Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Started by	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
First post	2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Last post	2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 186 — 21 participants

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

  Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100
                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100
                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000
                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 16:46 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:01 +0200
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:08 +0200
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:29 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:42 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 01:54 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:42 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:36 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 15:47 -0600
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:11 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 18:07 -0600
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 03:05 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:20 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:43 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:17 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 17:26 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:47 +0200
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:45 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:26 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:51 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:36 -0400
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:35 -0400
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:18 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:32 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:55 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 12:12 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:43 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:37 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:07 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 13:30 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:08 +0000
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-16 23:19 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:29 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:54 -0400
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:58 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100

Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →

#93893

From	Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
Message-ID	<11atlpr$3g55c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93887

>Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:44:54 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> 
>> For C++, Boost.Decimal.
>> 
>
>Some people don't use C++.  I would hope that most would not.
>
>It is recommended, and even required in some countries, that all
>financial software be written using decimal FP. 
>
>But once libdfp drops out then GNU/Linux C programmers will be
>stuck.
>

Well C++ is a crime against humanity
'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap.

But maybe you can call 'wcalc' from the C code,
it supports  stdin - stdout

raspberrypi: ~ # wcalc -EE
Enter an expression to evaluate, q to quit, or ? for help:
-> 1/pi
 = 0.318310
-> q

raspberrypi: ~ # echo "1/pi" | wcalc
 = 0.31831
raspberrypi: ~ # echo "1/pi" | wcalc -EE 
 = 0.318310

You can just do decimal in C
Use type double if you are worried about microcents.

I have written financial software in C.
What is the problem?

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

#93900

From	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
Date	2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
Message-ID	<18df1430054d96d0$1624$2650862$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
In reply to	#93893

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> 
> Well C++ is a crime against humanity
> 'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap.
> 

Who would ever disagree?

> 
> You can just do decimal in C
> Use type double if you are worried about microcents.
> 
> I have written financial software in C.
> What is the problem?
>

That depends on the scale.

For most situations, the currency amounts are enough that the
C double type, with 16 decimal digits of precision, can handle
the simple processing without error.

(C also has a 128-bit long double type but ordinary processors
have no hardware for this type.  On GNU/Linux the long double
is usually defined as 80-bits.)

But for large currency amounts and more complex processing,
16 decimal digits may not be enough.  That's why decimal floating
point is recommended or even required by law.

What is needed is HARDWARE decimal FP.  IBM has always had decimal
FP hardware in its mainframes and it also has decimal FP hardware
in its Power PC processors.  (Only large institutions could afford
such hardware.)

Intel/AMD will likely never have DFP hardware.  They will keep on
adding special AI hardware but never DFP hardware.

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

#93901

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
Message-ID	<2MtAS.183747$iS_f.119536@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#93900

On 2026-10-16, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> I have written financial software in C.
>> What is the problem?
>
> That depends on the scale.
>
> For most situations, the currency amounts are enough that the
> C double type, with 16 decimal digits of precision, can handle
> the simple processing without error.

Now that 64-bit ints are available, you could use them
in many situations.

> (C also has a 128-bit long double type but ordinary processors
> have no hardware for this type.  On GNU/Linux the long double
> is usually defined as 80-bits.)
>
> But for large currency amounts and more complex processing,
> 16 decimal digits may not be enough.  That's why decimal floating
> point is recommended or even required by law.
>
> What is needed is HARDWARE decimal FP.  IBM has always had decimal
> FP hardware in its mainframes

FSVO "always".  But the original 360 had packed decimal, which
can work with up to 31 decimal digits.  I wrote a lot of business
software in those days; I can count the number of times I've used
floating point on the fingers of one hand.  For basic accounting,
integer pennies are enough.  Add a few guard digits if you must.
To quote the old commercial, it "takes the worry out of being close".

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#93904

From	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
Date	2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
Message-ID	<18df162b38ea3edd$2281$2758864$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
In reply to	#93901

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 18:10:06 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> 
> Now that 64-bit ints are available, you could use them
> in many situations.
> 

For adding or subtracting.

But finance calculations often use more complex processing.
Interest calculations need floating point and even transcendental
math functions.

This blogger actually proposes a single numeric type for
all digital computation, called Dec64:

<https://www.crockford.com/dec64.html>

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

#93934

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
Message-ID	<11au6ap$3m5co$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93901

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 18:10:06 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> But the original 360 had packed decimal, which can work with up to
> 31 decimal digits. I wrote a lot of business software in those days;
> I can count the number of times I've used floating point on the
> fingers of one hand. For basic accounting, integer pennies are
> enough. Add a few guard digits if you must. To quote the old
> commercial, it "takes the worry out of being close".

Did you ever do calculations involving financial derivatives?

Even compound interest requires calculations involving logarithms and
exponentials.

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

#93943

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Message-ID	<ZpxAS.37512$1l6.19098@fx42.iad>
In reply to	#93934

On 2026-10-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 18:10:06 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> But the original 360 had packed decimal, which can work with up to
>> 31 decimal digits. I wrote a lot of business software in those days;
>> I can count the number of times I've used floating point on the
>> fingers of one hand. For basic accounting, integer pennies are
>> enough. Add a few guard digits if you must. To quote the old
>> commercial, it "takes the worry out of being close".
>
> Did you ever do calculations involving financial derivatives?
>
> Even compound interest requires calculations involving logarithms and
> exponentials.

That's why I said I've done few programs that use floating point,
not none.  I've worked on mortgage amortization routines.  But
most of my stuff consists of adding up columns of numbers and
doing the occasional division with rounding.  YMMV.

IMHO one of the biggest programming mistakes is using floating
point when you can do it faster, more accurately, and more
easily with integers.  That's not to say that there aren't
places where floating point is necessary - but for some of
us, that's a small portion of what we have to do.  I don't
need floating point to express IP addresses, for instance.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#93955

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
Message-ID	<11aumfq$3r5cq$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93943

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:19:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> IMHO one of the biggest programming mistakes is using floating point
> when you can do it faster, more accurately, and more easily with
> integers.

Some languages offer direct support for “fixed-point” formats,
basically integers with a fixed scale factor, so you can do
calculations that keep a fractional part.

From what I gather, they tend to be difficult to use properly. The
problem seems to be keeping calculations within the permissible
dynamic range, to avoid overflow and underflow.

This is why floating-point tends to be far more popular.

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

#93971

From	c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date	2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
Message-ID	<mMacnbYnUMqwkE73nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#93955

On 10/16/26 22:28, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:19:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> IMHO one of the biggest programming mistakes is using floating point
>> when you can do it faster, more accurately, and more easily with
>> integers.
> 
> Some languages offer direct support for “fixed-point” formats,
> basically integers with a fixed scale factor, so you can do
> calculations that keep a fractional part.
> 
>  From what I gather, they tend to be difficult to use properly. The
> problem seems to be keeping calculations within the permissible
> dynamic range, to avoid overflow and underflow.
> 
> This is why floating-point tends to be far more popular.

   "Fuzzy Logic" typically uses floats for everything ...
   which was a big drain on smaller boards and such. 16
   or even 32 bit integers can fill in very nicely for
   any sane application.

   DID do an application which employed some 'fuzzy'
   on an Arduino ... floats ... NO NO NO !!!

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

#93976

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
Message-ID	<11avajh$59n$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93943

On 16/10/2026 23:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> IMHO one of the biggest programming mistakes is using floating
> point when you can do it faster, more accurately, and more
> easily with integers.  That's not to say that there aren't
> places where floating point is necessary - but for some of
> us, that's a small portion of what we have to do.  I don't
> need floating point to express IP addresses, for instance.

You may think that, but the potential for errors is huge.
Audio encoding is typically 16 bit integer, but if you are doing serious 
processing there will be many adds subtracts and multiplies. Its way 
easier to do all that in FP and then round up to the nearest integer for 
the final output, than to constantly have to rescae to maintain 
acceptable precision

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's 
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

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

#93932

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
Message-ID	<11au66n$3m5co$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93893

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> Well C++ is a crime against humanity
> 'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap.

Operator overloading is a very handy feature. Yes, C++ is overly
complicated. Java left out that feature of C++, and it, too, still
manages to be excessively complicated.

Python, on the other hand, includes operator overloading, yet is still
only a small fraction of the complexity of either Java or C++. Such a
feature is useful, for example, in letting you express operations on
mathematical objects (like vectors and matrices) using something close
to the original mathematical notation.

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

#93948

From	Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
Date	2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
Message-ID	<11aucit$3o8ih$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93932

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> Well C++ is a crime against humanity
>> 'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap.
>
> Operator overloading is a very handy feature. Yes, C++ is overly
> complicated. Java left out that feature of C++, and it, too, still
> manages to be excessively complicated.

C++ overly complicated? Nah.

> Python, on the other hand, includes operator overloading, yet is still
> only a small fraction of the complexity of either Java or C++.

Prove it.

-- 
BOFH excuse #404:
 
Sysadmin accidentally destroyed pager with a large hammer.

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

#93989

From	Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Date	2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
Message-ID	<6ad34325$0$3147$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
In reply to	#93948

Le 16-10-2026, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> a écrit :
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>>> Well C++ is a crime against humanity
>>> 'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap.
>>
>> Operator overloading is a very handy feature. Yes, C++ is overly
>> complicated. Java left out that feature of C++, and it, too, still
>> manages to be excessively complicated.
>
> C++ overly complicated? Nah.

It's so awful it made its creator declare: "There are only two kinds of
languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."

If LISP has been able to include oriented object programming nicely,
adding oriented object programming in C without breaking compatibility
didn't worked that well.

>> Python, on the other hand, includes operator overloading, yet is still
>> only a small fraction of the complexity of either Java or C++.
>
> Prove it.

From what I saw, for a beginner's approach, python is easier than Java
or C++. Now when one starts to use python in the real life, the
complexity of python appears. Because that's the python way: things
works except when they stop to work.

Like, it's not a typed language but start playing with dictionaries
without declaring your variables first to see how the claims stand
before the facts.

Or you want to see what's in some variables, so you print it with
print(myvariable)
When you start to have too many variables, you want to put the name of
the variable in front of it to increase its visibility, so you
print("myvariable: " + myvariable) 
but that doesn't work because myvariable is not a string. So you have to 
print("myvariable: " + str(myvariable))
But now you have the description of myvariable (or something like that:
I discovered it a long time ago, my memory isn't clear about it), not
its content, so you have to handle it differently (about that, I'm sure).

And I'm not speaking about the dependencies. Each version breaks
everything so well that now some distros don't let you install libraries
with pip if you are not in a virtual environment.

So, yes to do something simple, python is fast and easy. But if you want
to power of C++ and Java, you can't use python on a simple way.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

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

#94028

From	Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
Message-ID	<wwv33u4o26s.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
In reply to	#93989

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
> From what I saw, for a beginner's approach, python is easier than Java
> or C++. Now when one starts to use python in the real life, the
> complexity of python appears. Because that's the python way: things
> works except when they stop to work.
>
> Like, it's not a typed language but start playing with dictionaries
> without declaring your variables first to see how the claims stand
> before the facts.

Python is absolutely a typed language. Every object has a type and it
won’t let you use objects in a manner incompatible with their type:

    >>> 0+""
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<python-input-0>", line 1, in <module>
        0+""
        ~^~~
    TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str'

Historically it was not a statically typed language, i.e. type errors
only arose at runtime.

Today even that is not really true, in the sense that if you want it to
be statically typed then you can have that:

    $ cat -n junk/t.py
     1	#!/usr/bin/python3
     2	def f(a: int, b: int) -> int:
     3	    return a+b
     4	print(f(0, 0))
     5	print(f(0, ""))
    $ mypy junk/t.py
    junk/t.py:5: error: Argument 2 to "f" has incompatible type "str"; expected "int"  [arg-type]
    Found 1 error in 1 file (checked 1 source file)

> Or you want to see what's in some variables, so you print it with
> print(myvariable)
> When you start to have too many variables, you want to put the name of
> the variable in front of it to increase its visibility, so you
> print("myvariable: " + myvariable) 
> but that doesn't work because myvariable is not a string. So you have to 
> print("myvariable: " + str(myvariable))
> But now you have the description of myvariable (or something like that:
> I discovered it a long time ago, my memory isn't clear about it), not
> its content, so you have to handle it differently (about that, I'm sure).

It sounds like you just haven’t learned Python.

> And I'm not speaking about the dependencies. Each version breaks
> everything so well that now some distros don't let you install
> libraries with pip if you are not in a virtual environment.
>
> So, yes to do something simple, python is fast and easy. But if you
> want to power of C++ and Java, you can't use python on a simple way.

We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
(exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
really problematic.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#94030

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
Message-ID	<11avve0$8cd3$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#94028

On 17/10/2026 15:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
> (exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
> really problematic.

Wow. someone has a real use for it!

I just am too old to become proficient in another language, I am still 
battling JavaScript

-- 
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing 
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

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

#94034

From	Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
Message-ID	<wwvpkx8b8wp.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
In reply to	#94030

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 17/10/2026 15:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
>> (exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
>> really problematic.
>
> Wow. someone has a real use for it!

It is very widely used - most (possibly all?) candidates I’ve
interviewed in the last ten years have at least some background with it
(albeit quite often relatively thin experience).

> I just am too old to become proficient in another language, I am still
> battling JavaScript

Nod.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#94069

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
Message-ID	<nji25eFei39U12@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#94034

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 17:15:34 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 17/10/2026 15:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
>>> (exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
>>> really problematic.
>>
>> Wow. someone has a real use for it!
> 
> It is very widely used - most (possibly all?) candidates I’ve
> interviewed in the last ten years have at least some background with it
> (albeit quite often relatively thin experience).

Much of my use was with Esri after they went to Python from VBA. The 
downside was Esri clung to 2.7 until their 11.0 release. Installing 
ArcDesktop also installed Python 2.7 with their modules.

https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-python-libraries/
libraries/arcpy

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

#94054

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Message-ID	<acPAS.187040$iS_f.3902@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#94030

On 2026-10-17, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/10/2026 15:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
>> We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
>> (exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
>> really problematic.
>
> Wow. someone has a real use for it!
>
> I just am too old to become proficient in another language, I am still 
> battling JavaScript

I still use C.  I started puttering with Python once -
maybe I should take another look at it.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#94084

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
Message-ID	<11b0mcp$iems$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#94054

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 18:33:42 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I started puttering with Python once - maybe I should take another
> look at it.

It just makes it easier to mess around with stuff. You know, when
you’re not sure how to go about something, and are just experimenting.

A good environment for experimenting with Python is Jupyter
<https://jupyter.org/>. This gives you a notebook-type interface which
is convenient for “scratchpad” programming.

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

#94068

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
Message-ID	<nji1u1Fei39U11@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#94030

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 15:06:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 17/10/2026 15:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> We make extensive use of Python, apart from some performance issues
>> (exacerbated by the not particularly speedy SoC it runs on) it’s not
>> really problematic.
> 
> Wow. someone has a real use for it!
> 
> I just am too old to become proficient in another language, I am still
> battling JavaScript

Much of my use these days is MicroPython, although I used it last week to 
convert a gnarly node list output from a LoRa board to GeoJSON. My first 
impulse was to use C but I'm trying to improve my general Python skills.

The JavaScript part came later when I used the leaflet.js library to 
create a map to display the GeoJSON. Unfortunately leaflet traditionally 
used tiles from the OSM server. In the last month or so they've started 
enforcing an obscure header in the request so the tiles you get are 
basically  '403  FOAD'

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

#94032

From	John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com>
Date	2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
Message-ID	<11b04le$auup$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#94028

On 17/10/2026 16:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
[..]

> Python is absolutely a typed language. Every object has a type and it
> won’t let you use objects in a manner incompatible with their type:
> 
>      >>> 0+""
>      Traceback (most recent call last):
>        File "<python-input-0>", line 1, in <module>
>          0+""
>          ~^~~
>      TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str'

On the other hand:

❯ python3
Python 3.14.7 (main, Aug  8 2026, 20:03:42) [Clang 13.1.6 
(clang-1316.0.21.2.5)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
 >>> 0+True
1
 >>> type(True)
<class 'bool'>
 >>> type(0)
<class 'int'>
 >>>

;-)

-- 
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/

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

Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →

csiph-web

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Contents

#93893

#93900

#93901

#93904

#93934

#93943

#93955

#93971

#93976

#93932

#93948

#93989

#94028

#94030

#94034

#94069

#94054

#94084

#94068

#94032