Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #141169 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-23 21:59 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-03-01 19:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 308 — 53 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-23 22:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-02-23 16:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-24 08:37 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:12 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:11 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:19 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-02-25 09:01 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 01:55 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:31 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:57 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-25 10:46 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:34 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 08:48 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 00:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-26 01:33 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 13:18 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 21:48 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 17:54 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-01 20:19 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 03:05 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-01 11:29 +0000
The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-03-01 12:19 +0000
Re: The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:28 -0800
Re: The extent of Rick's experience (Was: C is not a low level language) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:34 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 04:32 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 14:28 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 15:57 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 06:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 09:21 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 11:23 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-04 14:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-04 15:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 07:02 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-05 06:36 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 05:14 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jadill33@gmail.com - 2019-03-05 05:44 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 16:47 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-01 14:02 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 15:50 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 06:11 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-03-01 16:50 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 07:22 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 07:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-03 19:55 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-02 08:39 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-02 08:37 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 11:43 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-03-02 07:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 04:18 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-02 12:28 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 05:19 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-03-02 23:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 18:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-03-02 16:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-03 06:53 +1300
Yep, I'm not surprised. (Was: C is not a low level language) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-03-01 07:31 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wes Newell <w.newell@tx.rr.com> - 2019-03-01 06:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wes Newell <w.newell@tx.rr.com> - 2019-03-01 06:11 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 01:35 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 07:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 07:36 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 02:43 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:33 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
You were not meant to undersand this was: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-26 09:47 -0800
Re: You were not meant to undersand this was: C is not a low level language pjp <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-26 16:05 -0400
Re: C is not a low level language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 20:16 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:57 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 05:15 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 09:00 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 01:58 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 12:19 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-25 10:01 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 09:04 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 13:25 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:16 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 10:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-27 03:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 10:26 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-26 12:41 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-25 07:24 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 09:51 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-02-24 09:37 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-24 22:52 +1300
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:13 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 16:30 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 07:50 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:14 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-24 17:16 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 08:42 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language bart4858@gmail.com - 2019-02-24 09:38 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:09 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:13 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:23 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 10:48 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-24 19:07 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 11:10 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-24 19:19 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 10:32 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 20:49 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:59 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 18:02 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-24 21:56 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 23:00 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-28 17:07 -0600
Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:34 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 23:04 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-02-24 14:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-25 07:12 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-24 10:41 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 06:47 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-24 16:32 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 03:19 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:29 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-02-24 11:11 -0500
Re: C is not a low level language Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:57 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "l.s." <l.s@cryptolab.net> - 2019-02-28 19:17 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-28 21:09 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 13:20 -0800
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 10:27 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-03-01 14:18 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-03-01 15:10 +0100
Re: C is not a low level language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-03-01 19:30 +0100
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <brp67eljkpv5djl5vqtun1fn6k25oqofjc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141180 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
[snip]
> For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
>'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
>but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
>development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
>maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
>faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
>bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.
I prefer a language that is human-oriented. I would rather have
something run a bit more slowly but be safer. Most of the time, it
does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway. If it does, then I worry
about optimisation.
> It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
>level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
>programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
>soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
>producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
>supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
>*are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
>of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.
Exactly. I write something reasonable; it usually is fast
enough. If not, only then I optimise.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.22244AD9021E56217000059092EF@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141270 |
On 25 Feb 2019, Gene Wirchenko wrote (in article<brp67eljkpv5djl5vqtun1fn6k25oqofjc@4ax.com>): > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not > > 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good > > but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of > > development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially > > maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times > > faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden > > bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care. > > I prefer a language that is human-oriented. I would rather have > something run a bit more slowly but be safer. Most of the time, it > does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway. If it does, then I worry > about optimisation. Believe it or not, you can have: human-oriented, safe, fast AND available on the RPi, all in the same language. -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8cb554db-02d0-45f0-953c-1eccd7f60778@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141320 |
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:10:10 PM UTC+2, Bill Findlay wrote: > On 25 Feb 2019, Gene Wirchenko wrote > (in article<brp67eljkpv5djl5vqtun1fn6k25oqofjc@4ax.com>): > > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not > > > 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good > > > but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of > > > development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially > > > maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times > > > faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden > > > bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care. > > > > I prefer a language that is human-oriented. I would rather have > > something run a bit more slowly but be safer. Most of the time, it > > does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway. If it does, then I worry > > about optimisation. > > Believe it or not, you can have: human-oriented, safe, fast > AND available on the RPi, all in the same language. > > -- > Bill Findlay "human-oriented" is in an eye of beholder. In my, admittedly very small, set of samples I know exactly one human being that shares your opinion and several that don't. Even the person that do share your opinion do not use the the language in practice for something like 25 years. Me, personally? I'd rather use your favorite language than Rust. But that's hardly a compliment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q51hla$6s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141270 |
Den 2019-02-25 kl. 04:59, skrev Gene Wirchenko:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
>> 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
>> but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
>> development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
>> maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
>> faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
>> bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.
>
> I prefer a language that is human-oriented. I would rather have
> something run a bit more slowly but be safer. Most of the time, it
> does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway. If it does, then I worry
> about optimisation.
I konw of only one language with explicit design goals of
"program reliability and maintenance, programming as a human activity,
and efficiency"
http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-01-03.html
or as
https://www.radford.edu/nokie/classes/320/designGoals.html
says
1 Supporting reliability and maintainability
* Large programs with long lifetime
2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space)
3 Concern for programmer: Language is small and consistent
* Readability favored over writability
>
>> It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
>> level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
>> programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
>> soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
>> producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
>> supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
>> *are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
>> of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.
>
> Exactly. I write something reasonable; it usually is fast
> enough. If not, only then I optimise.
My favorite link in this respect is this
https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~adagroup/sigada-website/lawlis.html
Abstract
With the intent of getting an Ada waiver, a defense contractor wrote a
portion of its software in Ada to prove that Ada could not produce
real-time code. The expectation was that the resultant machine code
would be too large and too slow to be effective for a communications
application. However, the opposite was verified. With only minor source
code variations, one version of the compiled Ada code was much smaller
while executing at approximately the same speed, and a second version
was approximately the same size but much faster than the corresponding
assembly code.
....
sudo apt install gnat-6
will get you far on the pi
(gnat is the gcc frontend to Ada)
--
Björn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e75fe26-8653-a02c-c670-a96d762a5850@telia.com> |
| In reply to | #141349 |
2019-02-25 21:02 skrev Björn Lundin: > 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space) Minimize speed? -- Lars Enderin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ks%cE.164115$371.29435@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #141376 |
On 2019-02-25 18:37, Lars Enderin wrote: > 2019-02-25 21:02 skrev Björn Lundin: >> 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space) > > Minimize speed? > I think he intended "minimize execution time..." -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. (Groucho Marx)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190226065251.7b022985bc6584eeff51cdb5@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141376 |
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:37:51 +0100 Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote: > 2019-02-25 21:02 skrev Björn Lundin: > > 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space) > > Minimize speed? Amphetamines are bad for you. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | T <T@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q4tkn5$pk9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141178 |
On 2/23/19 10:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" > <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote: >>>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 >>>> >>> >>> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)! >>> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :) >>> >> >> And many operating systems are written in C. >> In short, C is a pillar! > > C is a write-only language. :-) > That is what they say about Perl too. Chuckle. I write in "Top Down". Makes it very readable and easy to maintain, whatever language you're are writing in. Whenever I try to read C, I get a migraine. I have to give credit where credit is do. Those that write in C have some extraordinary talent. Now what exactly does $x ~~ s/\/\\\/\/\/\\/\\\/\/\/ do? :-) Perl 6 is a wonderful clean up of Perl 5. Does are written is C too. HHmmmmmmm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | T <T@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q4tkoa$pk9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141181 |
On 2/24/19 12:30 AM, T wrote:
> Does are
Both are
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190224101608.8b13f7273c9ba380ffa6c6c0@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #141181 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 00:30:28 -0800 T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Now what exactly does $x ~~ s/\/\\\/\/\/\\/\\\/\/\/ do? Cause bugs every time someone tries to change it or the code around it. The wise programmer chooses a different delimiter when their regular expression contains /s. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kcqpA1Qs5nccFw+f@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #141178 |
In message <qsf47edk21e705cfp6kj73b4fa5hbqjf59@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> writes: [] >C is a write-only language. :-) Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back to it after a while. (I remember seeing a line of BASIC - I think it was NASCOM BASIC or similar - that achieved decimal to Roman numerals conversion in one [albeit long] line. [Actually, partly by the nature of BASIC, that _was_ understandable.]) As another has said, _commenting_ is important - certainly for anything collaborative, but even for yourself if you intend to come back to the code after even a relatively short time. I'd disagree that the comment should show what it's supposed to do rather than how it does it: if the latter is in any way obscure (including clever), it should explain that _as well_. Advice (and manuals, and sometimes even company procedures) often recommend)s( a ratio of comment to code; whatever ratio is recommended, of course, few of us follow that, and _usually_ without problem. It _can_ be argued that well-written code is its own comment, and that can _sometimes_ be the case - though efficient C does lend itself to impenetrability. Also, the arguments about whether the compiler can match the coder for efficiency will go on for ever, too. (Certainly I used to think I could do better than any compiler, but that was decades ago - though what I've seen recently of automatically-generated HTML has certainly not impressed me.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4u7kv$3b8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141194 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote | Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's | indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has | said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back | to it after a while. That's a pet peeve of mine. People who think it's clever to shrink multiple steps into one. They sacrifice readability based on a misconception -- the notion that terse code is efficient code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <hvc57etmf4d2bpnguqeosjsetu3t3t48ov@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141202 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> on Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:51:59 -0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote > >| Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's >| indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has >| said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back >| to it after a while. > > That's a pet peeve of mine. People who think it's >clever to shrink multiple steps into one. They sacrifice >readability based on a misconception -- the notion >that terse code is efficient code. And then there is obfuscated code. > -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ty6LLtZumrccFwdb@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #141209 |
In message <hvc57etmf4d2bpnguqeosjsetu3t3t48ov@4ax.com>, pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes: >"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> on Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:51:59 >-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: >>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote >> >>| Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's >>| indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has >>| said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back >>| to it after a while. >> >> That's a pet peeve of mine. People who think it's >>clever to shrink multiple steps into one. They sacrifice >>readability based on a misconception -- the notion >>that terse code is efficient code. That _can_ depend on the compiler; less-good ones may produce more steps for more readable code. > > And then there is obfuscated code. >> Deliberately so, you mean? I thought that was usually done by not giving access to the source code. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4ufg6$ign$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141212 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote | > And then there is obfuscated code. | > | Deliberately so, you mean? I thought that was usually done by not giving | access to the source code. I wondered about that, too. Though it is common these days for javascript to be obfuscated and deliberately complicated. Or it's pseudo-encrypted by doing things like including a string of byte values or Base64 in the script which is then reconstituted to the original. It also gets "minified", allegedly for compactness, but I think it's really for obfuscation. When you're pulling in 2 MB of javascript to do a simple task in a webpage, minifying is hardly relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0l667epbo7k9do14n1d38gfc5onn0imkgo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141212 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> on Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:35:10 +0000 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: >In message <hvc57etmf4d2bpnguqeosjsetu3t3t48ov@4ax.com>, pyotr >filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes: >>"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> on Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:51:59 >>-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: >>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote >>> >>>| Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's >>>| indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has >>>| said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back >>>| to it after a while. >>> >>> That's a pet peeve of mine. People who think it's >>>clever to shrink multiple steps into one. They sacrifice >>>readability based on a misconception -- the notion >>>that terse code is efficient code. > >That _can_ depend on the compiler; less-good ones may produce more steps >for more readable code. >> >> And then there is obfuscated code. >>> >Deliberately so, you mean? I thought that was usually done by not giving >access to the source code. There used to be an "Obfuscated Code" competition, where the idea was to write code so convoluted, that reading it was between really difficult and "Are you sure we're not going to summon one of the Elder gods doing this?" I recall one where the code listing looked like the letter Pi. But it compiled. Output was the value of Pi to some large number of places. I understand that back when memory was on a drum, legendary Programmers of Yore, would include the physical characteristic of the drum in their coding, so that rather than wait for the memory location to come round, it would read the memory location under the head, because the next instruction had been calculated to be there. But reading said code was very difficult unless you too were intimately familiar with the engineering of the memory system. There were Giants in those days. Also complete wackos. tschus pyotr -- APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection. It is the language of the future for the programming techniques of the past: it creates a new generation of coding bums. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln4l8spnoy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #141265 |
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
[...]
> There used to be an "Obfuscated Code" competition, where the idea
> was to write code so convoluted, that reading it was between really
> difficult and "Are you sure we're not going to summon one of the Elder
> gods doing this?"
There still is. https://ioccc.org/
> I recall one where the code listing looked like the
> letter Pi. But it compiled. Output was the value of Pi to some large
> number of places.
Here's the program, from the 1989 contest:
https://ioccc.org/1989/roemer.c
That's not quite what it does, but I don't want to spoil it.
(It seg faults when I compile it with gcc or clang, but it runs when I
compile it with tcc.)
[...]
(followups to comp.lang.c only.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j8TcE.148893$c46.43996@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #141265 |
On 2019-02-24 17:39, pyotr filipivich wrote: [snip the e tertainment] > There were Giants in those days. Also complete wackos. > > tschus > pyotr What I recall from my dabble in C/C+ many years ago was that it's a multi-level langauge. Very cool. But that means there was much opportunity for, er, let's call them "inadvertent" bugs. That's why there were giants and wackos. Their obsessively detailed knowledge of the language was necessary. Now that much (most?) programming done by bolting bits and pieces together, we get bloat, and, er, "inadvertent" security holes. Just sayin'. FTR, I took an IBM assembler about 40 years ago. Can still read maybe 20% of an assembler printout, but couldn't code my way out of paper bag. But by the end of the course, I could write 15-20 lines without a bug. The instructor said this was pretty good. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. (Groucho Marx)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <+BH$Xu6fFAdcFwF7@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #141310 |
In message <j8TcE.148893$c46.43996@fx07.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> writes: [] >FTR, I took an IBM assembler about 40 years ago. Can still read maybe >20% of an assembler printout, but couldn't code my way out of paper >bag. But by the end of the course, I could write 15-20 lines without a >bug. The instructor said this was pretty good. > About ten years ago, I was startled, speaking to a new graduate with a computing degree, when he revealed that he'd NEVER DONE ANY ASSEMBLER. Thinking about it afterwards, I decided that the computing world is certainly big enough that he'd have no difficulty in finding employment, but it did throw me at the time; I'd come up through (7-bit serial then) 8-bit, 6800 and 6502, then in professional life some work in bit-slice processors (AMD 2901, 2960, etc., and the IDT copies thereof), where we had to _create_ our assembly tools as we assembled our processors. Maybe nowadays assembler is _rare_? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6ITcE.119027$G52.102800@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #141311 |
On 2019-02-25 09:53, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <j8TcE.148893$c46.43996@fx07.iad>, Wolf K > <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> writes: > [] >> FTR, I took an IBM assembler about 40 years ago. Can still read maybe >> 20% of an assembler printout, but couldn't code my way out of paper >> bag. But by the end of the course, I could write 15-20 lines without a >> bug. The instructor said this was pretty good. >> > About ten years ago, I was startled, speaking to a new graduate with a > computing degree, when he revealed that he'd NEVER DONE ANY ASSEMBLER. > Thinking about it afterwards, I decided that the computing world is > certainly big enough that he'd have no difficulty in finding employment, > but it did throw me at the time; I'd come up through (7-bit serial then) > 8-bit, 6800 and 6502, then in professional life some work in bit-slice > processors (AMD 2901, 2960, etc., and the IDT copies thereof), where we > had to _create_ our assembly tools as we assembled our processors. > > Maybe nowadays assembler is _rare_? I think human-created assembler is becoming rare. However, I have the impression that robotics requires machine-coded assembler, translated from whatever human-readable language was used to program the machine. Those neat videos of dog=like robots loping through the building are misleading. Their abilities are not only severely limited, but those abilities were programmed on large machines cabled to the robot. The programs were tweaked and compressed before being copied to the on-board chips that control the "dog". Maybe someone from MIT or Boston Dynamics can clarify and correct. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. (Groucho Marx)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web