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 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WIyqw.350206$O%4.234711@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #55911 |
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. Back to bytes: I'd like to stick with the more general meaning, please, because I envisage a day when people will think of 8-bit bytes as being too small and fiddly to do much of anything with, and we'll move to, say, 64-bit bytes or perhaps even 512-bit bytes. > With jargon in particular, that can lead to a divergence of meanings, > as the old sense can be retained while the common sense moves on, > although there is then pressure for the jargon to change as well. > > We're probably near or at that point with "byte". What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is enough, and move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? -- 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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yZyqw.412378$ot.214053@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #55912 |
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. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Blzqw.350364$O%4.349718@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #55915 |
BartC wrote: > On 05/01/2015 16:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is enough, and >> move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? > > Chip designers already use much wider paths than 8-bit bytes. They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend otherwise? > And > languages already work with wider datatypes. There is no need to change > anything, I agree entirely. I can live with the C Standard's definition of "byte" exactly as written. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lRzqw.821761$CW3.191551@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #55917 |
On 05/01/2015 16:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: > BartC wrote: > >> 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. > They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those > greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend > otherwise? But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the value of the dollar shrinks. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KOAqw.383502$0o3.375364@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #55919 |
BartC wrote: > On 05/01/2015 16:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> BartC wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/2015 16:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is enough, >>>> and move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? >>> >>> Chip designers already use much wider paths than 8-bit bytes. > >> They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those >> greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend >> otherwise? > > But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the > value of the dollar shrinks. You lost me. The dollar is divided into 100 cents. Dollars are not bytes. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d01e9c0-98f6-4c2e-9557-88c134a2731d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55924 |
On Monday, January 5, 2015 6:34:27 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the > > value of the dollar shrinks. > > You lost me. The dollar is divided into 100 cents. Dollars are not bytes. > The word dollar is derived from "thaler", a german coin, which the Spanish copied and minted as pieces of eight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6gBqw.360269$Uc3.243457@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #55928 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, January 5, 2015 6:34:27 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> > But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the >> > value of the dollar shrinks. >> >> You lost me. The dollar is divided into 100 cents. Dollars are not bytes. >> > The word dollar is derived from "thaler", a german coin, which the Spanish > copied and minted as pieces of eight. Ah, a pun. I see. Thank you for the explanation. He's still wrong, though. -- 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 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnzj9xuhr8.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55924 |
Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> BartC wrote:
>> On 05/01/2015 16:54, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> BartC wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those
>>> greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend
>>> otherwise?
>>
>> But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the
>> value of the dollar shrinks.
>
> You lost me. The dollar is divided into 100 cents. Dollars are not bytes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money)
"Bit" is a (mostly US) term for 1/8 of a dollar, derived from the old
"Spanish dollar", which was 8 "reales". The term mostly survives
in the term "two bits" for 25 cents (one quarter).
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aefc37.3672859@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55941 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes: > > BartC wrote: > >> But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the > >> value of the dollar shrinks. > > > > You lost me. The dollar is divided into 100 cents. Dollars are not bytes. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money) > > "Bit" is a (mostly US) term for 1/8 of a dollar, derived from the old > "Spanish dollar", which was 8 "reales". The term mostly survives > in the term "two bits" for 25 cents (one quarter). Now mostly known outside the USA in the name of the riff: Shave And A Haircut, Two Bits. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <r4olaa1b4nb70vreje0rkqbcd94p0m2msa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55919 |
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:28:48 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 05/01/2015 16:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> BartC wrote: >> >>> 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. > >> They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those >> greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend >> otherwise? > >But presumably there will still be 8 bits in a dollar, even when the >value of the dollar shrinks. Does it not therefore follow that the IBM 6 bit byte should be called a short byte? The difference being a shave and a haircut. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8epu0$sof$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55917 |
On 05/01/15 17:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: > BartC wrote: > >> On 05/01/2015 16:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> What will you do when chip designers finally decide enough is enough, and >>> move (presumably piecemeal) to a wider byte? >> >> Chip designers already use much wider paths than 8-bit bytes. > > They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those > greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend > otherwise? > Why on earth would they do that? The word "byte" has a well-accepted meaning of 8 bits - what kind of perverse numpty would want to take a new wider entity and confuse everyone by calling it a "byte"? It's one thing to continue to use an old definition when you are dealing with old architectures, but quite another to think it makes sense in a new system. And why do you think that chip designers would ever drop the ability to address 8-bit bytes, even when they have wider data paths? It saves little in the way of hardware, but significantly complicates software and often causes slow-downs. Some older DSP designs have CHAR_BITS greater than 8, but they are for very specialist software. I don't expect ever to see a new general architecture that cannot address 8-bit data, nor to see a new "byte" that is not 8 bits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FcCqw.563383$MH.466483@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #55940 |
David Brown wrote: > On 05/01/15 17:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> BartC wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those >> greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend >> otherwise? >> > > Why on earth would they do that? You remind me of the MS Office programmers who truly believed that their compiler team would never break all their code by changing the size of an int from 2 to 4. They were wrong too. -- 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 | 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8f94k$q33$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55950 |
On 05/01/15 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote: > David Brown wrote: > >> On 05/01/15 17:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> BartC wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> They do indeed. And at some point they're going to start calling those >>> greater-than-8-bit entities "bytes". You know it, I know it. Why pretend >>> otherwise? >>> >> >> Why on earth would they do that? > > You remind me of the MS Office programmers who truly believed that their > compiler team would never break all their code by changing the size of an > int from 2 to 4. They were wrong too. > I use size types where appropriate - my code doesn't break when I change from 16-bit to 32-bit ints (16-bit ints are common in my targets). But I also know and understand my targets, and I know what works and what doesn't, and what code will run on them. And I know that on the few occasions when I have needed to work with a device with CHAR_BITS not equal to 8 (but which never refer to their 16-bit or 32-bit "char" as "bytes"), so much code is specialised that portability is almost irrelevant. For the tiny proportion of my code that needs to be portable between such systems and others, checks or conditional compilation based on CHAR_BITS is sufficient. (Note that it would be a different matter if I worked on code that had to be portable between dinosaur mainframes and more modern architectures, where portability despite char size would matter. But even then, I would refer to it as differences in the size of "char", not differences in the size of a "byte".) There is a difference between making naive and completely unnecessary assumptions, such as many programmers have done regarding the size of an "int", and making realistic and useful assumptions, such as the size of a byte.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln4ms5w4c5.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55915 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 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.
The word "byte" was coined in 1956. At that time, and for some
years after, there was no general consensus that a byte is 8 bits.
Currently, 8-bit bytes are nearly universal. But it's entirely
plausible that that could change over the next few decades.
It's tempting to declare that a byte is exactly 8 bits (and
perhaps it's too late *not* to say that), but I'm concerned about
constraining future usage.
(On the other hand, POSIX requires CHAR_BIT==8.)
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64a7c252-2ce5-475a-8637-72384a3e8383@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55915 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <U8Bqw.439727$607.182988@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #55922 |
On 05/01/2015 18:17, 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 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. 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. I don't think that 8-bit was 'handy' just during the decade when 8-bit computers were popular; it's handy because it is. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <83b76ea0-e57e-4cb9-8baa-285117949dee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55929 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 19:58:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 05/01/2015 18:17, 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 > > 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. > disagree with that, maybe you remember some example of function i called dimPixel() it is now quite unhandy on bytes too (what is need is an accelerated opcodes for some argb 32-bit bytes on cpu level) > 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 or in some more fancy way than in bytes (you also got integer sse which will work anyway) I think you will not find real scenerao of troubles like that, and if you will find something it would be very marginal ..and simplification you get by 32 bit bytes would be really visible (ofc it had to be quite new cpu+ bus+ ramchips, i weekly know hardware things , but form programming perspactive i got no doubt that 32-bit byte is clean way to go) > I don't think that 8-bit was 'handy' just during the decade when 8-bit > computers were popular; it's handy because it is. > > -- > Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de4685e3-f37f-4226-a217-51adefc91f1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55934 |
ps also for this unicode point of view it would be really better to sword-cut it and just use utf-32 on clan 32-bit bytes, not like the situation today (which was previously discussed) the situation today is like that that you use any of the three form utf-8 utf-16 utf-32 (and it is probably logical to use three of them becouse that is the situation of 8-bit granularity)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0NBqw.754059$TW3.569354@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #55934 |
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;
}
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <12Cqw.563334$MH.549425@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #55938 |
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. The relative times are still the same, but are now 0.8, 1.3 and 1.7 seconds on my machine. That's using 32-bit gcc. With gcc 64-bits, the results are still consistent (if anything, there is a slightly bigger gap between 8-bit and 64-bit boolean). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web