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

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

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Started byLeroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
First post2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Last post2026-10-18 10:59 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 306 — 24 participants

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

Contents

  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 Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:48 +0000
                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:12 +0100
                                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:04 +0000
                                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:40 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +0100
                                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +0000
                                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0100
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400
                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:30 +0200
                                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:13 +0100
                                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 +0200
                                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:38 +0100
                                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0200
                                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:58 +0100
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:04 +0200
                                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 15:33 +0200
                                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0000
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:37 +0100
                                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:03 +0000
                                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:02 +0100
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:40 +0000
                                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:53 +0200
                                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:00 +0000
                                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:12 +0200
                                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:26 +0000
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:35 +0200
                                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:04 +0000
                                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:24 +0200
                                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:50 +0100
                                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:37 +0000
                                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:04 +0100
                                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:19 +0000
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000
                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:58 -0400
                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:55 +0100
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:43 +0100
                                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:36 +0000
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:03 +0100
                                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:39 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:48 +0100
                                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0200
                          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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:36 +0100
              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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:13 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:39 +0200
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:22 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:55 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:45 +0200
            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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:08 +0100
                    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 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 09:12 +0100
                  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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:07 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:22 +0000
                    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 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:33 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:59 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:09 +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 John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:11 +0200
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:01 +0000
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 22:25 +0200
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:19 +0000
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:48 -0700
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:29 +0200
                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 Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 11:31 -0600
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:40 +0000
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:09 -0600
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:58 +0000
                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 21:43 -0600
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:22 -0700
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:57 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:05 +0000
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:38 -0600
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:38 +0000
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:07 -0600
                            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-18 23:44 +0200
                              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:09 +0000
                                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 09:54 +0200
                                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:40 +0000
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 10:55 +0200
                                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 07:16 -0400
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:36 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 00:22 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:14 +0200
            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 Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:16 +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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:47 -0400
              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 Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:25 +0000
                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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:58 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:43 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:15 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:03 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 09:01 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:17 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:31 -0700
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:01 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:55 -0400
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:28 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:01 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:12 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:53 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:06 -0400
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:32 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:20 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:19 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:20 +0000
          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 Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
      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
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000

Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16  Next page →

#93802

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Message-ID<11asel3$31l32$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93798
On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:

> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
> script.

Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
over his attempts to hijack Java?

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

#93805

From"Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us>
Date2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Message-ID<87a4oe40v3.fsf@solcaium.us>
In reply to#93802
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:
>
>> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
>> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
>> script.
>
> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
> vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
> over his attempts to hijack Java?

Something like that. Java got popular, and Microsoft didn't have control
over it. Microsoft feared that if Java got big enough they could bend
them over. So Microsoft created their own implementation of Java, Sun
sued so they created C#.
--

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

#93807

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Message-ID<njdvb5Fit4rU14@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#93805
On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:26:40 -0700, Peyton wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:
>>
>>> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
>>> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
>>> script.
>>
>> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
>> vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
>> over his attempts to hijack Java?
> 
> Something like that. Java got popular, and Microsoft didn't have control
> over it. Microsoft feared that if Java got big enough they could bend
> them over. So Microsoft created their own implementation of Java, Sun
> sued so they created C#.

Visual J++ was superior when it came to coding in the Microsoft ecosystem. 
As you say, Sun sued so the short lived J# was created, followed by C#. C# 
is an improvement on Java, which is slow and bloated.

It's telling that back in the day IBM's skunkworks created the jikes Java 
compiler which was much faster than javac.

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

#93808

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Message-ID<11askeu$33cuk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93805
On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:26:40 -0700, Peyton wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:
>>
>>> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
>>> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
>>> script.
>>
>> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of
>> corporate vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a
>> good hiding over his attempts to hijack Java?
>
> Something like that. Java got popular, and Microsoft didn't have
> control over it. Microsoft feared that if Java got big enough they
> could bend them over. So Microsoft created their own implementation
> of Java, Sun sued so they created C#.

Here’s another fun thing. Microsoft has been offering Python API
access to Excel users -- and it wants to charge extra for that. Guess
it figures the users are too dumb to figure out they can bypass
Microsoft, and Excel, and make use of Python for free.

You think they could get away with doing that with C♯?

Somehow I don’t think so ...

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

#93806

FromLeroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
Date2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Message-ID<18deef3d76b2b714$10949$2836843$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
In reply to#93802
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 06:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> 
> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
> vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
> over his attempts to hijack Java?
>

C# is the most abominable concoction to ever emerge from the human mind
but it, like the failed XPS and WMV formats, represents Microsoft's
intention to dominate all of computing.

Unfortunately, in this case they succeeded.  C# is the dominant choice
for most corporate computing projects and consequently it has sucked
in hordes of C# code monkeys that are falsely labeled as "programmers."

But this thread is about Decimal Floating Point (DFP).

DFP is the preferred format for all calculations.  However, only
IBM Power processors contain the hardware to implement DFP.  All
other systems must use software DFP routines.

GNU/Linux needs DFP libraries but, as indicated, these are no longer
being maintained.

Most "programmers" will only respond with blank stares and gaping mouths.

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

#93812

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Message-ID<YIucnXGZp-ogQ0z3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#93802
On 10/16/26 02:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:
> 
>> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
>> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
>> script.
> 
> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
> vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
> over his attempts to hijack Java?

   There is NO really good reason for C++

   Yea, yea, it's "object" - but in C you
   don't REALLY need that.

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

#93838

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Message-ID<11ass82$33n8m$19@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93812
On 16/10/2026 09:22, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/16/26 02:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:
>>
>>> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
>>> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
>>> script.
>>
>> Tell me again, why does C♯ exist? Beyond being some kind of corporate
>> vanity project started by Bill Gates after Sun gave him a good hiding
>> over his attempts to hijack Java?
> 
>    There is NO really good reason for C++
>
There is a logic to using that form of model to structure code lexically 
for certain foirms of problems

There is little real argument for building a language that virtually 
enforces it

>    Yea, yea, it's "object" - but in C you
>    don't REALLY need that.
> 
You can do most of it using local [static] variables in file that 
describe an 'object'  whose functions are all static except one, so you 
get 'object oriented programming' without the idiocy of C++ syntax. I 
use this sometimes with straight 'C' to modularise stuff.


Of course you don't get the syntax or the operator overloading, but I 
regard that as a bonus

-- 
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]

#93811

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Message-ID<11asmmn$33n8m$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93798
On 16/10/2026 05:53, Peyton wrote:
> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
> script.
>


> Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in
> everyday software.

That's is not  'CS fundamentals', That is basic software engineering.

Like running MSDOS through a hardware emulator and counting the number 
of code instructions between pressing a key and the letter appearing on 
the screen, and comparing it with CP/M

And concluding that it must have been written by computer scientists

-- 
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

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

#93982

FromStéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Date2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Message-ID<6ad33478$0$28048$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
In reply to#93798
Le 16-10-2026, Peyton <peyton@solacium.us> a écrit :
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>
>> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote:
>>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most
>>> programmers, both professional and amateur alike.  While
>>> "vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also
>>> creeping.
>>
>>   99+ percent of us got by just fine without
>>   any "computer science" crapola.
>>
>>   CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to
>>   do with the real-world these days. Maybe in
>>   the 1940s .......
>>
>>   Might, MAYBE, produce a useful idea, every,
>>   very, once in awhile.
>>
> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
> script.
>
> Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in
> everyday software. 

But updating ones fundamentals can't harm. Now, there are almost no more
interpreted scripts. Scripts, like python, are compiled when they are
launched. So the difference is not interpreted vs. compiled but more
about the quality of the compiler. And python compiler is pretty bad,
mostly when things can run in parallel.

And I strongly believe that if the python script was significantly
slower than the C# one, it was more related with multithreading than
with interpreted slowness.

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

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

#93985

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Message-ID<11avcvt$59n$15@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93982
On 17/10/2026 09:40, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Now, there are almost no more
> interpreted scripts.

PHP...

-- 
    "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have 
forgotten your aim."

  George Santayana

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

#94087

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Message-ID<11b0ms8$iems$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93982
On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts.

Shell scripts are still interpreted. Not only that, but the shell
actually seeks through the source file to do a transfer of control.

How do I know this? Try making changes to the script while it is
running. ;)

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

#94089

FromJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Message-ID<11b0pbe$3pvda$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#94087
On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>> Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts.
> 
> Shell scripts are still interpreted. Not only that, but the shell
> actually seeks through the source file to do a transfer of control.
> 
> How do I know this? Try making changes to the script while it is
> running. ;)

I've just done this ("a script change while it's running") [*]
(with ksh and bash) and there was no change in behavior of the
running script.

You may want to provide an example what you've actually done
to come to that conclusion (or reformulate your conclusion).

BTW; I've in other (more complex?) contexts observed that some
intrusions (tackling the shell program while it runs) do affect
the running script, but back then I haven't examined the reason
or circumstances of that effect, or whether it's some effect of
an interaction with the OS. - So the principle question, what
exactly happens in what circumstances, is still interesting.

Janis

[*] What I've done was to run the following script "dynchg.sh"

   while read ; do
       echo $REPLY
   done

and change it (from another terminal) while it runs by

   sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh

I could even remove that file from the directory and it still
processes data as expected. And there's also no difference if
that program is explicitly run with the interpreter or running
it using a shebang interpreter as executable script.

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

#93800

FromTapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
Message-ID<11ascn8$312c3$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93794
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote:
>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers,
>> both professional and amateur alike.  While "vibe coding" is all the
>> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping.
> 
>    99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science"
>    crapola.

"Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly?

The state of software would make one think that very few people are 
"getting by just fine", incidentally...

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

#93822

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
Message-ID<11asph1$33n8m$10@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93800
On 16/10/2026 06:29, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote:
>>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers,
>>> both professional and amateur alike.  While "vibe coding" is all the
>>> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping.
>>
>>     99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science"
>>     crapola.
> 
> "Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly?
> 
> The state of software would make one think that very few people are
> "getting by just fine", incidentally...

That is because software development teams don't bother with the most 
basic elements of quality control.

Largely because computer science doesn't teach it

It is however a major part in the degree course in *software engineering*.

Computers science is not what you think it is. What you think it is, is 
actually called software engineering.

A PRACTICAL discipline teaching how to write good code, test it and 
manage teams of people effectively and break projects into manageable 
chunks that can be offloaded to separate teams of individuals, tested 
and quality inspected, and integrated into te final product
=====================================================

Software Engineering Tutorial
Last Updated : 13 Aug, 2026

"Software Engineering is the systematic process of designing, 
developing, testing, and maintaining software to create reliable, 
efficient, and high-quality applications.

It applies engineering principles, methods, and tools to develop 
software in a systematic manner.

  It supports teamwork, planning, documentation, testing, and 
maintenance to ensure successful software development throughout its 
lifecycle.

  It helps create software that meets user requirements while ensuring 
reliability, security, efficiency, and maintainability."

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


"Computer Science

Key Concepts in Programming & Problem Solving

Algorithms: Step-by-step instructions or logic rules designed to solve a 
specific problem or complete a task.

Data Structures: Specialized formats for organizing and storing data 
efficiently, such as arrays, linked lists, stacks, queues, and trees.

Programming Languages: Tools like Python, C++, and Java that let humans 
write code in readable text, which is then translated into 
machine-executable binary. You can explore structured guides through 
platforms like Codecademy or introductory breakdowns on Boot.dev.

  Control Flow: The order in which individual instructions, conditional 
statements (if/else), and loops (for/while) execute in a program"

Now decide which you would rather have in your team of application 
developers.


-- 
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

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

#93828

FromTapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
Message-ID<11asqn0$31lan$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93822
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> That is because software development teams don't bother with the most 
> basic elements of quality control.
> 
> Largely because computer science doesn't teach it

And why should it, being... computer science? 
It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial 
applications.

It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are 
provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness.

And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to 
prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems.

And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by 
AirBUS itself.

And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who 
don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics 
with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified 
vs. specs.

The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.

> It is however a major part in the degree course in *software
> engineering*.

As it should be.
 
> Computers science is not what you think it is.

Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.

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

#93843

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
Message-ID<11asu45$33n8m$24@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93828
On 16/10/2026 10:28, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> That is because software development teams don't bother with the most
>> basic elements of quality control.
>>
>> Largely because computer science doesn't teach it
> 
> And why should it, being... computer science?
> It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial
> applications.
> 
> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are
> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness.
> 
> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to
> prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems.
> 
No. you dont.
That's why Airbus has duplicate computers running different code. 
Because CS has utterly failed to be able to validate code in the real 
world, And so software engineers came up with pragmatic solutions that 
accept the indecidability of Turing style problems, and engineer around 
it with redundancy.

> And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by
> AirBUS itself.

Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated.


> 
> And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who
> don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics
> with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified
> vs. specs.
>
Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you?

> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.
> 
They relied on CS style theoretical solutions.

>> It is however a major part in the degree course in *software
>> engineering*.
> 
> As it should be.
>   
>> Computers science is not what you think it is.
> 
> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.

Indeed. And it shows


-- 
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]

#93845

FromTapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
Message-ID<11asvsk$31lan$12@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93843
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are
>> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness.
>> 
>> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those
>> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems.
>> 
> No. you dont.

Oh! 
I must have been lied to by people connected to the project.
I apologize for spreading misinformation.

In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either.
Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia.

I don't have a problem with that.

> Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated.

Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to 
know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that?

(Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that 
you can later, theoretically, validate.)

> Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you?

Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work.
I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes.

>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.
>> 
> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions.

Don't suppose you have a source for that?

It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a 
plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board 
enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail).

>>> Computers science is not what you think it is.
>> 
>> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.
> 
> Indeed. And it shows

Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride.

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

#93850

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
Message-ID<11at2fv$33n8m$35@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93845
On 16/10/2026 11:56, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>>> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are
>>> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness.
>>>
>>> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those
>>> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems.
>>>
>> No. you dont.
> 
> Oh!
> I must have been lied to by people connected to the project.
> I apologize for spreading misinformation.
> 
> In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either.
> Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia.
> 
> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
>> Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated.
> 
> Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to
> know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that?
> 
> (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that
> you can later, theoretically, validate.)
> 
>> Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you?
> 
> Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work.
> I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes.
> 
>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.
>>>
>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions.
> 
> Don't suppose you have a source for that?
> 
Its all in the industry press.
Everywhere.

They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit.

That changed the aicrafts handling.

So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate 
and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to 
get re certified.
This worked, until speficic setss of circumstances that clearly were not 
envisaged by the CS people who recoded it, appeared and crashed the planes

> It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a
> plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board
> enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail).
> 
>>>> Computers science is not what you think it is.
>>>
>>> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.
>>
>> Indeed. And it shows
> 
> Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride.

Another CS flaw noted

-- 
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

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

#93851

FromTapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
Message-ID<11at2r8$31lan$17@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93850
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


>>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.
>>>>
>>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions.
>> 
>> Don't suppose you have a source for that?
>> 
> Its all in the industry press.
> Everywhere.
> 
> They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit.
> 
> That changed the aicrafts handling.
> 
> So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate
> and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to
> get re certified.

I'm familiar with that part.
I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in.
Which I don't think it did at any point.

I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given 
that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven 
wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it).

I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to 
conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not 
less!).

If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to 
lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from 
Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved.

I would, however, appreciate a correction.

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

#93864

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
Message-ID<11at5ua$33n8m$41@dont-email.me>
In reply to#93851
On 16/10/2026 12:46, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX.
>>>>>
>>>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions.
>>>
>>> Don't suppose you have a source for that?
>>>
>> Its all in the industry press.
>> Everywhere.
>>
>> They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit.
>>
>> That changed the aicrafts handling.
>>
>> So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate
>> and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to
>> get re certified.
> 
> I'm familiar with that part.
> I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in.
> Which I don't think it did at any point.
> 
> I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given
> that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven
> wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it).
> 
What I am saying is that the whole approach was theoretical and not 
practical

Just as CS is,


> I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to
> conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not
> less!).
> 
> If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to
> lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from
> Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved.
> 
Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and 
guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre :-)

> I would, however, appreciate a correction.

I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Apart from "when its works, its 
computer scientists, when it doesn't its offshore programmers"

Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks 
up, computer scientistss have designed it'

-- 
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight 
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

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

Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16  Next page →

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

csiph-web