Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #55447 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-26 05:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 06:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2014-12-26 15:18 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-26 09:54 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-26 17:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-30 12:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-30 16:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 15:21 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 16:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 18:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-01 06:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 14:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 01:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 03:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 16:22 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 17:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 18:24 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 22:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 14:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 11:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:20 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 16:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 06:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-30 21:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk - 2015-01-04 06:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 00:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-31 01:07 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-01 08:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 10:29 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 09:51 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 12:55 -0600
Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:30 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:37 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:40 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 01:48 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-30 23:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:09 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:43 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:50 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:38 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-06 00:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:59 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 19:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:43 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 14:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 19:38 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:58 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:59 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2015-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 10:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-05 10:01 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 11:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? A Lurker <none@example.com> - 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 13:58 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 22:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 11:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-01-04 15:07 -0400
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 13:01 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 04:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:27 -0700
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:48 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 02:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 04:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:42 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:57 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 01:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:05 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-03 17:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 14:39 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-03 13:47 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:16 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-04 15:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-01-12 15:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b98fbc4-cb0e-4975-b9b7-a4cfbcdb2e99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55943 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 20:59:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 05/01/2015 19:40, BartC wrote: > > On 05/01/2015 19:14, fir wrote: > > >> disagree, remember that you today have probably 4GB ram in yr box, > >> if you need processing GBytes of text you probably would like to pask > >> it maybe yet more > > > > You don't have to disagree with me. Just run the following benchmark. > > > On my machine, unsigned char took about 1.1 seconds; int took 1.7 > > seconds, and long long took 2.2 seconds. Using a 64-bit array instead of > > an 8-bit one takes twice as long. > > > for (j = i << 1; j < m; j += i) > > // if (flags[j]) > > flags[j] = 0; > > That comment shouldn't be there; you need to take out the //. > > Oddly it doesn't affect the results, but makes it faster. > maybe reads and omits are faster than blind writes? seem possible
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd80cb83-b301-4620-bcdc-c49c91a05b49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55938 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 20:41:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> On 05/01/2015 19:14, fir wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 19:58:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
>
> >> It might also mean needing to either use 4 or 8 times the memory
> >> bandwidth to store array data that only needs 8-bits per element, or do
> >> time-consuming packing and unpacking, both of which are going to hit
> >> performance.
> >
> > disagree, remember that you today have probably 4GB ram in yr box,
> > if you need processing GBytes of text you probably would like to pask it maybe yet more
>
> You don't have to disagree with me. Just run the following benchmark.
>
> Start off with boolean defined as 'unsigned char', then use the int
> typedef, then the long long int one (8, 32 and 64 bits).
>
> On my machine, unsigned char took about 1.1 seconds; int took 1.7
> seconds, and long long took 2.2 seconds. Using a 64-bit array instead of
> an 8-bit one takes twice as long.
>
> // http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
> // Compile with: -O3 -s -std=c99 -fomit-frame-pointer
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> typedef unsigned char boolean;
> //typedef int boolean;
> //typedef long long int boolean;
>
> static void nsieve(int m) {
> unsigned int count = 0, i, j;
> boolean * flags = (boolean *) malloc(m * sizeof(boolean));
> for (i = 0; i < m; ++i) flags[i]=1;
>
> for (i = 2; i < m; ++i)
> if (flags[i]) {
> ++count;
> for (j = i << 1; j < m; j += i)
> // if (flags[j])
> flags[j] = 0;
> }
>
> free(flags);
> printf("Primes up to %8u %8u\n", m, count);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
> int m;// = atoi(argv[1]);
> int n;
> int i;
>
> m=9;
> for (n=1; n<=4; ++n)
> for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> nsieve(10000 << (m-i));
> return 0;
> }
>
interesting code snippet but bad example
as you just waste 7 bits for nonce then wast 31 bits, revrite it with shifts ehen all bits are used an it can say something (I wonder if chars would be not slower then ints then, dont know)
( even then such test still will be not 100% representative, its a bit fun/strange that nobody i know still did not do a test if working on chars and shorts instead on ints, when avaliable in c codes are slower or faster,
that i did not do such test (well i am always
overtired)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <L%Cqw.371663$9b1.300552@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #55952 |
On 05/01/2015 20:29, fir wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 20:41:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: >> Just run the following benchmark. > interesting code snippet but bad example > as you just waste 7 bits for nonce then wast 31 bits, revrite it with shifts ehen all bits are used an it can say something (I wonder if chars would be not slower then ints then, dont know) > ( even then such test still will be not 100% representative, its a bit fun/strange that nobody i know still did not do a test if working on chars and shorts instead on ints, when avaliable in c codes are slower or faster, > that i did not do such test (well i am always > overtired) The point is if you use more memory than you need, then speed suffers (when the memory, as in this test, is too big for cache). And using an array of 32-bits or 64-bits /because the hardware can't do 8-bits/ as you seem to be proposing, will do just that. Using extra instructions to pack and unpack small fields within a word will itself be a lot of extra trouble and slow things down. Wouldn't it be better to simply allow byte accesses than to just eliminate them? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <269d8002-4251-4242-b038-56d5ab132191@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55953 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 22:04:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 05/01/2015 20:29, fir wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 20:41:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > > >> Just run the following benchmark. > > > interesting code snippet but bad example > > as you just waste 7 bits for nonce then wast 31 bits, revrite it with shifts ehen all bits are used an it can say something (I wonder if chars would be not slower then ints then, dont know) > > ( even then such test still will be not 100% representative, its a bit fun/strange that nobody i know still did not do a test if working on chars and shorts instead on ints, when avaliable in c codes are slower or faster, > > that i did not do such test (well i am always > > overtired) > > The point is if you use more memory than you need, then speed suffers > (when the memory, as in this test, is too big for cache). > > And using an array of 32-bits or 64-bits /because the hardware can't do > 8-bits/ as you seem to be proposing, will do just that. > > Using extra instructions to pack and unpack small fields within a word > will itself be a lot of extra trouble and slow things down. > > Wouldn't it be better to simply allow byte accesses than to just > eliminate them? > im nottalking on to use more memory than needed - memory is the same you drop the 8-bit granularity; unpack cost will not be much observable imo as you rerely do arithmetic on octets; also may be maybe compensated by the fact that reading and storing one int is more simple than reading and storing 4 chars.. test would be needed.. such chars unpacking arithmetic and packing is ugly, but imo I. this is really rare, (i really do not find char arithmetic to much common part of general c codding more like eotic one) II. not quite sure if native char adressing arithmetic is much faster than unpacking une (*) III. you got 8-bit integer sse arithmetic (probably the best for serious char arithmetic i dont know) IV. dont thing that 32 bit architecture should be put in check by today-exotic cases of 8-bit arithmetic [if so do some opcodes for quick packing unpacking octets to registers not on whole non necassary ram level] what to say, (*) maybe i will do some test on this native 8- and 16- bit arithmetic later; even 32-bit rgba pixels that you mentioned if i remember, natural, are not so quite natural as they are probably represent example of not quite exactly 8 bit arithmetic but some wider and more specialised arithmetic of color channels and acts only more like storage, that when processing you would like to unpack it anyway, native octet arithmetic will probably not suffice here (as even as storage when doing graphics 8 bit for chanel is to low) etc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a61a0bd0-c747-4983-91d9-8d1530d4ecfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55955 |
ps octet is quite handy word, does maybe one know it there is such name for 16-bit and 32-bit 'multiplets'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16f22d7a-8e63-411a-86f9-ae976ed90502@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55955 |
ps native octet arithmetic could be faster in such
case which is probably yet not present
assume you got 1Mpixel argb bitmap and want to set grean channel
into zero
for(int y=0; y<1000; y++)
for(int x=0; x<1000; x++)
bitmap[y][x][1] = 0;
with 8-bit byte adressing you could just adress bytes
and set to 0, in 32-bit you need to read int and 0xffff00ff
and store back, the fiorst 8-bit version could work much
faster but probably todays arhitectures already do not work this
way and reading/storing this one byte is not faster than
rading and storing the whole int
dont know about the detailed difference
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7eb13d9-0f29-4afe-be11-887af9e0af6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55929 |
On Monday, January 5, 2015 6:58:05 PM UTC, Bart wrote:
>
> It might make it a bit more awkward to manipulate your pixel data which
> is based mostly on 8-bit channels. Or to do string processing which,
> let's face it, is still largely 8-bit. Or any of a hundred things which
> are perfectly suited to an 8-bit byte.
>
Yesterday I wrote this function
static void rgba_turnupsidedown(unsigned char *rgba, int width, int height)
{
int i, ii;
unsigned char temp;
unsigned char *pup, *pdown;
for (i = 0; i < height / 2; i++)
{
pup = rgba + i * width * 4;
pdown = rgba + (height - i - 1) * width * 4;
for (ii = 0; ii < width * 4; ii++)
{
temp = pup[ii];
pup[ii] = pdown[ii];
pdown[ii] = temp;
}
}
}
Now my rgba buffers will all be aligned on 4 byte boundaries, normally
they're allocated with malloc, but I can't see a sane compiler not
4-byte aligning a large static char array that is a multiple of 4
bytes long.
What C needs is a memswap, which should be understood to be the most
efficient way of swapping two variables. But it doesn't have one.
I could use long and hope, but that might go to 64 bits, I could
use uint32_t, but then that will break if stdint.h isn't avialable.
And actually this function is being called on cursor images, which
Microsoft likes to store upside down. They're only 32 by 32, and since
the function is called in a file load context, a 4 x slowdown or worse
isn't going to make much difference.
So it's best as it is. But all the same, it's very irritating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8eq4l$tl7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55922 |
On 05/01/15 19:17, fir wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 17:29:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart > napisał: >> On 05/01/2015 16:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is >>> enough, and move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? >> >> Chip designers already use much wider paths than 8-bit bytes. And >> languages already work with wider datatypes. There is no need to >> change anything, except decide whether hardware support for 8-bit >> data ops needs to be retained, or consigned to software support >> only, or not supported at all. But a byte will always be a byte and >> not meant to represent a natural machine word. >> > bytes are about handy/comfortable chunks/bytes of data, 8 bit was > handy in 8bit era but for sure it is not handy now, today most handy > byte would be 32 no doubt change would yeild yo much simplification > of cpu and codes > 8-bit is very much a handy size for a smallest block of data. Of course it is often vital to be able to work with larger data blocks - but it would be stupid and annoying to drop support for smaller sizes. It has been a /very/ long time since there was a correlation between the size of data paths and buses, and the size of logically addressable units of memory in processors. I don't expect that situation to ever change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2dbb7ddb-2994-4149-8770-e377433d0de6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55942 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 20:54:31 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > On 05/01/15 19:17, fir wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 17:29:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart > > napisał: > >> On 05/01/2015 16:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> > >>> What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is > >>> enough, and move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? > >> > >> Chip designers already use much wider paths than 8-bit bytes. And > >> languages already work with wider datatypes. There is no need to > >> change anything, except decide whether hardware support for 8-bit > >> data ops needs to be retained, or consigned to software support > >> only, or not supported at all. But a byte will always be a byte and > >> not meant to represent a natural machine word. > >> > > bytes are about handy/comfortable chunks/bytes of data, 8 bit was > > handy in 8bit era but for sure it is not handy now, today most handy > > byte would be 32 no doubt change would yeild yo much simplification > > of cpu and codes > > > > 8-bit is very much a handy size for a smallest block of data. Of course > it is often vital to be able to work with larger data blocks - but it > would be stupid and annoying to drop support for smaller sizes. > > It has been a /very/ long time since there was a correlation between the > size of data paths and buses, and the size of logically addressable > units of memory in processors. I don't expect that situation to ever > change. well i dont know if it will change, but personaly would invite it most likely (as i already said it would be like back to old 8-bit times ;\ it would be really good, everybody is tired of x86 ;0 (?, probably, i dlislike present state of x86 things)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8emnr$dr2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55912 |
On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Robert Wessel wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:29:25 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) >> wrote: >> >>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/04/2015 11:50 PM, David Harmon wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:11:22 -0500 in comp.lang.c, James Kuyper >>>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote, >>>>>> Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a size >>>>>> of exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? >>>>> >>>>> Octet. >>>> >>>> Exactly - the most common definition of "byte" makes it a synonym for >>>> "octet". >>> >>> The most common definition of "hacker" is "cracker". That doesn't make >>> it _correct_. >> >> >> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and >> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the >> exception that proves the rule." > > That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule because > the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there were not a > general rule to which it is an exception. For example, "Parking not > permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to the general rule > that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it not so, there would be > no need to frame the exception. Thus, the existence of an exception to the > rule proves that there must be a rule to which it is the exception. This > maxim doesn't work well in mathematics or science (where a counter-example > is often sufficient to *disprove* a rule), but it works perfectly well in > the run of ordinary life, which is the sphere in which it was coined. > You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZeBqw.360268$Uc3.7408@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #55927 |
David Brown wrote: > On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Robert Wessel wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:29:25 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01/04/2015 11:50 PM, David Harmon wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:11:22 -0500 in comp.lang.c, James Kuyper >>>>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote, >>>>>>> Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a >>>>>>> size of exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? >>>>>> >>>>>> Octet. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly - the most common definition of "byte" makes it a synonym for >>>>> "octet". >>>> >>>> The most common definition of "hacker" is "cracker". That doesn't make >>>> it _correct_. >>> >>> >>> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and >>> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the >>> exception that proves the rule." >> >> That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule >> because the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there were >> not a general rule to which it is an exception. For example, "Parking not >> permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to the general >> rule that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it not so, there >> would be no need to frame the exception. Thus, the existence of an >> exception to the rule proves that there must be a rule to which it is the >> exception. This maxim doesn't work well in mathematics or science (where >> a counter-example is often sufficient to *disprove* a rule), but it works >> perfectly well in the run of ordinary life, which is the sphere in which >> it was coined. >> > > You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the > exception proves the rule". Have I? > The phrase comes from an older time, in > which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") > meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to > test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception > /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. I was aware of that derivation, too, and which to use was a toss-up. Had I chosen the one you prefer, someone else would have complained instead. > > I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand > and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless > "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense. The meaning I gave is far from pointless or illogical. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8eqj3$vsr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55931 |
On 05/01/15 20:04, Richard Heathfield wrote: > David Brown wrote: > >> On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Robert Wessel wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:29:25 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 01/04/2015 11:50 PM, David Harmon wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:11:22 -0500 in comp.lang.c, James Kuyper >>>>>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote, >>>>>>>> Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a >>>>>>>> size of exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Octet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly - the most common definition of "byte" makes it a synonym for >>>>>> "octet". >>>>> >>>>> The most common definition of "hacker" is "cracker". That doesn't make >>>>> it _correct_. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and >>>> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the >>>> exception that proves the rule." >>> >>> That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule >>> because the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there were >>> not a general rule to which it is an exception. For example, "Parking not >>> permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to the general >>> rule that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it not so, there >>> would be no need to frame the exception. Thus, the existence of an >>> exception to the rule proves that there must be a rule to which it is the >>> exception. This maxim doesn't work well in mathematics or science (where >>> a counter-example is often sufficient to *disprove* a rule), but it works >>> perfectly well in the run of ordinary life, which is the sphere in which >>> it was coined. >>> >> >> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >> exception proves the rule". > > Have I? > >> The phrase comes from an older time, in >> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. > > I was aware of that derivation, too, and which to use was a toss-up. Had I > chosen the one you prefer, someone else would have complained instead. Perhaps - but that someone would not be me! > >> >> I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand >> and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless >> "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense. > > The meaning I gave is far from pointless or illogical. > Of course it is pointless and illogical - it claims that something is only a "rule" if it has exceptions. It might make sense to sometimes give rough versions of a rule (such as a parking rule) rather than the full rule (which includes all the times and details) - but then the rough version is /not/ the rule itself. "all prime numbers are odd" is not a rule, even if there is an exception - and the same applies to parking or anything else in "ordinary" life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3iCqw.340831$484.83424@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #55945 |
David Brown wrote: > On 05/01/15 20:04, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> David Brown wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> Robert Wessel wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:29:25 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/04/2015 11:50 PM, David Harmon wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:11:22 -0500 in comp.lang.c, James Kuyper >>>>>>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote, >>>>>>>>> Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a >>>>>>>>> size of exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Octet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly - the most common definition of "byte" makes it a synonym >>>>>>> for "octet". >>>>>> >>>>>> The most common definition of "hacker" is "cracker". That doesn't >>>>>> make it _correct_. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and >>>>> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the >>>>> exception that proves the rule." >>>> >>>> That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule >>>> because the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there >>>> were not a general rule to which it is an exception. For example, >>>> "Parking not permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to >>>> the general rule that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it >>>> not so, there would be no need to frame the exception. Thus, the >>>> existence of an exception to the rule proves that there must be a rule >>>> to which it is the exception. This maxim doesn't work well in >>>> mathematics or science (where a counter-example is often sufficient to >>>> *disprove* a rule), but it works perfectly well in the run of ordinary >>>> life, which is the sphere in which it was coined. >>>> >>> >>> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >>> exception proves the rule". >> >> Have I? >> >>> The phrase comes from an older time, in >>> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >>> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >>> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >>> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. >> >> I was aware of that derivation, too, and which to use was a toss-up. Had >> I chosen the one you prefer, someone else would have complained instead. > > Perhaps - but that someone would not be me! > >> >>> >>> I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand >>> and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless >>> "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense. >> >> The meaning I gave is far from pointless or illogical. >> > > Of course it is pointless and illogical Nonsense. > - it claims that something is > only a "rule" if it has exceptions. No, it doesn't. It claims that, if an exception is stated, then the rule to which that exception /is/ an exception can reasonably be inferred. > It might make sense to sometimes > give rough versions of a rule (such as a parking rule) rather than the > full rule (which includes all the times and details) - but then the > rough version is /not/ the rule itself. It also makes sense to post the exceptions, and let people work out the rule for themselves. > > "all prime numbers are odd" is not a rule, even if there is an exception Agreed, but irrelevant. > - and the same applies to parking or anything else in "ordinary" life. You're arguing against something I haven't claimed. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnvbkluhdz.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55927 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Robert Wessel wrote:
[...]
>>> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and
>>> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the
>>> exception that proves the rule."
>>
>> That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule because
>> the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there were not a
>> general rule to which it is an exception. For example, "Parking not
>> permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to the general rule
>> that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it not so, there would be
>> no need to frame the exception. Thus, the existence of an exception to the
>> rule proves that there must be a rule to which it is the exception. This
>> maxim doesn't work well in mathematics or science (where a counter-example
>> is often sufficient to *disprove* a rule), but it works perfectly well in
>> the run of ordinary life, which is the sphere in which it was coined.
>>
>
> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the
> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in
> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove")
> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to
> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception
> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all.
>
> I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand
> and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless
> "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense.
The interpretation of "prove" as a synonym for "test" makes sense,
but what is your basis for asserting that that's the only *correct*
interpretation?
The meaning cited by Richard, derived from the Latin "exceptio probat
regulam in casibus non exceptis", goes back more than 2000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Original_meaning
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8f9ic$rk4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55944 |
On 05/01/15 21:00, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 05/01/15 17:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Robert Wessel wrote: > [...] >>>> Ultimately language does evolve, and at some point we accept it and >>>> move on. Consider the (now) nonsensical use of "prove" in "it's the >>>> exception that proves the rule." >>> >>> That example doesn't help your case. The exception proves the rule because >>> the stating of an exception would not be necessary if there were not a >>> general rule to which it is an exception. For example, "Parking not >>> permitted between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri" is an exception to the general rule >>> that parking *is* permitted at other times. Were it not so, there would be >>> no need to frame the exception. Thus, the existence of an exception to the >>> rule proves that there must be a rule to which it is the exception. This >>> maxim doesn't work well in mathematics or science (where a counter-example >>> is often sufficient to *disprove* a rule), but it works perfectly well in >>> the run of ordinary life, which is the sphere in which it was coined. >>> >> >> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. >> >> I am not sure at which point in time it became common to misunderstand >> and misuse this phrase with its current illogical and pointless >> "meaning" - but at one time, it made sense. > > The interpretation of "prove" as a synonym for "test" makes sense, > but what is your basis for asserting that that's the only *correct* > interpretation? > > The meaning cited by Richard, derived from the Latin "exceptio probat > regulam in casibus non exceptis", goes back more than 2000 years. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Original_meaning > My basis for my assertion is that I don't believe the explanation, as given by Richard, makes logical sense. But perhaps I am not quite following what he meant - or perhaps I am simply making an unwarranted assumption in presuming that the phrase was originally logical. But I'd prefer to leave it as a disagreement - I don't think this thread needs even more sidetracks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aefcf3.3861328@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55927 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the > exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in > which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") > meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to > test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception > /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rIBtw.570742$Wc4.270827@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #56067 |
On 2015-01-08, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. > > I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, > and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, ><http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. > > Richard Aside from being a clear exposition there doesn't seem to be anything on that page providing scholarly attribution that would make it the proof that rules the exception (bad attempt at a joke I know). It seems to make sense but is there a reason to accept it over Norwegian argument? -- http://www.softsprocket.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54B6F388.2070304@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #56259 |
On 01/14/2015 05:03 PM, Greg Martin wrote: > On 2015-01-08, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >>> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >>> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >>> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >>> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >>> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. >> >> I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, >> and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, >> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. >> >> Richard > > Aside from being a clear exposition there doesn't seem to be anything on > that page providing scholarly attribution that would make it the proof > that rules the exception (bad attempt at a joke I know). It seems to make > sense but is there a reason to accept it over Norwegian argument? A search for the latin phrase mentioned in that article leads to Wikipedia (where else!) which provides two citations The first is for <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html>, which in turn provides a link to the full latin text of Cicero's argument. The second is for <http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html>, which in turn provides a scholarly citation of "Giovanni Torriano's Piazza universale di proverbi italiani, or A Common Place of Italian Proverbs, 1666". These citations prove only the existence of the concept, rather than proving that the English phrase was originally intended to convey that concept, which would be much harder to prove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m97v51$f82$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56261 |
On 14/01/15 23:54, James Kuyper wrote: > On 01/14/2015 05:03 PM, Greg Martin wrote: >> On 2015-01-08, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> >>>> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >>>> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >>>> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into "prove") >>>> meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", or "to >>>> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >>>> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at all. >>> >>> I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, >>> and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, >>> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. >>> >>> Richard >> >> Aside from being a clear exposition there doesn't seem to be anything on >> that page providing scholarly attribution that would make it the proof >> that rules the exception (bad attempt at a joke I know). It seems to make >> sense but is there a reason to accept it over Norwegian argument? > > A search for the latin phrase mentioned in that article leads to > Wikipedia (where else!) which provides two citations > > The first is for <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html>, > which in turn provides a link to the full latin text of Cicero's argument. > > The second is for > <http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html>, which > in turn provides a scholarly citation of "Giovanni Torriano's Piazza > universale di proverbi italiani, or A Common Place of Italian Proverbs, > 1666". > > These citations prove only the existence of the concept, rather than > proving that the English phrase was originally intended to convey that > concept, which would be much harder to prove. > I suppose Richard's actual claim - which was that "professional etymologists agree that [the Norwegian argument] is a myth" is easier to prove, even if it is hard to be sure of the actual origin of the phrase. Cicero's argument is very different from the modern idiom - he says that the exception proves the /existence/ of a rule, while the modern idiom says that the exception proves the /validity/ of the rule. Cicero's version makes logical sense, whereas the modern version does not. It is certainly reasonable to argue that the modern idiom has come from a translated and abbreviated version of the Latin idiom. But I believe it is also reasonable to argue that it comes from an older meaning of "to prove", which certainly had the meaning of "to test or evaluate" in Middle English (apparently it came from Old French rather than Old Norse). It is hard to decide absolutely about the true origins of such things - but I accept Richard's statement about the opinions of etymologists, and given that professional etymologists have studied this a great deal more than me, their opinions carry far more weight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1qLtw.84249$HR5.25968@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #56279 |
David Brown wrote: > On 14/01/15 23:54, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 01/14/2015 05:03 PM, Greg Martin wrote: >>> On 2015-01-08, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >>>>> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >>>>> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into >>>>> "prove") meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", >>>>> or "to >>>>> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >>>>> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, >>>> and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, >>>> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. >>>> >>>> Richard >>> >>> Aside from being a clear exposition there doesn't seem to be anything on >>> that page providing scholarly attribution that would make it the proof >>> that rules the exception (bad attempt at a joke I know). It seems to >>> make sense but is there a reason to accept it over Norwegian argument? >> >> A search for the latin phrase mentioned in that article leads to >> Wikipedia (where else!) which provides two citations >> >> The first is for <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html>, >> which in turn provides a link to the full latin text of Cicero's >> argument. >> >> The second is for >> <http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html>, >> which >> in turn provides a scholarly citation of "Giovanni Torriano's Piazza >> universale di proverbi italiani, or A Common Place of Italian Proverbs, >> 1666". >> >> These citations prove only the existence of the concept, rather than >> proving that the English phrase was originally intended to convey that >> concept, which would be much harder to prove. >> > > I suppose Richard's actual claim - (Presumably you are referring to Richard Bos here.) > which was that "professional > etymologists agree that [the Norwegian argument] is a myth" is easier to > prove, even if it is hard to be sure of the actual origin of the phrase. > > Cicero's argument is very different from the modern idiom - he says that > the exception proves the /existence/ of a rule, while the modern idiom > says that the exception proves the /validity/ of the rule. Cicero's > version makes logical sense, whereas the modern version does not. The modern idiom can be interpreted in at least three ways: 1) the exception, as you so aptly put it, proves the existence of a rule; 2) the exception tests the rule (the word "prove" has not lost its meaning of "test" for at least some of us); 3) the exception proves the validity of the rule. 1 and 2 make sense. 3 does not. Although 3 is indeed the interpretation that many people use nowadays, this does not mean that 1 and 2 are not also used. Indeed, I use both of them (but never 3). The fact that some - many - perhaps even most - people get it wrong does not mean that there's anything wrong with the idiom. You can't chuck a brick in this newsgroup, let alone in Real Life, without hitting at least half a dozen examples of Most People Getting It Wrong. > > It is certainly reasonable to argue that the modern idiom has come from > a translated and abbreviated version of the Latin idiom. But I believe > it is also reasonable to argue that it comes from an older meaning of > "to prove", which certainly had the meaning of "to test or evaluate" in > Middle English (apparently it came from Old French rather than Old Norse). Yes. Either will do. The original point at issue in this thread was not "which of the at least two sensible interpretations is correct", but the claim that the saying makes no sense whatsoever, a claim that is clearly at odds with reality. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web