprintf(.... but someone cross-posted this to windows newsgroups.
>
never heard of that one.....thats not in stdlib...
>
>
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q51if9$c9b$4@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #141259 |
On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 24/02/2019 20:47, Jasen Betts wrote: >> On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> 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); >>> >>> or >>> >>> c=stdup(str); >>> >>> .... >>> >>> free (c); >> >> >> or alloc_sprintf(.... but someone cross-posted this to windows newsgroups. >> > > never heard of that one.....thats not in stdlib... > I meant asprintf (which is a GNU extension) and available on raspberry-pi (if running linux like most do) and ubuntu two of the six news-groups this troll thread was posted to. Glib provides g_strdup_sprintf which is the same sort of thing. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lno970q56d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141176 |
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> writes:
[...]
> There are (relatively) simple ways to write secure code, such as always
> using the 'strn...' functions rather than the older 'str...' equivalents
> and *taking the trouble to size storage correctly* that make code a lot
> more bullet-proof. Its shameful that so many coders don't use them and/or
> don't test their code adequately.
No, the strn* functions are not drop-in safer replacements for the str*
functions.
I've discussed strncpy() here (in comp.lang.c) before, but for those of
you following the inappropriate mass cross-posting of this discussion,
here's what I wrote about it:
http://the-flat-trantor-society.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-strncpy-is-not-safer-strcpy.html
I've directed followups to comp.lang.c only. (My newsreader or server
won't even let me cross-post to this many newsgroups.)
--
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 | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9jckf-vhc.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #141176 |
On 24/02/2019 10:11, Martin Gregorie wrote: > There are (relatively) simple ways to write secure code, such as always > using the 'strn...' functions rather than the older 'str...' equivalents https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/11/29/4 Not quite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q51htv$6s3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141175 |
Den 2019-02-24 kl. 06:16, skrev The Natural Philosopher: > On 24/02/2019 04:40, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote: >>>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)! >>> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :) >>> >> >> And many operating systems are written in C. >> In short, C is a pillar! >> > Well its a very fast way to write portable assembler. > > And if more programs were written in it we would have programs of one > tenth the size runninmg ten times faster and a huge number of crap > programmers would be flipping burgers. > Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left Let's call it the 'c' car. Will likely become popular with people who thinks a bit much of themselves ... -- Björn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190225225900.79d937de664735f8e4fd742b@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141342 |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones > from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left > Let's call it the 'c' car. Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them. -- 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 | Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q52v2g$brv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141372 |
Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left >> Let's call it the 'c' car. > > Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them. > Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding them. However according to https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled." To go back to c, John McCormick wrote quite a bit about the troubles of teaching c. http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/trains.html No one finished the project when using C, even given 60% of the code. On the other hand, 75% of the class finished the project when using Ada, even given a much smaller portion of the code (less than 20%). Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best. It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very skilled c programmers. And they fuck up. All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language. I wonder how much say, Heartbleed actually did cost the world? The Guardian talks about millions of dollar https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/18/heartbleed-bug-will-cost-millions But who cares, since there exists _VERY_ good c-programmers and THEY would not make that mistake... Yeah, but the world consists of mediocre programmers. And the language can either help them to produce better code, or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps. -- Björn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 01:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3052204a-a969-4864-b59c-504b074c4303@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141405 |
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC+2, Björn Lundin wrote: > Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 > > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones > >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left > >> Let's call it the 'c' car. > > > > Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them. > > > > Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding them. > > However according to > https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes > > "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car > occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled." > > > To go back to c, John McCormick wrote quite a bit about the > troubles of teaching c. > > http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/trains.html > > No one finished the project when using C, even given 60% of the code. On > the other hand, 75% of the class finished the project when using Ada, > even given a much smaller portion of the code (less than 20%). > > > Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best. > It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very > skilled c programmers. And they fuck up. > > All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language. > I wonder how much say, Heartbleed actually did cost the world? > The Guardian talks about millions of dollar > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/18/heartbleed-bug-will-cost-millions > > But who cares, since there exists _VERY_ good c-programmers and THEY > would not make that mistake... > Yeah, but the world consists of mediocre programmers. > And the language can either help them to produce better code, > or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps. > > > > -- > Björn Heartbleed is a combination of several fuck-ups, the biggest of each is bad protocol (inspired, probably, by catastrophic design philosophy called Postel Principle), but buffer overrun was most certainly not involved. And it could have happened if OpenSSL was coded in Ada. I'd rather think that probability of something like it happening with OpenSSL coded in Ada would be higher, because "the second line of protection" the one that in the case of Heartbleed was broken by "too smart" stupid optimizing compiler is much harder to even express in Ada, let's alone to tell to compiler to not be too smart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190226095923.6beb4d32e4ceefea42600fdb@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141405 |
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:57:51 +0100 Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 > > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones > >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left > >> Let's call it the 'c' car. > > > > Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive > > them. > > > > Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding > them. Yep the comparison with C programmers is pretty exact :) or should that be :( > However according to > https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes > > "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car > occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled." C programmers are probably 28 times more likely than OO programmers to create security holes/potential crashes. > Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best. > It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very > skilled c programmers. And they fuck up. Just as there are some motorcyclists who are remarkably safe, they usually have *much* faster reflexes than average and extremely good concentration. Yamaha produced a very light 350cc bike called the YPVS which many bikers concluded stood for Young Person's Vehicular Suicide - the thing was a street legal racing bike > All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language. Nah, I'm sure many have been perpetrated in assembler - probably some by me! > And the language can either help them to produce better code, > or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps. Ada as a car, C as a motorbike[1] - the former will get you through London traffic in comfort and safety, the latter will get you there more quickly with much greater risk. Both have their place but most people should use a car. [1] Hmm Java as the tube - safe, reliable, slow and uncomfortable. -- 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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 07:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3556042d-187c-4b66-9c37-73008e66346b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141405 |
W dniu wtorek, 26 lutego 2019 09:57:59 UTC+1 użytkownik Björn Lundin napisał: > Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 > > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones > >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left > >> Let's call it the 'c' car. > > > > Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them. > > > > Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding them. > > However according to > https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes > > "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car > occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled." > > > To go back to c, John McCormick wrote quite a bit about the > troubles of teaching c. > > http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/trains.html > > No one finished the project when using C, even given 60% of the code. On > the other hand, 75% of the class finished the project when using Ada, > even given a much smaller portion of the code (less than 20%). > > > Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best. > It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very > skilled c programmers. And they fuck up. > > All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language. > I wonder how much say, Heartbleed actually did cost the world? > The Guardian talks about millions of dollar > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/18/heartbleed-bug-will-cost-millions > > But who cares, since there exists _VERY_ good c-programmers and THEY > would not make that mistake... > Yeah, but the world consists of mediocre programmers. > And the language can either help them to produce better code, > or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps. > > > when i readed that post it striked me in some points ;c when you write _VERY_ skilled c-programmer (and you name by this people who i know as a normal c programmers) (and they are not only normal by me, but i thing by all oher normal c programmers (it is programmers who not made mistakes of 12-year old noobs...and really writing c code that not contains hidden crashes is not hard..writing a lot of c code, beluve me it is no reall issue) you identify yourself as a kind of lama (lamer) - this is seen wjen you wriote _VERY_ skillec c-programmer on just normal c programmer... in my opinion it is enough to gues youre lamer (at least in c language, and thus you dont know what youare sayin when you talk on c programming) [and if so your post is harmfull to the group, as lamers talking on things they dont know pretending they know what they saing makes harm or at least foam/spam] second think is a matter of proofs imagine two scenarios 1) comparison of coders who are noobs and are said to write code have you any proof that those writing in c would make worse than those writing in c? i got personally no opinion on this, my problem is i write mostly in C (like 10 ytears of consecutive experience on a span of 20 years) only writing slightly in js on canvas etc 2) other scenario when you have good experienced coders have you any proof that in this case people writing say game in c (+some library) would go worse or better than some other writing in something other i also got no opinion on that i sorta tend to belive it depends btw on some other factors than just saying writing in that language would be better of worse than writing in another and in that case of not geting proffs it is maybe better to stay silent as to this (instead of entering a cloud of semi-true or false banals) thats why those topics like usually not bring any conclusions - sometimes listening to someone which is very experienced may say something but even in that case the conclusions are somewhat doubtfull (as people differ in attitudes and skills and it simply notprojects from one persone to another) btw, when i readed this thread i get some fun, as some new people on comp.lang.c like bring new spirit here..from where you are, maybe it would be good to make more of such inter-group crossposting? :) as here comp.lang.c is a bit to much closed in his own souce and its fun to read someone else sometimes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e4c81a9-7684-48a6-8e07-cdcc8ecbab36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141483 |
W dniu środa, 27 lutego 2019 16:20:33 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 26 lutego 2019 09:57:59 UTC+1 użytkownik Björn Lundin napisał: > > Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot: > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100 > > > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones > > >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left > > >> Let's call it the 'c' car. > > > > > > Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them. > > > > > > > Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding them. > > > > However according to > > https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes > > > > "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car > > occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled." > > > > > > To go back to c, John McCormick wrote quite a bit about the > > troubles of teaching c. > > > > http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/trains.html > > > > No one finished the project when using C, even given 60% of the code. On > > the other hand, 75% of the class finished the project when using Ada, > > even given a much smaller portion of the code (less than 20%). > > > > > > Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best. > > It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very > > skilled c programmers. And they fuck up. > > > > All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language. > > I wonder how much say, Heartbleed actually did cost the world? > > The Guardian talks about millions of dollar > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/18/heartbleed-bug-will-cost-millions > > > > But who cares, since there exists _VERY_ good c-programmers and THEY > > would not make that mistake... > > Yeah, but the world consists of mediocre programmers. > > And the language can either help them to produce better code, > > or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps. > > > > > > > when i readed that post it striked me in some points ;c > > when you write _VERY_ skilled c-programmer (and you name by this people who i know as a normal c programmers) (and they are not only normal by me, but i thing by all oher normal c programmers > (it is programmers who not made mistakes of 12-year old noobs...and really writing c code that not contains hidden crashes is not hard..writing a lot of c code, beluve me it is no reall issue) you identify yourself as a kind of lama (lamer) - this is seen wjen you wriote _VERY_ skillec c-programmer on just normal c programmer... in my opinion it is enough to gues youre lamer (at least in c language, and thus you dont know what youare sayin when you talk on c programming) > > [and if so your post is harmfull to the group, as lamers talking on things they dont know pretending they know what they saing makes harm or at least foam/spam] > > second think is a matter of proofs > > imagine two scenarios > 1) comparison of coders who are noobs and are said to write code > > have you any proof that those writing in c would make worse than those writing in c? > > i got personally no opinion on this, my problem is i write mostly in C (like 10 ytears of consecutive experience on a span of 20 years) only writing slightly > in js on canvas etc > > 2) other scenario when you have good experienced coders > > have you any proof that in this case people writing say game in c (+some library) would go worse or better than some other writing in something other > > i also got no opinion on that > > i sorta tend to belive it depends btw on some other factors than just saying writing in that language would be better of worse than writing in another > > and in that case of not geting proffs it is maybe better to stay silent as to this > (instead of entering a cloud of semi-true or false banals) > > thats why those topics like usually not bring any conclusions - sometimes listening to someone which is very experienced may say something but even in that case the conclusions are somewhat doubtfull (as people differ in attitudes and skills and it simply notprojects from one persone to another) > > btw, when i readed this thread i get some fun, as some new people on comp.lang.c like bring new spirit here..from where you are, maybe it would be good to make more of such inter-group crossposting? > :) as here comp.lang.c is a bit to much closed in his own souce and its fun to read someone else sometimes yet i maybe add that this metaphor as c would be motorcycle is not fit, imo, it is more like c is a carr but with no automatic systems for supporting that or that.. but i doubt if that metaphor could geve andy valuable conclusions also the fact imo is that some other languages have some nice tutorials or comunitiec that c dont have ..its maybe one thing that i noticed the value of other languages to me looks more like thay have some valueable libraries/frameworks maybe, so it is more about libraries than language (but as i said i know mainly c... got some idea to learn php+js and all that, but its hard to find energy for that notable diference yet i may say is obviously that in c you got some tendency to write things byself where in some other languages you almost must use libraries so you got a kick to learn them and use them where in c you write more on yourself)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <qsf47edk21e705cfp6kj73b4fa5hbqjf59@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141174 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote: >>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 >>> >> >> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)! >> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :) >> > >And many operating systems are written in C. >In short, C is a pillar! C is a write-only language. :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190224075627.3004ea1cebad8b4055574d17@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141178 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:54:53 +1300 Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" > <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > >> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > >>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 > >>> > >> > >> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)! > >> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :) > >> > > > >And many operating systems are written in C. > >In short, C is a pillar! > > C is a write-only language. :-) That smiley is very much needed - there are write only languages but C is not, one of them. But to put it in carpentry terms C is like a table saw without a guard - extremely useful and in skilled hands capable of achieving remarkable results with great efficiency but also extremely dangerous in unskilled hands. I gave away my last copy of K&R more than thirty years ago, I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of C code from operating system kernel level to financial applications. I debug and maintain complex systems written in C on a regular basis. These days I wouldn't choose C for anything other than low level high efficiency code that was going to be processor bound. For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care. It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that *are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain. -- 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 | Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <7qm47e99prt8o5ga9phi6mofn72ek248i2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141180 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:54:53 +1300 >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" >> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> >> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote: >> >>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 >> >>> >> >> >> >> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)! >> >> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :) >> >> >> > >> >And many operating systems are written in C. >> >In short, C is a pillar! >> >> C is a write-only language. :-) > > That smiley is very much needed - there are write only languages >but C is not, one of them. But to put it in carpentry terms C is like a >table saw without a guard - extremely useful and in skilled hands capable >of achieving remarkable results with great efficiency but also extremely >dangerous in unskilled hands. It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back to the original five lines. > > I gave away my last copy of K&R more than thirty years ago, I've >written hundreds of thousands of lines of C code from operating system >kernel level to financial applications. I debug and maintain complex systems >written in C on a regular basis. These days I wouldn't choose C for >anything other than low level high efficiency code that was going to be >processor bound. I understand. > > For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not >'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good >but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of >development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially >maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times >faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden >bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care. Yep. That's the area of my 5 into 1 problem. > > It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low >level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient >programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too >soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things >producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're >supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that >*are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces >of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain. -- Regards, Eric Stevens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q4tppl$i6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141184 |
Op 24-2-2019 09:58, Eric Stevens wrote: > It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always > remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I > had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after > succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did > the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later > and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one > line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back > to the original five lines. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190224101331.a81d564df971abe488844d4a@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141184 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:58:59 +1300
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.
This is a temptation that should be avoided unless it is absolutely
necessary to optimise the code that far (it is also worth checking that it
actually does optimise the code - sometimes the compiler will do a better
job with verbose and clear code than with dense obscure code). It is also
always worthwhile writing a comment that describes what the code is
supposed to achieve ahead of anything that might be less than blindingly
obvious - note "what it is supposed to achieve" *not* "how it works").
C programmers are far from the worst offenders in this regard. Perl
provides so many opportunities to shave a bit of source off and make it
harder to read that some regard it as executable line noise - for example:
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
That is an implementation of RSA encryption lifted from the
interwebs, I couldn't begin to tell you how it works but if anyone put code
like that up for review at work (except as a joke) I'd expect them to be
fired pretty quickly!
Perl can of course be used to write perfectly readable intentional
code but far too many people choose not to.
--
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 | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q4tsnm$452$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141184 |
On 24/02/2019 08:58, Eric Stevens wrote: > I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did > the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later > and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one > line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back > to the original five lines. I used to do that back in te day of cross compiling for 8/16 bit microprocessors, when sometimes thet made for tighter code and we were always short of ROM space, but when I looked again at assembler output from a 21st century Gnu C compiler, I gave up. It did a far far better job of optimising the 5 lines than I could ever do... Now with 'inline functions' as well its possible to write blocks of code that are only ever used once, as pseudo subrioutines, to futher allow the code to be written with clarity in mind, and let the compiler take the strain of turning it into tight code. As far as stuff like python perl and so on - I hate them really. PHP is nad enough. After spending well over two days trying to get a massive MySQL data base read formatted and outputted asnd running into 'out of memory' despite anything I did to PHPs access to memory, I gave up, rewriote te query in C, called from PHP, and was rewarded with far faster response and no memory issues at all. I've had similar issues with complex MySql queries. Sometimes it's easier to do the fancy algorithm in C efficiently rather than write the complex SQL query. In short I hate interpreted languages mainly, because in general the memory management and actual algorithms used by the libraries are not under my control. And the syntax of a procedural language WITH COMMENTS being used to process database data or strings, is far easier to follow than a nested sets of INNER JOINS in Mysql or incomprehensible phrases in Klingon 'regexp' :-) -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4u7f1$2an$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141191 |
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote | As far as stuff like python perl and so on - I hate them really. PHP is | nad enough. After spending well over two days trying to get a massive | MySQL data base read formatted and outputted asnd running into 'out of | memory' despite anything I did to PHPs access to memory, I gave up, To paraphrase Clint Eastwood (in one of his Dirty Harry manifestations, I think), a scripting language has just got to know its limitations. People get into so many arguments about best languages or the most macho language. Slashdot likes to do silly articles about "top 10". (Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language, is #1, based only on how many searches are done for sample code or tips.) But aren't there really just two factors to consider? 1) What do you have an affinity for? 2) What do you need in the result? Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful, but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be allowed to survive. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q4uagr$k6f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141201 |
On 24/02/2019 13:48, Mayayana wrote: > Perl. That's just too ugly to be > allowed to survive.:) Agreed. -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web