Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 251 — 22 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
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 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 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 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +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 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 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 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 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 Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +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 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 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 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 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 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at0t3$31lan$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near > software design and development. I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at3ra$33n8m$37@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93848 |
On 16/10/2026 12:13, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near >> software design and development. > > I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software > engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own > curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as > architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. > > But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between > CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript > bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. > When hiring, I had the option between science band maths graduates who had taught themselves computing and were humble and hard working and arrogant CS graduates who thought that anyone without a CS degree didn't understand computers and were not worth paying respect to. I learnt not to employ them, Other employees came through vocational courses in 'IT' . Tey were brilliant Of course I understood computers all the way from a two transistor flip flop register all the way up to machine code on a processor. Something the CS people had no clue about > And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any > project. The only people who employ those are the 'creative' houses in charge of designing web sites that look pretty and don't work. Critical race theorist are almost as useless ans critical computer theorists Computers simply are not science. They are machines. Science is 'natural philosophy' The study of the natural world. Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless bollocks QED -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at565$31lan$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93855 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless > bollocks I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear programming"). Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out by mind or machine. Does an algorithm terminate? Which properties does a tree have? What is computable? These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ computing machines? On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the study of man-made systems and their design. You can find either at a CS conference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atbt1$3bqcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93861 |
On 16/10/2026 13:26, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless >> bollocks > > I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate > choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s > (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear > programming"). > > Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, > i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with > little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out > by mind or machine. > > Does an algorithm terminate? > Which properties does a tree have? > What is computable? > > These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. > > However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the > Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: > maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ > computing machines? I think he exactly was. He's be a bit ignorant not to have been. Turing and Tommy flowers built the first computer. Turing was a mathematician, Flowers was an electronic engineer. Both in their own way knew what was possible, and more importantly what was not. The tragedy was that that work was classified for years and that all but two machines were broken up. Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. Once you know its a machine that does boolean shit, then its just a question of working out the basic gates you need and how to build them out of transistors and diodes (or originally vacuum tubes) and how to build basic elements like shift registers latches and adders and so on out of the gates. Archtecture iswhat CS defined. Architecture is what engineers built. > > On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real > time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the > study of man-made systems and their design. > *shrug* there's a difference between as little theory as is necessary to get it working and as little practical application is possible to not sully the inner elegance of my algorithms.. ever hear of the 7 layer model of network architecture? All very CS. All complete bollox. TCP/IP took one look at it and threw it away. TCP was designed to work... > You can find either at a CS conference. Engineers are to busy to attend conferneces -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df0af89e578ec0$2720$2693458$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93869 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:21:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers > from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. > I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to build a TERNARY computer from scratch. Binary is only one possibility for computing machines. They'd need to bring in the scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mMacnbgnUMp_U0_3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93878 |
On 10/16/26 11:07, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:21:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers >> from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. >> > > I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to > build a TERNARY computer from scratch. > > Binary is only one possibility for computing machines. > > They'd need to bring in the scientists. Nope. Not at all. We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not anything 'theoretical'. Transistors are only efficient in either fully-on or fully-off conditions, otherwise they're power-sucking 'resistors'. Tubes/valves are not STABLE enough to work at intermediate ranges for numeric work. OK for yer Pat Boone recordings though. Future electronics, and 'quantum' is one of those, may be able to stably work with 'in-between' states. Deca-state logic would be really cool, but don't expect to SEE it. Nature doesn't always cooperate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df2e5c0929a19c$1877$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93953 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:26:48 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >> I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to >> build a TERNARY computer from scratch. >> > > We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not > anything 'theoretical'. > The former Soviet Union produced a highly functional ternary computer: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer> Supposedly, ternary has advantages over binary, but having been schooled entirely in binary methodologies I cannot comment much on this topic. The wiki page gives a basic overview. The original point, however, remains valid. Contemporary engineers would not know where to begin with ternary. They'd need to call in the theoreticians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mMacnbQnUMoBn073nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93954 |
On 10/16/26 21:55, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:26:48 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >>> >>> I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to >>> build a TERNARY computer from scratch. >>> >> >> We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not >> anything 'theoretical'. >> > > The former Soviet Union produced a highly functional ternary computer: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer> So where are they all now ??? "Highly successful" - sounds like a considerable exaggeration. Yes, you can FAKE tri-state/tetra-state, MAYBE even deca-state .... but it's not going to be efficient or compact. > Supposedly, ternary has advantages over binary, but having > been schooled entirely in binary methodologies I cannot > comment much on this topic. Well, in theory, more bits are better. But there do seem to be reasons we've been using binary for everything since forever and it's not some Vast Konspiracy. > The wiki page gives a basic overview. > > The original point, however, remains valid. Contemporary > engineers would not know where to begin with ternary. > They'd need to call in the theoreticians. Nope. Find a new career. The boring old engineers can handle it all nicely. Then the AIs will steal their careers :-) Theorists like von Neumann and Turing DID serve a purpose at the dawn of computing - provided some sane direction, approaches. After that however, CS became less and less useful in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avbj8$59n$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93953 |
On 17/10/2026 02:26, c186282 wrote:
> We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not
> anything 'theoretical'. Transistors are only efficient
> in either fully-on or fully-off conditions, otherwise
> they're power-sucking 'resistors'. Tubes/valves are
> not STABLE enough to work at intermediate ranges for
> numeric work. OK for yer Pat Boone recordings though.
>
> Future electronics, and 'quantum' is one of those,
> may be able to stably work with 'in-between' states.
> Deca-state logic would be really cool, but don't
> expect to SEE it. Nature doesn't always cooperate.
Largely true, And boolean logic is very easy to map into simple hardware.
Analogue computers exist of course and are very very useful in niche
applications
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at5mo$31lan$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93855 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > When hiring, I had the option between science band maths graduates who > had taught themselves computing and were humble and hard working and > arrogant CS graduates who thought that anyone without a CS degree didn't > understand computers and were not worth paying respect to. As a side note, it's very likely that someone who's applying for a field they're not qualified for appears more humble. You may find the economics graduates who do _not_ end crawling into computer stuff are not as humble and viceversa. I also think that, generally, whoever opts for a "science" degree does not likely pride oneself in being "hard-working". Science as an intellectual pursuit was, and often still is, the province of noblemen and the wealthy for a reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11au7a1$3m5co$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93863 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:35:36 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > I also think that, generally, whoever opts for a "science" degree > does not likely pride oneself in being "hard-working". Larry Wall, legendary creator of Perl and patch, listed, among the virtues of a good programmer, “laziness” and “hubris”. I can certainly appreciate the “laziness” part. I appreciate it when I look at somebody’s PHP code, where the same validation sequence has been copied and pasted a dozen times for a dozen different input fields, instead of being defined in a single function which is simply called in those dozen places.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn11d4klo.kts.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On 2026-10-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > ... > > Its about as useless as expecting an ArtStudent™ to paint a room Saw that happen: During the early 1990s, the Pentium Pro processor was being designed on the 1st floor of building JF1. Some executive called that building's interior the ugliest building in the company. Over a weekend or holiday, some art students from Portland State University were brought in to prettify it. They used four or five colors to paint the pillars. Each pillar was one color. The pattern of colors looked random unless you looked at just the right angle and discovered that the colors were in diagonal stripes. The comments from those who worked there were amusing. Someone thought the colored pillars made the building look like the set of the Barney show or maybe Sesame Street. My wife happened to have a white handkerchief with small colored hears in a semi-random pattern. On a small strip of paper, I wrote "You Are Here" next to a red arrow and placed the paper somewhere on the handkerchief hung outside my cubicle. Much laughter was heard. The art students were probably pleased with their work (and what they were paid for doing it). Somebody under the executive added the beautification project as an accomplishment for the next annual performance review. The executive probably never noticed it. Those who worked in the building quit noticing the colors after a few days. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njfdi7Fit4rU26@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near > software design and development. At least in the US CS is sort of a blanket description of anything computer related: https://rpi.app.box.com/s/340c6u82z66dx1k3ms627cp7kbtisqna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11atgth$3e59h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93793 |
Leroy H wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
> 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.
>
> What GNU/Linux requires urgently is a Decimal Floating
> Point library that implements IEEE754-2008, but mention this
> to most programmers and one will receive only blank stares
> and gaping mouths.
>
> The only GNU/Linux project for IEEE754-2008 is closing
> its doors:
>
> <https://github.com/libdfp/libdfp/pull/238>
For C++, Boost.Decimal.
The Free42 calculator provides either binary or a decimal
implementation.
By the way, are you AI?
--
Impartial, adj.: Unable to perceive any promise of personal
advantage from espousing either side of a controversy or adopting
either of two conflicting opinions.
q-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df0ea174d534e0$1613$2650862$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93883 |
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. > > By the way, are you AI? > Human beings have always been AI in that they can only parrot news reports and their old school textbooks. This has been true since pre-historic times. Occasionally, however, some misaligned freak will rise above it all and then we have a burst of progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df1430054d96d0$1624$2650862$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93893 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote: > > Well C++ is a crime against humanity > 'operator overloading...' crap bloated crap. > Who would ever disagree? > > You can just do decimal in C > Use type double if you are worried about microcents. > > I have written financial software in C. > What is the problem? > That depends on the scale. For most situations, the currency amounts are enough that the C double type, with 16 decimal digits of precision, can handle the simple processing without error. (C also has a 128-bit long double type but ordinary processors have no hardware for this type. On GNU/Linux the long double is usually defined as 80-bits.) But for large currency amounts and more complex processing, 16 decimal digits may not be enough. That's why decimal floating point is recommended or even required by law. What is needed is HARDWARE decimal FP. IBM has always had decimal FP hardware in its mainframes and it also has decimal FP hardware in its Power PC processors. (Only large institutions could afford such hardware.) Intel/AMD will likely never have DFP hardware. They will keep on adding special AI hardware but never DFP hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2MtAS.183747$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]
| 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]
| 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]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web