Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #103545 > unrolled thread

project together?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:16 -0800
    Re: project together? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-09 18:28 +0000
      Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:45 -0800
      Re: project together? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-09 20:04 +0000
        Re: project together? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 21:30 +0100
          Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 12:43 -0800
          Re: project together? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 00:47 -0800
            Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 00:57 -0800
              Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:17 -0800
            Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 04:24 -0800
            Re: project together? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-13 10:31 +0100
          Re: project together? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 19:08 +1300
            Re: project together? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-11 10:02 -0500
              Re: project together? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-13 10:34 +0100
              Re: project together? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-13 10:24 -0500
    Re: project together? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:46 -0800
      Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 11:06 -0800
        Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 12:06 -0800
          Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 12:18 -0800
            Re: project together? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-09 21:57 -0800
              Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 00:48 -0800
                Re: project together? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-10 02:52 -0800
                  Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 06:47 -0800
                    Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:12 -0800
              Re: project together? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-13 10:39 +0100
                Re: project together? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-13 02:32 -0800
                Re: project together? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:58 +0100
                  Re: project together? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-13 05:39 -0800
                    Re: project together? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 12:11 +0100
                      Re: project together? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-14 03:58 -0800
                        Re: project together? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-14 12:01 +0000
                          Re: project together? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-14 13:36 +0100
                        Making things open source requires copyright notices; it's the world we live in (Was: project together?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-14 12:46 +0000
                        Re: project together? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:24 +0100
                Re: project together? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-15 21:07 +0000
        Re: project together? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 12:48 -0800
          Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:04 -0800
    Re: project together? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:00 -0800
      Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 01:18 -0800
        Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 02:20 -0800
          Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 03:31 -0800
        Re: project together? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 02:48 -0800
          Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 03:16 -0800
            Re: project together? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 03:40 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#103595

W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 06:57:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:18:21 PM UTC, fir wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 21:06:57 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> >
> > > imagine boring discussion about nearly nothing gone and some 
> > > real code and real matter appears (this is relly thing to do)
> > 
> > there is weekend comin so maybe i will wait TILL MONDAY if some 
> > would say they maybe would like to try how it would look like ..
> > i may assure (90% assurance) that i would have energy to conduct 
> > that at least in early stages to see if something
> > come out of that 
> > (important is though i would be given to coordinate it a bit - not
> > a code but some basic discussion  )
> > 
> > if no the idea may be repeated after half a year or after a year
> > (i recently to much bored to work alone, also to much bored to 
> > discuss on nothing but talking on some real 
> > (and quite simple nothing too eleborate) coding seem be
> > more interesting).. so think a bit on it
> >
> I've got two substantial github projects, the binary image library
> and Baby X.
> 
> The binary image library is essentially in version 1.0, most of the
> obvious features are there. In its nature it just grows little by
> little.
> 
> Baby X needs more attention than I've been able to give it. It 
> substantially works on Windows and Linux but it needs a lot more on
> visual appearance, a port to Mac OsX, and general use for mini-projects
> to flush out problems. There aren't many cross-platform windows toolkits
> out there.

we here talking about making simple virtual assembler at start - with all discussion here on this group 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103601

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:49:00 AM UTC, fir wrote:
> 
> we here talking about making simple virtual assembler at start - with all discussion 
> here on this group
> 
An assembler would be useful for B64. But I haven't made a start on it yet, it's just an
idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103605

W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 11:52:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:49:00 AM UTC, fir wrote:
> > 
> > we here talking about making simple virtual assembler at start - with all discussion 
> > here on this group
> > 
> An assembler would be useful for B64. But I haven't made a start on it yet, it's just an
> idea.

you may consider participation (or more - tryin how it would go)
 
it would look like discussing what step to take how to do it implementing, next step - i dont remember if i mentioned - i think i got needed skills to do even mosts of it for others but i got lasks of motivation when working alone, warking in some group could be better

but at least 4 people would be needed, and they should
agree on some points of beheviour i make (i mean i got idea what it should look like to be ok and participants
should fit)..  right now i will wait yet a bit..

later maybe i willmake somebegining of work write 
on it and see if maybe someone would take it - if
no, no problem it may be taken later bot imo it would be good idea to try

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103607

W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 15:48:05 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 11:52:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:49:00 AM UTC, fir wrote:
> > > 
> > > we here talking about making simple virtual assembler at start - with all discussion 
> > > here on this group
> > > 
> > An assembler would be useful for B64. But I haven't made a start on it yet, it's just an
> > idea.
> 
> you may consider participation (or more - tryin how it would go)
>  
> it would look like discussing what step to take how to do it implementing, next step - i dont remember if i mentioned - i think i got needed skills to do even mosts of it for others but i got lasks of motivation when working alone, warking in some group could be better
> 
> but at least 4 people would be needed, and they should
> agree on some points of beheviour i make (i mean i got idea what it should look like to be ok and participants
> should fit)..  right now i will wait yet a bit..
> 
> later maybe i willmake somebegining of work write 
> on it and see if maybe someone would take it - if
> no, no problem it may be taken later bot imo it would be good idea to try

in fact begining of this work was already done as i wrote post of it and did some thinking (at least what would be worth doin), first step then:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
FIRST STEP

design a simple assembler, it should be something like 
movs, branches and simple logic and simple arithmetic
i think we could assume 32-bit integers as basic data
on whot it would work (we could even assume 32-bit 
bytes/words as one and only bitset organisation) - this is for simplicity, we could assume some set of registers 
better uniform ones like x0..x31  

mov x0, $ffeedd99
mov x1, $00112255
add x0, x1

design binary machine code for that assembly

writa a code that would take such assembly as an imput 
(in txt file) and make .bin file with machine code 
as an output

that what i would see the first step
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

if that would be tested and polished we could go to 
design some virtual machine/emulator where we could 
run those binaries and go further


if someone would participate someone would have 
to agree with such points

1) it will not "sue" anybody for presenting ideas
and code it would be more like public domain things

2) if someone will provide code and will do effort to 
answer questions of other participants on it - this
way that anybody could fully and easily understood that

3) full discussion will be here, and efforts will 
be done to make this as common work not much push of 
making own separate branches

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103779

On 10/02/17 06:57, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:18:21 PM UTC, fir wrote:
>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 21:06:57 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
>>
>>> imagine boring discussion about nearly nothing gone and some 
>>> real code and real matter appears (this is relly thing to do)
>>
>> there is weekend comin so maybe i will wait TILL MONDAY if some 
>> would say they maybe would like to try how it would look like ..
>> i may assure (90% assurance) that i would have energy to conduct 
>> that at least in early stages to see if something
>> come out of that 
>> (important is though i would be given to coordinate it a bit - not
>> a code but some basic discussion  )
>>
>> if no the idea may be repeated after half a year or after a year
>> (i recently to much bored to work alone, also to much bored to 
>> discuss on nothing but talking on some real 
>> (and quite simple nothing too eleborate) coding seem be
>> more interesting).. so think a bit on it
>>
> I've got two substantial github projects, the binary image library
> and Baby X.
> 
> The binary image library is essentially in version 1.0, most of the
> obvious features are there. In its nature it just grows little by
> little.
> 
> Baby X needs more attention than I've been able to give it. It 
> substantially works on Windows and Linux but it needs a lot more on
> visual appearance, a port to Mac OsX, and general use for mini-projects
> to flush out problems. There aren't many cross-platform windows toolkits
> out there.
>  
> 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_platform-independent_GUI_libraries>

(I am not saying your Baby X is not a useful project - maybe it is
better than all the existing toolkits.  But QT, wx, and GTK are pretty
popular.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103782

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:39:22 AM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/17 06:57, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_platform-independent_GUI_libraries>
> 
> (I am not saying your Baby X is not a useful project - maybe it is
> better than all the existing toolkits.  But QT, wx, and GTK are pretty
> popular.)
>
There are a few choices. Baby X is not the first attempt to make a graphical
program compile under both Windows and Linux. But it's a lightweight
toolkit, it's pure C, it should be understandable by a single programmer.

Another choice is sciter. That's an HTML-based GUI environment. Good for keeping
the front end separate form  the rest of the program.
But its a fairly short list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103785

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:39:15 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_platform-independent_GUI_libraries>
> 
> (I am not saying your Baby X is not a useful project - maybe it is
> better than all the existing toolkits.  But QT, wx, and GTK are pretty
> popular.)

Popular isn't synonym of good. Facebook is popular... but it's far from good
for your privacy. ;-)

I don't like much bloatware like QT or the C++ language which is inferior to C
from my perspective. The only valid options for me are the X toolkit and GTK+,
however like popular republics are synonyms for dictartorships, in the new
technology field plus means worse. Consequently I only consider GTK+ 2 or Xt to
write a GUI while I would prefer a toolkit independent from the X window system
with access to the screenbuffer or a virtual screenbuffer for hardware
acceleration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103797

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:00:39 AM UTC, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:39:15 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_platform-independent_GUI_libraries>
> > 
> > (I am not saying your Baby X is not a useful project - maybe it is
> > better than all the existing toolkits.  But QT, wx, and GTK are pretty
> > popular.)
> 
> Popular isn't synonym of good. Facebook is popular... but it's far from good
> for your privacy. ;-)
> 
> I don't like much bloatware like QT or the C++ language which is inferior to C
> from my perspective. The only valid options for me are the X toolkit and GTK+,
> however like popular republics are synonyms for dictartorships, in the new
> technology field plus means worse. Consequently I only consider GTK+ 2 or Xt to
> write a GUI while I would prefer a toolkit independent from the X window system
> with access to the screenbuffer or a virtual screenbuffer for hardware
> acceleration.
>
Baby X will always be open source, and the intention is to keep the codebase
small enough for one person to realistically modify it as he sees fit.
The idea is a baby toolkit, jut enough to get a few buttons, edit boxes, and
graphics windows going.
However it's got a fairly powerful graphics context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103866

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Baby X will always be open source, and the intention is to keep the codebase
> small enough for one person to realistically modify it as he sees fit.
> The idea is a baby toolkit, jut enough to get a few buttons, edit boxes, and
> graphics windows going.
> However it's got a fairly powerful graphics context.

A quick view on BabyX.h show this:

typedef struct
{
  HINSTANCE hinstance;
  BBX_CHILD *child;
  BBX_TICKER *ticker;
  BBX_Clipboard *clipboard;
  int Nchildren;
  int childCapacity;
  int screen;
  struct bitmap_font *gui_font;
  struct bitmap_font *user_font2;
  int modalpush;
  int running;
} BABYX;

What's the goal of creating a black box with a typedef while showing all its
components in a header? If you don't expect users to manually access to members
I would rather strip all unnecessary details with a source file or "private
header" inclusion such as:

/*
  bbxtypes.h
*/

struct bbx
{
  HINSTANCE hinstance;
  BBX_CHILD *child;
  BBX_TICKER *ticker;
  BBX_Clipboard *clipboard;
  int Nchildren;
  int childCapacity;
  int screen;
  struct bitmap_font *gui_font;
  struct bitmap_font *user_font2;
  int modalpush;
  int running;
};

/*
  BabyX.h
*/

#include "../common/bbxtypes.h"

typedef  struct bbx  BABYX;

Once more, there is no copyright or license notice in your files, this can
prevent users to modify, copy or distribute your source files to build their
program possibly open source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103869

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:13:33 AM UTC, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:39:29 -0800 (PST)
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Baby X will always be open source, and the intention is to keep the codebase
> > small enough for one person to realistically modify it as he sees fit.
> > The idea is a baby toolkit, jut enough to get a few buttons, edit boxes, and
> > graphics windows going.
> > However it's got a fairly powerful graphics context.
> 
> A quick view on BabyX.h show this:
> 
> typedef struct
> {
>   HINSTANCE hinstance;
>   BBX_CHILD *child;
>   BBX_TICKER *ticker;
>   BBX_Clipboard *clipboard;
>   int Nchildren;
>   int childCapacity;
>   int screen;
>   struct bitmap_font *gui_font;
>   struct bitmap_font *user_font2;
>   int modalpush;
>   int running;
> } BABYX;
> 
> What's the goal of creating a black box with a typedef while showing all its
> components in a header? If you don't expect users to manually access to members
> I would rather strip all unnecessary details with a source file or "private
> header" inclusion such as:
> 
That's to make it easier to write unit tests and to chase problems in the debugger.

>
> /*
>   bbxtypes.h
> */
> 
> struct bbx
> {
>   HINSTANCE hinstance;
>   BBX_CHILD *child;
>   BBX_TICKER *ticker;
>   BBX_Clipboard *clipboard;
>   int Nchildren;
>   int childCapacity;
>   int screen;
>   struct bitmap_font *gui_font;
>   struct bitmap_font *user_font2;
>   int modalpush;
>   int running;
> };
> 
> /*
>   BabyX.h
> */
> 
> #include "../common/bbxtypes.h"
> 
> typedef  struct bbx  BABYX;
> 
> Once more, there is no copyright or license notice in your files, this can
> prevent users to modify, copy or distribute your source files to build their
> program possibly open source.
>
I'm not lawyer. It's an open source project and will always be open source and
free for the programming community to use. Oddly enough  received a similar
request about the tiff loader. It might be that I've got to put in some legalese
from somewhere, but I'd prefer to avoid it - it comes over as immature. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103870

On 14/02/2017 11:58, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:13:33 AM UTC, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:

>> Once more, there is no copyright or license notice in your files, this can
>> prevent users to modify, copy or distribute your source files to build their
>> program possibly open source.
>>
> I'm not lawyer. It's an open source project and will always be open source and
> free for the programming community to use. Oddly enough  received a similar
> request about the tiff loader. It might be that I've got to put in some legalese
> from somewhere, but I'd prefer to avoid it - it comes over as immature.

That's never worried me either. But it's possible that someone can copy 
your code and put /their/ copyright notice on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103874

On 14/02/17 13:01, BartC wrote:
> On 14/02/2017 11:58, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:13:33 AM UTC, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> 
>>> Once more, there is no copyright or license notice in your files,
>>> this can
>>> prevent users to modify, copy or distribute your source files to
>>> build their
>>> program possibly open source.
>>>
>> I'm not lawyer. It's an open source project and will always be open
>> source and
>> free for the programming community to use. Oddly enough  received a
>> similar
>> request about the tiff loader. It might be that I've got to put in
>> some legalese
>> from somewhere, but I'd prefer to avoid it - it comes over as immature.
> 
> That's never worried me either. But it's possible that someone can copy
> your code and put /their/ copyright notice on it.
> 

Without any notice, you automatically own copyright on the code you
write.  But it can be far more difficult to enforce if someone does
illegally add their own copyright claims to it.

And people that care about open source, or care where they get their
code, will not touch your code when there is no copyright and licensing
information.  So your code is /not/ free for the programming community
to use - you need a bit of legalese to say so.  It's not hard to
copy-and-paste a BSD-style notice, or perhaps the Mozilla Public License
would be best suited for such code (basically that says that the
programmer can mix the code freely with other code under any license,
but any changes they make to /your/ code need to be made available as
source.  Use the code as you want, but share any improvements or bug-fixes).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103875 — Making things open source requires copyright notices; it's the world we live in (Was: project together?)

In article <70185684-b1f2-40ca-96ec-412c996b28a3@googlegroups.com>,
Malcolm McLean  <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
>I'm not lawyer. It's an open source project and will always be open source
>and free for the programming community to use. Oddly enough  received a
>similar request about the tiff loader. It might be that I've got to put in
>some legalese from somewhere, but I'd prefer to avoid it - it comes over
>as immature. 
>

Making things open source requires copyright notices; it's the world we live in.

If you don't do the right things, then the bad guys can grab your code and
make it theirs.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Snicker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103878

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'm not lawyer. It's an open source project and will always be open source and
> free for the programming community to use. Oddly enough  received a similar
> request about the tiff loader. It might be that I've got to put in some legalese
> from somewhere, but I'd prefer to avoid it - it comes over as immature. 

By default authors own all rights of their IP but if not clearly stated with a
notice, users have no right! I would strongly recommend you to put a copyright
notice to show the world how good are your programming skills with a short
notice to give some rights to users.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103969

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_platform-independent_GUI_libraries>
> 
> (I am not saying your Baby X is not a useful project - maybe it is
> better than all the existing toolkits.  But QT, wx, and GTK are pretty
> popular.)

GTK, at least, has the disadvantage of always looking like a GTK
program, not a native one. From a useability POV, that's not good.
AFAIK wxWidgets does get this right.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103569

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:06:25 PM UTC-5, fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 19:46:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 1:17:02 PM UTC-5, fir wrote:
> > > i would suggest writing some simple assembler for invented virtual
> > > machine/ then also this virtual machine
> > 
> > February 22, 2014, version 0.70 (7th revision) to my original 2012
> > design to create a new virtual machine (called VVM) with its own
> > assembler (called VASM):
> > 
> >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf-full/blob/master/documentation/vvm/OBED/vvm_dll_relationships_0.70.png
> > 
> > Current version:
> > 
> >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf-full/tree/master/documentation/vvm/OBED
> > 
> > Development on Visual FreePro (full version) is suspended pending the
> > completion of Visual FreePro, Jr.  I plan on coming back to the full
> > version of Visual FreePro after completing Visual FreePro, Jr., my
> > RDC compiler framework, CAlive, and my current LSA (assembler):
> > 
> >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/exodus/tools/lsa
> > 
> > It's a lot of work.  I have asked for help on these projects since I
> > began them on July 12, 2012.  I have received little help since that
> > time.  Some help mostly came in 2015 for a few months, and through a
> > Christian brother who didn't have high C/C++ programming skills, but
> > who was very encouraging to me from 2012 on.
> > 
> > I have used your very request above in the OP as my project's banner:
> > 
> >     http://www.libsf.org
> > 
> >     "In God's sight, we've come together.
> >      We've come together to help each other.
> >      Let's grow this project up ... together!
> >      In service and Love to The Lord, forever!"
> > 
> > Your goals are very close to being Christian goals, fir.  You just
> > hold on to worldly things like being mean, angry, hurting other
> > people, and rejecting Jesus Christ as nonsensical.
> > 
> > Perhaps you were wrong in that summary assessment.
>
> skip the bible blabla 

I used to believe as you do.  I later found out I was wrong.  It
happened in 2004, and it's continued forward to this day.

> providing the source (on point or for something related)
> its not the wy i got on mind, coz i mean building it
> from scrach where all fragment will be rediscussed 
> on this group and ar participants would understand it and
> share some remarks (i could be coordinator in such kind 
> of discussion) - but you could used your source as a 
> resource for easy providing pieces if you got that

I had hoped people would come on board and help me with every
aspect of design, but nobody did.  Lots of people followed my
work back then, mostly from www.foxite.com and www.universalthread.com,
but they both later banned me because I routinely spoke about
Jesus Christ as I do here.

People don't want Jesus in their life.  They want to go their
own way, as I used to want to do as well.  What I later found
changed me.  Now I do what I do for a purpose, and not just
because I want to do it.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103571

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 21:48:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:06:25 PM UTC-5, fir wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 19:46:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 1:17:02 PM UTC-5, fir wrote:
> > > > i would suggest writing some simple assembler for invented virtual
> > > > machine/ then also this virtual machine
> > > 
> > > February 22, 2014, version 0.70 (7th revision) to my original 2012
> > > design to create a new virtual machine (called VVM) with its own
> > > assembler (called VASM):
> > > 
> > >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf-full/blob/master/documentation/vvm/OBED/vvm_dll_relationships_0.70.png
> > > 
> > > Current version:
> > > 
> > >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf-full/tree/master/documentation/vvm/OBED
> > > 
> > > Development on Visual FreePro (full version) is suspended pending the
> > > completion of Visual FreePro, Jr.  I plan on coming back to the full
> > > version of Visual FreePro after completing Visual FreePro, Jr., my
> > > RDC compiler framework, CAlive, and my current LSA (assembler):
> > > 
> > >     https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/exodus/tools/lsa
> > > 
> > > It's a lot of work.  I have asked for help on these projects since I
> > > began them on July 12, 2012.  I have received little help since that
> > > time.  Some help mostly came in 2015 for a few months, and through a
> > > Christian brother who didn't have high C/C++ programming skills, but
> > > who was very encouraging to me from 2012 on.
> > > 
> > > I have used your very request above in the OP as my project's banner:
> > > 
> > >     http://www.libsf.org
> > > 
> > >     "In God's sight, we've come together.
> > >      We've come together to help each other.
> > >      Let's grow this project up ... together!
> > >      In service and Love to The Lord, forever!"
> > > 
> > > Your goals are very close to being Christian goals, fir.  You just
> > > hold on to worldly things like being mean, angry, hurting other
> > > people, and rejecting Jesus Christ as nonsensical.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps you were wrong in that summary assessment.
> >
> > skip the bible blabla 
> 
> I used to believe as you do.  I later found out I was wrong.  It
> happened in 2004, and it's continued forward to this day.
> 
> > providing the source (on point or for something related)
> > its not the wy i got on mind, coz i mean building it
> > from scrach where all fragment will be rediscussed 
> > on this group and ar participants would understand it and
> > share some remarks (i could be coordinator in such kind 
> > of discussion) - but you could used your source as a 
> > resource for easy providing pieces if you got that
> 
> I had hoped people would come on board and help me with every
> aspect of design, but nobody did.  Lots of people followed my
> work back then, mostly from www.foxite.com and www.universalthread.com,
> but they both later banned me because I routinely spoke about
> Jesus Christ as I do here.
> 
> People don't want Jesus in their life.  They want to go their
> own way, as I used to want to do as well.  What I later found
> changed me.  Now I do what I do for a purpose, and not just
> because I want to do it.
> 
> Thank you,
> Rick C. Hodgin

dont be sad ;c
people not dont want jesus but they dont want your blabla,

i personally think that good christians cant be insane and should be reasonable, youre not - some parts of your faith may be true and reasonable (imo) _but only some_ rest is 
blabla  people dont want that.. thats why you should stop 
blabla and go sane instead of insane

i dont want to talko on this anyway.. this is totally uninteresting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103655

Le jeudi 9 février 2017 19:17:02 UTC+1, fir a écrit :
> im so bored by this group.. people talk about not important topics etc.. they waste skill and time.. i think if something 
> maybe should be changed to go this group more into real coding with real outcome.. 
> 
> real talk should be on real source so maybe project together?
> 
> i wonder if some people would be interested in this.. if some like 5 persons would participate there maybe something could be
> done.. and all details could be talked in this group making more interesting content
> 
> i would suggest writing some simple assembler for invented virtual machine/ then also this virtual machine
> 
> (the condition in such participating in such project would be
> that if anybody writes code for that he shows that and answer 
> on all question about this piece of code to make others fully
> understand it - if someone would like to write some piece in his own way, he may do some fork/branch but should also public 
> it and answer to all answers about this code - i mean all 
> branches could and should be discussed)
> 
> if that would be done (i mean virtal assembler and eventaully 
> its emulator_ we could go further making real x86 asm from 
> this or make some higher language compiled to this real 
> or virtual assembler (in also virtual or real .exe format)
> 
> i would probably like to contribute in such project if at least 
> four five participators would go with that.. i could eventually
> maybe go in other kind of projects but this virtual asm /machine/language seem to be maybe more good imo
> 
> probably nobody would be interested, but maybe?

I'm afraid that nobody would like to do your homework... Try something useful that no one ever wrote and think about its implementation. ;-)

From my POV the C language and POSIX systems lack some basic features like vector or pixel support... It could be very useful to write a minimal set of functions to process in memory graphics. I think there are too many graphic libraries reinventing the wheel instead of providing a common interface for C programmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103664

W dniu sobota, 11 lutego 2017 05:00:20 UTC+1 użytkownik void napisał:
> Le jeudi 9 février 2017 19:17:02 UTC+1, fir a écrit :
> > im so bored by this group.. people talk about not important topics etc.. they waste skill and time.. i think if something 
> > maybe should be changed to go this group more into real coding with real outcome.. 
> > 
> > real talk should be on real source so maybe project together?
> > 
> > i wonder if some people would be interested in this.. if some like 5 persons would participate there maybe something could be
> > done.. and all details could be talked in this group making more interesting content
> > 
> > i would suggest writing some simple assembler for invented virtual machine/ then also this virtual machine
> > 
> > (the condition in such participating in such project would be
> > that if anybody writes code for that he shows that and answer 
> > on all question about this piece of code to make others fully
> > understand it - if someone would like to write some piece in his own way, he may do some fork/branch but should also public 
> > it and answer to all answers about this code - i mean all 
> > branches could and should be discussed)
> > 
> > if that would be done (i mean virtal assembler and eventaully 
> > its emulator_ we could go further making real x86 asm from 
> > this or make some higher language compiled to this real 
> > or virtual assembler (in also virtual or real .exe format)
> > 
> > i would probably like to contribute in such project if at least 
> > four five participators would go with that.. i could eventually
> > maybe go in other kind of projects but this virtual asm /machine/language seem to be maybe more good imo
> > 
> > probably nobody would be interested, but maybe?
> 
> I'm afraid that nobody would like to do your homework... Try something useful that no one ever wrote and think about its implementation. ;-)
> 
> From my POV the C language and POSIX systems lack some basic features like vector or pixel support... It could be very useful to write a minimal set of functions to process in memory graphics. I think there are too many graphic libraries reinventing the wheel instead of providing a common interface for C programmers.

conventional stupid answer, only to remember how lame people are? i know it (though i tend to forget that,
but they then go and remember that with blabla, throwing blabla like machine gun throws the bullets ;c)

ps i implemented the base of this asm it took 100 lines
of c.. now im contemplating

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103666

W dniu sobota, 11 lutego 2017 10:18:26 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu sobota, 11 lutego 2017 05:00:20 UTC+1 użytkownik void napisał:
> > Le jeudi 9 février 2017 19:17:02 UTC+1, fir a écrit :
> > > im so bored by this group.. people talk about not important topics etc.. they waste skill and time.. i think if something 
> > > maybe should be changed to go this group more into real coding with real outcome.. 
> > > 
> > > real talk should be on real source so maybe project together?
> > > 
> > > i wonder if some people would be interested in this.. if some like 5 persons would participate there maybe something could be
> > > done.. and all details could be talked in this group making more interesting content
> > > 
> > > i would suggest writing some simple assembler for invented virtual machine/ then also this virtual machine
> > > 
> > > (the condition in such participating in such project would be
> > > that if anybody writes code for that he shows that and answer 
> > > on all question about this piece of code to make others fully
> > > understand it - if someone would like to write some piece in his own way, he may do some fork/branch but should also public 
> > > it and answer to all answers about this code - i mean all 
> > > branches could and should be discussed)
> > > 
> > > if that would be done (i mean virtal assembler and eventaully 
> > > its emulator_ we could go further making real x86 asm from 
> > > this or make some higher language compiled to this real 
> > > or virtual assembler (in also virtual or real .exe format)
> > > 
> > > i would probably like to contribute in such project if at least 
> > > four five participators would go with that.. i could eventually
> > > maybe go in other kind of projects but this virtual asm /machine/language seem to be maybe more good imo
> > > 
> > > probably nobody would be interested, but maybe?
> > 
> > I'm afraid that nobody would like to do your homework... Try something useful that no one ever wrote and think about its implementation. ;-)
> > 
> > From my POV the C language and POSIX systems lack some basic features like vector or pixel support... It could be very useful to write a minimal set of functions to process in memory graphics. I think there are too many graphic libraries reinventing the wheel instead of providing a common interface for C programmers.
> 
> conventional stupid answer, only to remember how lame people are? i know it (though i tend to forget that,
> but they then go and remember that with blabla, throwing blabla like machine gun throws the bullets ;c)
> 
> ps i implemented the base of this asm it took 100 lines
> of c.. now im contemplating

it take such input

mov   l    1000
mov   a    0
mov  (a)   255
inc   a
dec   l
cmp   l  0
jig   -4

and convert intu such output 
http://minddetonator.htw.pl/asm01.jpg

i changed name registers form x0..x1.. into a..b..c..d..e.. as this names allows a bit more readable code (here above by l i mean loop counter and by a memory adress) so i got 26 registers

binary input for simplicity i designed

struct bin_line {
         int   opcode;
         short  arg_1_type;
         short  arg_2_type;
         int   arg_1_value;
         int   arg_2_value;
           } ;
first is opcode/mnemonic, then there is is type of argument ('r' for register, 'i' for immediate, 'm' for adressinge memory by register) and thise values 
- so each asm line has 16 bytes for simplicity

one small problem is that in a code when i assign the values od opcodes i must vrite 

opcode = 'vom'
opcode = 'dda'

when i mean opcode = 'mov'  opcode = 'add'

im not sure if such design was well chosen (is it c standard or gcc decision?) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web