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

#348134 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/2016 8:42 PM, owl wrote:
> 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$


They both appear to be working properly, but one iteration isn't a
sufficient test.  To test your code for ALL possible situations
(assuming it's intended to only sum numbers x and y):

for x = min size of x to max size of x
  for y = min size of y to max size of y
   if warn1(x,y) <> (x + y) then
    print "warn1 failed at: x " & x & ", y " & y
   endif
   if warn2(x,y) <> (x + y)
    print "warn2 failed at: x " & x & ", y " & y
   endif
  next y
next x

What was the compiler warning?

Some compiler warnings - such as 'unused variable declared' - can't
impact the functionality, and can't ever be discovered during testing
(no whining about "out of memory!" because an unused variable was
declared).  So it's a fact that some compiler warnings can be irrelevant
and safely ignored.

But errors in code logic can never be irrelevant or ignored. They can
always result in errors or unintended consequences.  Thus Relf's 100%
correct and obvious statement:

"Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not compile-time
warnings."

turdv's reply that it was "stupid" was incredibly moronic.

note: besides making fun of shitv - even though it's a sufficient but
not necessary reason - why are we/cola still having this stupid
discussion about compiler warnings vs testing?  wtf?  Are we not geek men?

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

#348141 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2016 8:42 PM, owl wrote:
>> 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$
> 
> 
> They both appear to be working properly, but one iteration isn't a
> sufficient test.

There is only one iteration in this code.

>  To test your code for ALL possible situations
> (assuming it's intended to only sum numbers x and y):
> 
> for x = min size of x to max size of x
>  for y = min size of y to max size of y
>   if warn1(x,y) <> (x + y) then
>    print "warn1 failed at: x " & x & ", y " & y
>   endif
>   if warn2(x,y) <> (x + y)
>    print "warn2 failed at: x " & x & ", y " & y
>   endif
>  next y
> next x
> 
> What was the compiler warning?
> 

anon@lowtide:~$ cd code
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$

> Some compiler warnings - such as 'unused variable declared' - can't
> impact the functionality,

And yet this unused variable warning did have an impact on functionality.

> and can't ever be discovered during testing
> (no whining about "out of memory!" because an unused variable was
> declared).  So it's a fact that some compiler warnings can be irrelevant
> and safely ignored.
> 

The warning above was generated because of this commented-out code:

void blah(void)
{
 int x=4;
/* y=x; */
}

Otherwise the programs are identical.

The variables x and y that are printed are at file scope.  The compiler
warns about the local-scope x in function blah() not being used.  This
results in the program generating a completely different output, because
the file-scope y never gets reassigned to the value of the local-scope
x.  What if this wrong answer resulted in nukes being launched?  The
world could then be destroyed because you ignored an "unused variable"
warning.

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

#348103 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> 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?

Exactly.

-- 
Q:	How many Harvard MBA's does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A:	Just one.  He grasps it firmly and the universe revolves around him.

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

#348125 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> dumfsck wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>
> Exactly.

The dumb fsck would like to switch topics and go on the attack, after
taking such a beating.

But what stories he'll have to tell, at the Wintroll circle-jerk!

-- 
'I thought Linux was the kernel... but now you say "Ubuntu is Linux".'
-  some thing

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

#348137 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> The dumb fsck would like to switch topics and go on the attack, after
> taking such a beating.
>
> But what stories he'll have to tell, at the Wintroll circle-jerk!

   https://jerome1951.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/boys-life.jpg

-- 
Your love life will be... interesting.

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

#348139 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/30/2016 11:46 AM, Creepy Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> shitv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> The dumb fsck would like to switch topics and go on the attack, after
>> taking such a beating.
>>
>> But what stories he'll have to tell, at the Wintroll circle-jerk!
>
>     https://jerome1951.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/boys-life.jpg


Love, Cherish, Obey
https://lovecherishobey.wordpress.com

LMAO!

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

#348056 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/16, 10:54 AM, in article ndefa6$a4$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 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
> 
>> 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


I would love to see evidence you are a programmer. And if you are, a decent
one.

So far it seems unlikely. You could not even figure out, even when given a
link to a screenshot, that a Linux installer was not a Windows installer:

-------------------------------------------------

On being shown this image which makes it clear I installed calligra from the
"Software Manager" on Mint MATE 17.2:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/install-calligra>

  Peter Köhlmann concludes:
    -----
    He grabbed the windows install-exe. And then wondered that he had
    wine not installed correctly
    -----

  RonB, jumping in to back Peter's ignorance:
    -----
    Now we've got the "Snit" idiot installing Calligra via Wine in a
    Virtual Machine.
    -----

These "advocates" cannot figure out the difference between installing a
program via the "Software Manager" and doing so via Wine!

Message-ID: mo6tdk$tvn$2@dont-email.me
<http://goo.gl/cf1OSY>
Message-ID: mo8g1i$dhq$2@dont-email.me
<http://goo.gl/GTT5e9>

-------------------------------------------------

Heck, on being given access to source code for a program I wrote you
insisted the output had to be forged. This suggests I, a non-programmer, am
a better programmer than you are.



-- 
* 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]

#348057 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/29/16, 7:09 AM, in article nde24r$bid$1@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> 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.  And, I can work with all sorts
> of databases as well, which is why you're so fucking jealous of me.
> 
> 
> 

Why not show evidence you can program?


-- 
* 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]

#347939 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> 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

I agree wholeheartedly!

-- 
	A man was reading The Canterbury Tales one Saturday morning, when his
wife asked "What have you got there?"  Replied he, "Just my cup and Chaucer."

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

#348148 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On 3/28/2016 6:30 PM, 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.


But not you and dumbkopf...

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

#347923 — Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think.

You (PeterKöhlmann) wrote:
> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, 
                               ^^^
Again, an "unreferenced variable" ( warning C4101 ) 
is a variable that's declared but NOT USED.

Declaring a variable, or even a bunch of variables,
then not using them, perhaps because you've temporarily
commented out some code, is NEVER a problem.

You've never made any sense Pete, not once,
not in all your decades of posting here.
Honestly, I think you have brain damage.

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

#347927 — Re: Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> You (PeterKöhlmann) wrote:
>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, 
>                                ^^^
> Again, an "unreferenced variable" ( warning C4101 ) 
> is a variable that's declared but NOT USED.
> 
> Declaring a variable, or even a bunch of variables,
> then not using them, perhaps because you've temporarily
> commented out some code, is NEVER a problem.
> 
> You've never made any sense Pete, not once,
> not in all your decades of posting here.
> Honestly, I think you have brain damage.

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: 0
y: 4
sum: 4
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 0
y: 0
sum: 0
anon@lowtide:~/code$ 

anon@lowtide:~/code$ diff -u warn1.c warn2.c
--- warn1.c	2016-03-28 19:25:07.362314096 -0400
+++ warn2.c	2016-03-28 19:25:29.474314499 -0400
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@
 void blah(void)
 {
  int x=4;
- y=x;
+/* y=x; */
 }
 
anon@lowtide:~/code$ 

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

#347974 — Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.

> Relf wrote:
>>
>> MrChrisV wrote:
>>> Relf claimed that his code was the "finest you'll ever see".
>> 
>> No.  I'd never say such a thing !

Yeah, you did.  Sorry, I don't have the message ID.

>> My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.

Like I care what your horrible code does.
 
>>> "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.

What was incredible was your eschewing the importance of warnings, and
your assertion that you can "test" for all of the bugs that will cause
problems in corner (and not-so-corner) cases - bugs that could be
easily eradicated by heeding compiler warnings.

At least "Ezekiel" supports you.  The Ezekreep claimed that I was
"ignorant" for calling your statements "stupid".  Guffaw.  Obviously,
all Kreep has against me is his lies.  Who he hopes to fool, with lies
as ridiculous and obvious as the below, I do not know.  He's now a
documented snit!

-- 
'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]

#348007 — Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani

On 3/28/2016 8:44 AM, shitv wrote:

> "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)


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.

=====================================================================
"This reminds me of a Relf classic.

     "Testing is how you know
      if the code works or not,
      not compile-time warnings."
      -  Jeff Relf

Heh.  One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid that is..."
shitv, Jun 2014
=====================================================================

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

#348036 — Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani

DFS wrote:

> On 3/28/2016 8:44 AM, shitv wrote:
> 
>> "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)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Testing is usually impossible to find all the possible errors. You can't 
think of and build testcases for all possible combinations.

Additionally, compile time warnings are the first step. You look up *every* 
occurence of warnings and scrutinize the code to fond the source of the 
warning, then you remove the reason for the warning (and not the warning 
itself)

You are truly an idiot if you think otherwise. But then you are just a lowly 
VB coder. You mindlessly click on blocks to somehow connect them to somehow 
achieve a result which remotely resembles the real one

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

#348043 — Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>> "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) 
>> 
>> 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.

It's not a matter of supporting one over the other, you STUPID fscking
ASSHOLE.  They are BOTH IMPORTANT, and Relf's statements were STUPID.

Sheesh!

>Testing is usually impossible to find all the possible errors. You can't 
>think of and build testcases for all possible combinations.
>
>Additionally, compile time warnings are the first step. You look up *every* 
>occurence of warnings and scrutinize the code to fond the source of the 
>warning, then you remove the reason for the warning (and not the warning 
>itself)
>
>You are truly an idiot if you think otherwise. But then you are just a lowly 
>VB coder. You mindlessly click on blocks to somehow connect them to somehow 
>achieve a result which remotely resembles the real one

The lying hypocrite "Ezekiel" attacks me, when I'm right, while his
shitty, ignorant pal DumFSck continues to embarrass himself.

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

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

#348061 — *Spank* Dumfsck and Kreep

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> "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) 
>> 
>> 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.
>
>Testing is usually impossible to find all the possible errors. You can't 
>think of and build testcases for all possible combinations.
>
>Additionally, compile time warnings are the first step. You look up *every* 
>occurence of warnings and scrutinize the code to fond the source of the 
>warning, then you remove the reason for the warning (and not the warning 
>itself)
>
>You are truly an idiot if you think otherwise. But then you are just a lowly 
>VB coder. You mindlessly click on blocks to somehow connect them to somehow 
>achieve a result which remotely resembles the real one

This is an issue that I now have over those two lying pricks Dumfsck
and Kreep, for all time.

Dumfsck reads my critisism of Relf's statements as supporting the use
of compiler warnings "over" testing the software, which makes me an
"idiot".

I think we can all see who is the idiot, and is the liar, here.

Ezekreep goes so far as to claim that I think that the software
doesn't need to be tested at all, and that a clean compile is all that
is needed to know that a program works as intended.

!

I think we can all see who is the dimwit, and who is the *shameless*
fscking liar, here.

-- 
'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]

#348062 — Re: *Spank* Dumfsck and Kreep

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "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) 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>
>>Testing is usually impossible to find all the possible errors. You can't 
>>think of and build testcases for all possible combinations.
>>
>>Additionally, compile time warnings are the first step. You look up *every* 
>>occurence of warnings and scrutinize the code to fond the source of the 
>>warning, then you remove the reason for the warning (and not the warning 
>>itself)
>>
>>You are truly an idiot if you think otherwise. But then you are just a lowly 
>>VB coder. You mindlessly click on blocks to somehow connect them to somehow 
>>achieve a result which remotely resembles the real one
> 
> This is an issue that I now have over those two lying pricks Dumfsck
> and Kreep, for all time.
> 
> Dumfsck reads my critisism of Relf's statements as supporting the use
> of compiler warnings "over" testing the software, which makes me an
> "idiot".
> 
> I think we can all see who is the idiot, and is the liar, here.
> 
> Ezekreep goes so far as to claim that I think that the software
> doesn't need to be tested at all, and that a clean compile is all that
> is needed to know that a program works as intended.
> 
> !
> 
> I think we can all see who is the dimwit, and who is the *shameless*
> fscking liar, here.
> 

http://ow.ly/103rum

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

#348063 — Re: *Spank* Dumfsck and Kreep

On 03/29/2016 03:36 PM, owl wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:


>> I think we can all see who is the dimwit, and who is the *shameless*
>> fscking liar, here.
>>
>
> http://ow.ly/103rum


LMAO!

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

#348069 — Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani

On 03/29/2016 03:29 PM, shitv wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "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)
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Testing is usually impossible to find all the possible errors. You can't
>> think of and build testcases for all possible combinations.
>>
>> Additionally, compile time warnings are the first step. You look up *every*
>> occurence of warnings and scrutinize the code to fond the source of the
>> warning, then you remove the reason for the warning (and not the warning
>> itself)
>>
>> You are truly an idiot if you think otherwise. But then you are just a lowly
>> VB coder. You mindlessly click on blocks to somehow connect them to somehow
>> achieve a result which remotely resembles the real one
>
> This is an issue that I now have over those two lying pricks Dumfsck
> and Kreep, for all time.


You're too stupid to get one over on us, turd.

And Zeke and I are too smart to spew the kind of dumbass statement you 
made on compiler warnings vs testing.




> Dumfsck reads my critisism of Relf's statements as supporting the use
> of compiler warnings "over" testing the software, which makes me an
> "idiot".


That it does, turd.  Your words are perfectly clear:


Relf:  "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not
         compile-time warnings."

shitv: "Heh. One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid that
         is..."



> I think we can all see who is the idiot, and is the liar, here.
>
> Ezekreep goes so far as to claim that I think that the software
> doesn't need to be tested at all, and that a clean compile is all that
> is needed to know that a program works as intended.
>
> !


What else can be concluded from your statement?

You said testing the code was stupid compared to a clean compile.

How else can that be interpreted?




> I think we can all see who is the dimwit, and who is the *shameless*
> fscking liar, here.


Anyone honest with themselves would judge you the idiot.

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

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

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

csiph-web