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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #347678 > unrolled thread

I like taking cock up my ass

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  I like taking cock up my ass "7" <idiot@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-03-27 01:51 +0100
    Re: I like taking cock up my ass Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-27 15:31 +0000
      Re: I like taking cock up my ass Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 09:01 -0700
        Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 09:21 -0700
          Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-27 12:25 -0400
          Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-27 12:31 -0400
            Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-27 12:39 -0400
            Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 09:51 -0700
              Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-27 13:04 -0400
                Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 10:13 -0700
                  Re: Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-27 18:50 +0000
                  Re: Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 00:55 -0400
                    Re: Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-28 05:57 +0000
          Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-03-27 19:53 -0400
            Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 07:23 -0500
          Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-28 01:59 +0200
            Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 07:44 -0500
              My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 06:15 -0700
              My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 06:17 -0700
                Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-28 19:33 +0000
                Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-28 23:41 +0200
                  How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 14:52 -0700
                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Somebody <somebody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-28 18:01 -0400
                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 00:25 +0200
                      Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-28 18:30 -0400
                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 00:50 +0200
                          Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Somebody <somebody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-28 18:54 -0400
                            Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-28 21:11 -0400
                              Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 15:38 +0200
                                Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 10:09 -0400
                                  Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 19:54 +0200
                                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 14:51 -0400
                                      Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 22:04 +0200
                                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-29 20:30 +0000
                                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-29 13:59 -0700
                                          Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 23:57 +0200
                                            Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-29 18:23 -0700
                                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 16:50 -0500
                                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 19:23 -0400
                                          Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-30 00:42 +0000
                                            Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-30 10:52 -0400
                                              Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-30 16:26 +0000
                                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-29 20:38 -0400
                                          Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-30 06:59 -0500
                                            Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-30 11:46 -0400
                                              Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-30 11:53 -0400
                                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-29 12:05 -0700
                                  Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-29 12:06 -0700
                          Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-28 21:10 -0400
                        Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-30 14:13 -0400
                      Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 15:53 -0700
                        Re: Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-28 23:32 +0000
                  Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 07:24 -0500
              Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 10:21 -0400
                Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 19:50 +0200
                  Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 13:12 -0500
                  *Spank*  Dumfsck and Kreep chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 14:29 -0500
                    Re: *Spank*  Dumfsck and Kreep owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-29 19:36 +0000
                      Re: *Spank* Dumfsck and Kreep DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 15:42 -0400
                    Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 15:59 -0400
                  Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-30 10:51 -0400
      Re: I like taking cock up my ass "Delgato" <delgato@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 03:01 +0200

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#347877 — Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.

 wrote:

> MrChrisV wrote:
>> Relf claimed that his code was the "finest you'll ever see".
> 
> No.  I'd never say such a thing !
> My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.
> 
>> "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not compile-time
>> warnings."  -  Jeff Relf (the trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel" supports
>> Relf, on this issue)
> 
> Disabling certain warnings is best, I've found.
> Sometimes I want unreferenced variables, for example, just because.
> I'm using my code, so I know that it works the way I want.

using "unreferenced variables" is a way for disaster, and every programmer 
better than DumbFullSnit should know that
Doing idiocy like that knowingly only shows that you know jack shit about 
programming

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

#347878 — How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

PeterKöhlmann wrote:
> > Disabling certain warnings is best, I've found.
> > Sometimes I want unreferenced variables, for example, just because.
> > I'm using my code, so I know that it works the way I want.
> 
> using "unreferenced variables" is a way for disaster, 
> and every programmer better than DumbFullSnit should know that

How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜

  An "unreferenced variable" in the source code of a computer program
  is a variable that is defined but which is never used.  ＞＞

C4700 is: uninitialized local variable 'XYZ' used.

I don't disable "C4700" warnings.

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

#347883 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:52:02 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> PeterKöhlmann wrote:
>>> Disabling certain warnings is best, I've found.
>>> Sometimes I want unreferenced variables, for example, just because.
>>> I'm using my code, so I know that it works the way I want.
>> 
>> using "unreferenced variables" is a way for disaster, 
>> and every programmer better than DumbFullSnit should know that
> 
> How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?
> 
> Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜
> 
>   An "unreferenced variable" in the source code of a computer program
>   is a variable that is defined but which is never used.  ＞＞
> 
> C4700 is: uninitialized local variable 'XYZ' used.
> 
> I don't disable "C4700" warnings.

Do you toke?

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

#347900 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

 wrote:

> PeterKöhlmann wrote:
>> > Disabling certain warnings is best, I've found.
>> > Sometimes I want unreferenced variables, for example, just because.
>> > I'm using my code, so I know that it works the way I want.
>> 
>> using "unreferenced variables" is a way for disaster,
>> and every programmer better than DumbFullSnit should know that
> 
> How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

It is because the warnings cloak other warnings. And why on earth would 
someone with more than 2 braincells define variables only to never use them?

And worse: it can mean that you in reality meant to use the unreferenced 
variable, but did not and used instead another one, which may lead to 
faulty/unexpected behaviour. 

It can also occur because some part of the code has been rewritten and the 
variable is "no longer" used. In that case it should be removed

Masking that compiler warning will even deprave you of that knowledge, which 
can lead to difficult error searches. After all, the code compiles and runs. 
Just maybe not like you intended.

It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove them 
always instead of masking the warning

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

#347912 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove them 
> always instead of masking the warning

Unfortunately, many "programmers" suffer from a lack of the necessary
attention to details.

-- 
Lady Luck brings added income today.  Lady friend takes it away tonight.

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

#347921 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove
>> them always instead of masking the warning
> 
> Unfortunately, many "programmers" suffer from a lack of the necessary
> attention to details.
> 

I never accept a compiler warning by just "ignoring" it. The compiler issues 
warnings for a reason, and I have to be absolutely certain that it is the 
compile which is wrong. It extremely rarely is. Most of the time there is 
some problem in the code. In may current project (nearly 200.000 lines of 
(real) source code (comments not counted) I have exactly one occurence of 
compiler warning (and then for the current linux GCC only, not for the 
windows one and also not for the OSX compiler) where I get a warning which 
could be ignored. Better is to simply rewrite the code in a fashion where 
the compiler does not warn, because it was ambiguish from the start

Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same source) 
I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And I aspire to 
remove warnings for all of them, not just for the substandard windows 
compiler

It takes the Relf idiots of this world to assume that they know better

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

#347924 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:50:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove
>>> them always instead of masking the warning
>> 
>> Unfortunately, many "programmers" suffer from a lack of the necessary
>> attention to details.
>> 
> 
> I never accept a compiler warning by just "ignoring" it. The compiler issues 
> warnings for a reason, and I have to be absolutely certain that it is the 
> compile which is wrong. It extremely rarely is. Most of the time there is 
> some problem in the code. In may current project (nearly 200.000 lines of 
> (real) source code (comments not counted) I have exactly one occurence of 
> compiler warning (and then for the current linux GCC only, not for the 
> windows one and also not for the OSX compiler) where I get a warning which 
> could be ignored. Better is to simply rewrite the code in a fashion where 
> the compiler does not warn, because it was ambiguish from the start
> 
> Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same source) 
> I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And I aspire to 
> remove warnings for all of them, not just for the substandard windows 
> compiler

Post the code or it didn't happen.
 
> It takes the Relf idiots of this world to assume that they know better

Relf is a special kind of idiot.
He is one of a kind.

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

#347940 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

CROSSPOST SNIPPED

Somebody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:50:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same source) 
>> I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And I aspire to 
>> remove warnings for all of them, not just for the substandard windows 
>> compiler
>
> Post the code or it didn't happen.

Sounds like our local redneck racist.

>> It takes the Relf idiots of this world to assume that they know better
>
> Relf is a special kind of idiot.
> He is one of a kind.

No, DFS is a similar kind, just slightly different methodology.

-- 
Q:	What do you call 15 trolls in a circle?
A:	A dope ring.
 
Q:	Why do trolls put their hair in ponytails?
A:	To cover up the valve stem.

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

#347998 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> CROSSPOST SNIPPED
> 
> Somebody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:50:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same
>>> source) I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And
>>> I aspire to remove warnings for all of them, not just for the
>>> substandard windows compiler
>>
>> Post the code or it didn't happen.
> 
> Sounds like our local redneck racist.

He dreams of getting a job at the local KKK chapter once Donald Trump gets 
elected Impirial Wizard
He certainly sounds stupid enough

>>> It takes the Relf idiots of this world to assume that they know better
>>
>> Relf is a special kind of idiot.
>> He is one of a kind.
> 
> No, DFS is a similar kind, just slightly different methodology.
> 

DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program

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

#348004 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:


> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program


Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.  And, I can work with all sorts 
of databases as well, which is why you're so fucking jealous of me.

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

#348037 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

DFS wrote:

> On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
> 
>> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program
> 
> 
> Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.

I don't think so. When you are declaring that "testing the program" is 
better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack shit

> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well, 

Big deal. So do I

> which is why you're so fucking jealous of me.

Idiot

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

#348051 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/2016 1:54 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program
>>
>>
>> Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.
>
> I don't think so. When you are declaring that "testing the program" is
> better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack shit

I never "declared" any such thing, liar, or anything like it.  You just 
made it up.



>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>
> Big deal. So do I


So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.

Or run away like you always do.



>> which is why you're so fucking jealous of me.
>
> Idiot

Loser.

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

#348070 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

DFS wrote:

> On 3/29/2016 1:54 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.
>>
>> I don't think so. When you are declaring that "testing the program" is
>> better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack
>> shit
> 
> I never "declared" any such thing, liar, or anything like it.  You just
> made it up.
> 
>

/Quote
Message-ID: <nde2s8$ek6$1@dont-email.me>

ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings to 
determine if the code functions correctly.

You're one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise.

/unquote

So you claim non-idiots use "testing the code"
and you claim that "idiots think otherwise"

And you completely ignore that it is basically impossible to determine 
correctness of the code by testing, and that the first step always should be 
to make the code as clean as possible before starting test cases

>>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>>
>> Big deal. So do I
> 
> 
> So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.

Why should I? You are not worth anything, much less "proof".
You would not accept it anyway, so why go to the lenght?

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

#348074 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 3/29/2016 1:54 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. When you are declaring that "testing the program" is
>>> better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack
>>> shit
>> 
>> I never "declared" any such thing, liar, or anything like it.  You just
>> made it up.
>> 
>>
> 
> /Quote
> Message-ID: <nde2s8$ek6$1@dont-email.me>
> 
> ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings to 
> determine if the code functions correctly.
> 
> You're one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise.
> 
> /unquote
> 
> So you claim non-idiots use "testing the code"
> and you claim that "idiots think otherwise"
> 
> And you completely ignore that it is basically impossible to determine 
> correctness of the code by testing, and that the first step always should be 
> to make the code as clean as possible before starting test cases
> 

Yep...

anon@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn1 warn1.c
anon@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn2 warn2.c
warn2.c: In function ‘blah’:
warn2.c:19:6: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
  int x=4;
      ^
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
anon@lowtide:~/code$ diff -u warn1.c warn2.c
--- warn1.c	2016-03-29 16:17:41.991685895 -0400
+++ warn2.c	2016-03-29 16:17:50.779686056 -0400
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@
 void blah(void)
 {
  int x=4;
- y=x;
+/* y=x; */
 }
 

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

#348079 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/16, 1:04 PM, in article ndemuc$ln$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>>> 
>>> Big deal. So do I
>> 
>> 
>> So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.
> 
> Why should I? You are not worth anything, much less "proof".
> You would not accept it anyway, so why go to the lenght?

Comes down to you claim to have skills but there is no evidence to support
it and plenty of evidence to suggest you do not.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#348085 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Snit wrote:

> On 3/29/16, 1:04 PM, in article ndemuc$ln$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>>>> 
>>>> Big deal. So do I
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.
>> 
>> Why should I? You are not worth anything, much less "proof".
>> You would not accept it anyway, so why go to the lenght?
> 
> Comes down to you claim to have skills but there is no evidence to support
> it and plenty of evidence to suggest you do not.
> 
 
Comes down to ignoring "requests for proof" by lying imbeciles


You may now continue to start up your usual Snit circus

BTW, did you ever provide any substantial "proof" that you did not serve 
jail time? That you were not convicted for fraud and for that reason were 
"missing" posting as "Snit"?

How come that you cretinous imbecile always want "proof", but utterly fail 
when it is extremely emberrassing for you?

Face it: You were in jail for some month, and you are not up to admitting it

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

#348105 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/16, 2:57 PM, in article ndeti7$qrf$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> On 3/29/16, 1:04 PM, in article ndemuc$ln$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Big deal. So do I
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.
>>> 
>>> Why should I? You are not worth anything, much less "proof".
>>> You would not accept it anyway, so why go to the lenght?
>> 
>> Comes down to you claim to have skills but there is no evidence to support
>> it and plenty of evidence to suggest you do not.
>  
> Comes down to ignoring "requests for proof" by lying imbeciles

How dare people ask you to back up your absurd claims which are contradicted
by massive amounts of evidence!

And below you babble about my life... BEGGING to know what I do as if I have
an obligation to share. Nope. But YOU are the one who claims repeatedly to
be a programmer when the evidence shows otherwise. Either you are not or you
are a crappy one.
 
> You may now continue to start up your usual Snit circus
> 
> BTW, did you ever provide any substantial "proof" that you did not serve
> jail time? That you were not convicted for fraud and for that reason were
> "missing" posting as "Snit"?
> 
> How come that you cretinous imbecile always want "proof", but utterly fail
> when it is extremely emberrassing for you?
> 
> Face it: You were in jail for some month, and you are not up to admitting it



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#348084 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>> When you are declaring that "testing the program" is
>>> better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack
>>> shit
>> 
>> I never "declared" any such thing, liar, or anything like it.  You just
>> made it up.

Above we see the view from the up-is-down, black-is-white,
lies-are-truth world of a Linux-hater.  

In that world, Dumfsck *did not* lie and make something up about what
I said, while Peter *did* lie and make-up something about what DumFSck
said.

>/Quote
>Message-ID: <nde2s8$ek6$1@dont-email.me>
>
>ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings to 
>determine if the code functions correctly.
>
>You're one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise.
>
>/unquote
>
>So you claim non-idiots use "testing the code"
>and you claim that "idiots think otherwise"
>
>And you completely ignore that it is basically impossible to determine 
>correctness of the code by testing, 

Even though I am not a professional programmer, I knew that.  That's
why I called Relf's statements eschewing the importance of warnings
"stupid".  This led to the Ezekreep attacking me as "ignorant", with
the *outlandish* claim that I thought that compile-time warnings will
tell you if your software is works or not.

Un-fscking-believable!

-- 
'He's the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software works or
not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not by
actually testing the software.'  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying
shamelessly

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

#348097 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 03/29/2016 04:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2016 1:54 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2016 9:38 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> DumbFullSnit is angry 24/7 that he can't program
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course I can program, lying dumbkopf.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. When you are declaring that "testing the program" is
>>> better than first scrutinizing the warnings you show that you know jack
>>> shit
>>
>> I never "declared" any such thing, liar, or anything like it.  You just
>> made it up.
>>
>>
>
> /Quote
> Message-ID: <nde2s8$ek6$1@dont-email.me>
>
> ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings to
> determine if the code functions correctly.
>
> You're one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise.
>
> /unquote
>
> So you claim non-idiots use "testing the code"
> and you claim that "idiots think otherwise"

Snip and lie idiot.  I said "testing the code over..."



> And you completely ignore that it is basically impossible to determine
> correctness of the code by testing,

Depends on the complexity of the program.



> and that the first step always should be
> to make the code as clean as possible before starting test cases

You're clearly an experienced developer.




>>>> And, I can work with all sorts of databases as well,
>>>
>>> Big deal. So do I
>>
>>
>> So post some DDL from one of the databases you designed.
>
> Why should I? You are not worth anything, much less "proof".
> You would not accept it anyway, so why go to the lenght?


Standard dumbkopf response when caught in a lie.

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

#348104 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2016 04:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
...
> 
>> And you completely ignore that it is basically impossible to determine
>> correctness of the code by testing,
> 
> Depends on the complexity of the program.
> 

One of the programs below had a compile-time warning.  Which one doesn't
appear to be working properly?

anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 7
y: 4
sum: 11
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 7
y: 8
sum: 15
anon@lowtide:~/code$ 

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web