Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #346873 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-19 10:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-25 14:36 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-19 10:57 +0000
Real programmers use C++ John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 05:09 -0700
Re: Real programmers use C++ Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:11 -0700
the umpteen layers of abstraction inside of the Linux DE John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:39 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-03-20 20:33 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 15:22 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:01 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:21 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 12:21 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 17:48 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 20:06 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 00:35 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 09:38 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:53 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:11 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:23 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:41 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:51 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 11:54 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:11 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:36 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:28 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:48 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:05 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-22 14:11 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:39 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 22:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 02:47 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:51 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:38 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 00:08 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:37 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 13:36 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:57 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-24 06:45 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 10:26 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 22:07 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 10:11 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-24 11:32 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:50 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-25 21:56 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 19:43 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-25 19:49 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 01:05 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:04 +0000
Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:42 +0000
Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 12:27 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 22:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 22:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 00:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:50 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 09:52 +0200
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-27 14:56 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.dead> - 2016-03-26 17:36 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 20:09 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:52 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-26 02:42 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 07:25 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:52 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:03 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:38 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 02:09 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:50 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 11:33 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 07:04 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 08:49 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 21:48 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 11:11 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 10:17 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:01 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 23:57 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:58 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:20 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 14:46 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 15:04 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:09 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-20 22:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-20 19:22 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 01:01 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 08:18 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 15:03 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-20 21:08 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 21:07 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-03-22 14:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-25 14:36 -0400
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 23:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlgorcF8roU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347257 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:36:06 +0100, Fabian Russell wrote: > "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:40:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:57:53 +0000, vallor wrote: >>> >>>> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >>>> >>>> [snip good boy homework] >>>> >>>> >>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >>> >>> The dumb fuck, who never hand coded assembly language in his entire >>> fucking life, >> >> Wrong. >> >> Very, very, wrong. > > Liar[SMAKAKOOK!] Kitten, when people like you have troubles with your systems, you call on people like me. Don't pretend it isn't true, because it is. > You're just a dumb fucking idiot who is so damn stupid that you > don't even deserve to be talking to a REAL man like me. When it comes to > brains, you're my fucking bitch. Again, when you decide to return to the world of logic and reason, be sure and let us (tinu) know. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person) Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties. The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example: "You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children." This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you." A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example: "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes." This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example: "Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white." This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well." It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 06:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ahk7fbh1i9v9qo8mgojtti7kr0vhahiq5k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #347278 |
vallor wrote: > Fabian Russell wrote: >> >> Liar[SMAKAKOOK!] > >Kitten, when people like you have troubles with your systems, you call on >people like me. Hehe. >Don't pretend it isn't true, because it is. "Fabian" is our new "Hadron", the newsgroup clown who claims to "school" people who are clearly far more experienced and knowledgable than he is/was. -- "Hadron": You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you? Most people haven't got a clue. They see a new phone for a good price with a contract. You idiots spanking your monkeys over something you know next to nothing about borders on the insane. bbgruff: How do you mean, hadron? Do you mean "picking" in the same sense that people "pick" Windows on a desktop, or do you mean some other way? "Hadron": (crickets)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncu8sj$dtj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347257 |
On 03/23/2016 08:36 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:40:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:57:53 +0000, vallor wrote: >>> >>>> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >>>> >>>> [snip good boy homework] >>>> >>>> >>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >>> >>> The dumb fuck, who never hand coded assembly language in his entire >>> fucking life, >> >> Wrong. >> >> Very, very, wrong. > > Liar. You're just a dumb fucking idiot who is so damn stupid that you don't even deserve to be talking to a REAL man like me. When it comes to brains, you're my fucking bitch. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Spare us the 'REAL man' spiel. We're not convinced. >> I remembered REPLZ MOVSB from assembly programming I did back in the late >> 80's -- for CTOS, of all things. Then I looked up all the opcodes that >> could be used for "string work". >> > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I was doing that when I was 12 years old. And what do you do now that you're 13? >> When you wish to return to the world of logic and reason, be sure and let >> us know, mmmkay? >> >> Toodles, Cupcake. > > Cupcakes are something that you're an expert on. You don't know shit about computers because you're a gui clicking idiot. But put a dozen cupcakes in front of you and I bet that you're in your fucking element. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! LOL! You found Bloaty's weaknesses: dough and sugar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncvhul$7ep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347195 |
On 3/22/2016 5:40 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > But just as an aside to all those dumb fucks who continue to decry > the need for hand-coded assembly language, when it comes to parallel > programming using SIMD instructions, no fucking compiler in the whole > fucking world can beat hand-crafted assembly code. None. Zip. Nada. > If it must be done in the best way, it must be done by hand. Why is the assembly code for Windows so different from the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwide_Assembler#Examples_of_programs_for_various_operating_systems
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0eg711uou@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347296 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:07:16 -0400, DFS wrote: > > Why is the assembly code for Windows so different from the others? > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The fact that you have to ask that question proves, yet again, that you are a total technical incompetent. MS Windows, as it is their custom to arrogantly defy international standards, uses a completely different ABI (calling conventions, name mangling, etc.), or Application Binary Interface. That's why. You don't need to keep demonstrating your ineptitude. We all know that you are a technical idiot that uses Google as a "cheat sheet". So stop with the proofs already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 11:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nd1154$us4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347307 |
On 3/24/2016 6:11 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:07:16 -0400, DFS wrote: > >> >> Why is the assembly code for Windows so different from the others? >> > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > The fact that you have to ask that question proves, yet again, > that you are a total technical incompetent. I know enough about computer technology not to waste years on assembly programming when the job market for it is tiny. Hence why you make a living with Windows (or try - you were fired from your last .NET job for incompetence). > MS Windows, as it is their custom to arrogantly defy international > standards, uses a completely different ABI (calling conventions, > name mangling, etc.), or Application Binary Interface. > That's why. wtf? Make up your mind, you hypocritical wackjob: "Only brain-dead Microsoft/Apple slaves are advocates of strict computing standards.", Labian Feb 2016 > You don't need to keep demonstrating your ineptitude. We all know > that you are a technical idiot that uses Google as a "cheat sheet". > So stop with the proofs already. Still waiting on the DDL from your "project mgmt database built using MSFT tools". What's taking so long?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdi03.aefae@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #347178 |
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:38:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >> >>>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data type. >>> >>> There certainly is >>> >>> >> Oh, is there. >> >> Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string type? >> >> There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the >> corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. >> >> Where is the string type? >> >> Where is it, smart fuck? Where? >> >> C'mon, idiot. Show us the string type. >> >> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > So much for you knowing x86 machine code. > > REPxx Repeat MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS > MOVSB Move byte from string to string > MOVSW Move word from string to string > SCASB Compare byte string > SCASW Compare word string > STOSB Store byte in string > STOSW Store word in string > LODSB Load string byte > LODSW Load string word > I'm not sure how those instructions are supposed to be evidence of a "string" data type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlj563Fj3tjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347349 |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:27:02 +0000, owl wrote: > vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:38:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data type. >>>> >>>> There certainly is >>>> >>>> >>> Oh, is there. >>> >>> Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string type? >>> >>> There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the >>> corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. >>> >>> Where is the string type? >>> >>> Where is it, smart fuck? Where? >>> >>> C'mon, idiot. Show us the string type. >>> >>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >> >> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >> >> REPxx Repeat MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS MOVSB Move byte from string >> to string MOVSW Move word from string to string SCASB Compare byte >> string SCASW Compare word string STOSB Store byte in string STOSW >> Store word in string LODSB Load string byte LODSW Load string word >> >> > I'm not sure how those instructions are supposed to be evidence of a > "string" data type. "Evidence of", but not "proof of". The OP was talking about how microprocessors had instructions for handing (say) ints, but not strings, therefore strings couldn't be a primitive data type. I don't think strings are a primitive data type, but that's because they are arrays of char. Nevertheless, this isn't because the processor doesn't have string instructions -- the x86 does have instructions to deal with them (for varying values of "string"). In other words: it's just an example of arriving at the right answer from the wrong set of premises. -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdao03.afea3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #347354 |
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:27:02 +0000, owl wrote: > >> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:38:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data type. >>>>> >>>>> There certainly is >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Oh, is there. >>>> >>>> Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string type? >>>> >>>> There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the >>>> corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. >>>> >>>> Where is the string type? >>>> >>>> Where is it, smart fuck? Where? >>>> >>>> C'mon, idiot. Show us the string type. >>>> >>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >>> >>> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >>> >>> REPxx Repeat MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS MOVSB Move byte from string >>> to string MOVSW Move word from string to string SCASB Compare byte >>> string SCASW Compare word string STOSB Store byte in string STOSW >>> Store word in string LODSB Load string byte LODSW Load string word >>> >>> >> I'm not sure how those instructions are supposed to be evidence of a >> "string" data type. > > > "Evidence of", but not "proof of". > > The OP was talking about how microprocessors had instructions for handing > (say) ints, but not strings, therefore strings couldn't be a primitive > data type. > > I don't think strings are a primitive data type, but that's because they > are arrays of char. Nevertheless, this isn't because the processor > doesn't have string instructions -- the x86 does have instructions to > deal with them (for varying values of "string"). > > In other words: it's just an example of arriving at the right answer > from the wrong set of premises. > Yeah, but generally a proper string-handling function (or instruction) should be able to handle arbitrary size strings, without (at the user level) having to iterate over bytes, words, dwords, qwords, whatever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd4c7a09h2@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347357 |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:50:39 +0000, owl wrote: > > Yeah, but generally a proper string-handling function (or instruction) > should be able to handle arbitrary size strings, without (at the user > level) having to iterate over bytes, words, dwords, qwords, whatever. > What kind of fucking string instructions do you want? How about inserting characters at position N of a string "type?" For an ASCII character set such an instruction would be no problem. But what about a UTF-8 encoded string? Here, the position N would fluctuate wildly. In C the string type terminates with a "\0" char. How could this be handled in Unicode with 32-bit character representation? There can't be a primitive "string" type because there are TOO many possible variations. (I won't even venture into the subject of bi-directional text.) How about international standards for a "string" type? Sure. Then the fucking Microsoft corporation will flaunt any standard by introducing its own "string" type, as it has done with every other fucking standard on the planet. Microsoft is a CRIMINAL organization and anyone who uses its products has blood on their hands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 19:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nd4i9b$mg6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347512 |
On 3/25/2016 5:56 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > Microsoft is a CRIMINAL organization and anyone who uses its > products has blood on their hands. "I am currently building a project management database for my current employer using MSFT tools." (Feb 2016) Good one, Labian!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 19:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9kamd0lv0krb$.1byg3mnjcyk6f.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #347533 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:43:35 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 3/25/2016 5:56 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > > >> Microsoft is a CRIMINAL organization and anyone who uses its >> products has blood on their hands. > > > "I am currently building a project management database for my current > employer using MSFT tools." (Feb 2016) > > Good one, Labian! With a name like Fabian he's going to be quite the popular one in jail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 01:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd4jhj$qca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347512 |
Fabian Russell wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:50:39 +0000, owl wrote: > > >> >> Yeah, but generally a proper string-handling function (or instruction) >> should be able to handle arbitrary size strings, without (at the user >> level) having to iterate over bytes, words, dwords, qwords, whatever. >> > > What kind of fucking string instructions do you want? > > How about inserting characters at position N of a string "type?" > > For an ASCII character set such an instruction would be no problem. > > But what about a UTF-8 encoded string? Here, the position N would > fluctuate wildly. Yes. And? Do you really think that is a problem for modern string handling functions? That "problem" has been solved a long time ago > In C the string type terminates with a "\0" char. How could this be > handled in Unicode with 32-bit character representation? Exactly the same, you blubbering idiot. There is no character in unicode starting with a "\0" char. Hence, it is extremely easy to detect as "end of string" > There can't be a primitive "string" type because there are TOO many > possible variations. (I won't even venture into the subject of > bi-directional text.) Right. Because you don't undestand even the basic implications > How about international standards for a "string" type? Idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd64ub02sda@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347537 |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:05:07 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > Exactly the same, you blubbering idiot. There is no character in unicode > starting with a "\0" char. Hence, it is extremely easy to detect as "end of > string" > Take a look at UTF-16, idiot. Every starting byte for the Latin alphabet is fucking zero. That's why Microsoft text files are TWICE as large as those on Linux (for Latin alphabets).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 14:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. |
| Message-ID | <nd673v01jcc@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347584 |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:35:18 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. > Yes it fucking does. UTF-16 is the only Unicode rep in the Microsoft shit API. You got that? The ONLY. You need to be hit with a clue stick -- and other kind of sticks as well (maybe even a lead pipe).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 12:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. |
| Message-ID | <nd6dab$vf9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347589 |
Fabian Russell wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:35:18 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >> Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. > > Yes it fucking does. UTF-16 is the only Unicode rep in > the Microsoft shit API. Not in the Win32 API (which I will agree is a shit API). -- Cheer Up! Things are getting worse at a slower rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd6vij$4j4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347584 |
Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:05:07 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> >> Exactly the same, you blubbering idiot. There is no character in unicode >> starting with a "\0" char. Hence, it is extremely easy to detect as "end >> of string" >> > > Take a look at UTF-16, idiot. Every starting byte for the Latin alphabet > is fucking zero. Ye gods. When you use UTF16 you naturally have to look for the second byte as well. In UTF16 every character is 2 bytes large. So marking "end of string" is a 0-character, consisting of 2 0-bytes You sound as if you believe that unicode consists of UTF16 only And you certainly are unaware that UTF16 can be UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE With UTF-16LE (windows) the 0-byte comes first for ASCII characters. With UTF-16BE the ASCII character comes first, then the 0-byte So your assertion that "Every starting byte for the Latin alphabet is fucking zero" for UTF16 is wrong. You don't have the foggiest what you are babbling about, Snit. As usual > That's why Microsoft text files are TWICE as large as those on Linux > (for Latin alphabets). Nope. UTF16 text files are twice as large for ASCII text files Windows handles UTF8 as well. In that case the files are exactly the same
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd727v02889@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347647 |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:42:43 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > When you use UTF16 you naturally have to look for the second byte > as well. > One first has to KNOW that the string is in UTF-16 format. That's the whole point of this discussion, retard. How can there be a fundamental string type when there are so many fucking possibilities? If there are to be a set of processor instructions to handle a string, there has to be international agreement on the exact definition of a string type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 00:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd76k2$o5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347648 |
Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:42:43 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> >> When you use UTF16 you naturally have to look for the second byte >> as well. >> > > One first has to KNOW that the string is in UTF-16 format. You want to tell us that "file" and "libmagic" don't exist? Or that the standard for marking those files does not, either? Since you can't know what kind of endian you will have (BE or LE) one should start such a file with U+FEFF (BOM, byte order mark) which stands for "zero width no-break space" If the endianness is reversed it would stand for U+FFFE (not a character) In both cases you would know what to expect. Just you don't, because you are incredibly stupid You don't have the foggiest of clues, Snit Idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D31CA6B2.6EA2A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #347664 |
On 3/26/16, 4:42 PM, in article nd76k2$o5$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Snit And you cannot even figure out whom you are responding to. Yeah, you are THAT lost. It is not as if this is a rare thing or an uncommon goof - you really just cannot tell. Like Sandman. -- * 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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web