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 287 — 24 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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +0000
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> - 2026-10-18 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 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 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 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 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> - 2026-10-18 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 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 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atmpr$3g7mv$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93880 |
On 16/10/2026 16:41, Peyton wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:16:46 -0700, Peyton wrote: >> >>> I'd argue knowing the difference between compiled and interpreted is >>> basic CS. >> >> Knowing that the difference is even less significant than you might >> think is even more basic CS. >> > Gee, I guess saving both hours of time and money is pretty insignificant. > > All CISC chips use interpreters to interpret 'machine code' Even a basic CPU like a 6502 is a sort of 'interpreter' As usual the deeper you go, the less the simple stories hold true -- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11au6gp$3m5co$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93880 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:41:34 -0700, Peyton wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:16:46 -0700, Peyton wrote: >> >>> I'd argue knowing the difference between compiled and interpreted >>> is basic CS. >> >> Knowing that the difference is even less significant than you might >> think is even more basic CS. >> > Gee, I guess saving both hours of time and money is pretty > insignificant. Remember when JavaScript running in the browser was considered too slow for anything involving advanced interactivity? Yet now we have entire apps, as complex as anything you might run stand-alone on the desktop, implemented entirely in the browser? How did that come about? Is your browser running a JavaScript compiler, or a JavaScript interpreter? It’s really kind of a mixture of both, isn’t it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df272280514571$11044$2836843$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93935 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> > Remember when JavaScript running in the browser was considered too > slow for anything involving advanced interactivity? Yet now we have > entire apps, as complex as anything you might run stand-alone on the > desktop, implemented entirely in the browser? > Apparently it is not fast enough as we now have WebAssembly: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ph7DJ6Xy7c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8i2dqmxou3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #93950 |
On 2026-10-17 01:43, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >>> >> Remember when JavaScript running in the browser was considered too >> slow for anything involving advanced interactivity? Yet now we have >> entire apps, as complex as anything you might run stand-alone on the >> desktop, implemented entirely in the browser? >> > > Apparently it is not fast enough as we now have WebAssembly: > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ph7DJ6Xy7c> > Video unavailable. The uploader has not made this video available in your country -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D1qdnXfkH9BRF0n3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94081 |
On 10/17/26 16:31, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-10-17 01:43, Leroy H wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>> >>> Remember when JavaScript running in the browser was considered too >>> slow for anything involving advanced interactivity? Yet now we have >>> entire apps, as complex as anything you might run stand-alone on the >>> desktop, implemented entirely in the browser? >>> >> >> Apparently it is not fast enough as we now have WebAssembly: >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ph7DJ6Xy7c> >> > > Video unavailable. > The uploader has not made this video available in your country Kind of my opinion on ANY JS required to display the basics - esp on world News sites. No screen - SKIP THEM and MOVE ON to alt sources. Their articles do not get seen, their advertisers do not get seen. FUCK them !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njga01Fit4rU34@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #93935 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > How did that come about? Is your browser running a JavaScript compiler, > or a JavaScript interpreter? It’s really kind of a mixture of both, > isn’t it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_(JavaScript_engine)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b25t1$10nek$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93935 |
On 2026-10-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:41:34 -0700, Peyton wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:16:46 -0700, Peyton wrote: >>> >>>> I'd argue knowing the difference between compiled and interpreted >>>> is basic CS. >>> >>> Knowing that the difference is even less significant than you might >>> think is even more basic CS. >>> >> Gee, I guess saving both hours of time and money is pretty >> insignificant. > > Remember when JavaScript running in the browser was considered too > slow for anything involving advanced interactivity? Yet now we have > entire apps, as complex as anything you might run stand-alone on the > desktop, implemented entirely in the browser? > > How did that come about? Is your browser running a JavaScript > compiler, or a JavaScript interpreter? It’s really kind of a mixture > of both, isn’t it? It mainly happened through high-end devices being available to many webdevs, and with concerns about portability and accessibility being easier to disregard. The code is still slow and heavy, some things may have become more efficient, but that's arguably largely offset by many more additions to what's usually done in these webapps. But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform terribly (see e.g. CPython). -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b28nt$11pis$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94128 |
On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote: > But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't > imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a > language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform > terribly (see e.g. CPython). Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial assembler while on a vacation job. He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster. faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b2apq$134sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94142 |
On 18/10/2026 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote: >> But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't >> imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a >> language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform >> terribly (see e.g. CPython). > > Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial > assembler while on a vacation job. > > He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster. > > faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms I once was asked to improve on a search on a website. They had forgotten to add an index to a very important column. From minutes to seconds :-D. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b2cs4$11pis$23@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94155 |
On 18/10/2026 12:33, John Bokma wrote:
> On 18/10/2026 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>> But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't
>>> imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a
>>> language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform
>>> terribly (see e.g. CPython).
>>
>> Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial
>> assembler while on a vacation job.
>>
>> He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster.
>>
>> faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms
>
> I once was asked to improve on a search on a website. They had forgotten
> to add an index to a very important column. From minutes to seconds :-D.
>
Oh yes.
I played around with mysql a fair bit a decade ago. For write rarely
read often indices are a must
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njkng6Fei39U36@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94155 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:33:14 +0200, John Bokma wrote: > On 18/10/2026 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't >>> imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a >>> language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform >>> terribly (see e.g. CPython). >> >> Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial >> assembler while on a vacation job. >> >> He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster. >> >> faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms > > I once was asked to improve on a search on a website. They had forgotten > to add an index to a very important column. From minutes to seconds :-D. Our database had a couple of tables that were supposed to be used for BOLOs, people or vehicles that were of current interest, that would be periodically purged. Of course, that never happened. A site complained about slow searches and I found the non-indexed tables had over a million records each.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3ucf$1lgro$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94155 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:33:14 +0200, John Bokma wrote: > I once was asked to improve on a search on a website. They had > forgotten to add an index to a very important column. From minutes > to seconds :-D. Good DBMSes even offer commands like EXPLAIN so they will show you where the performance bottlenecks are on your queries ... all you have to do is ask.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nz8BS.93146$Q3f.29932@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #94142 |
On 2026-10-18, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't >> imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a >> language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform >> terribly (see e.g. CPython). > > Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial > assembler while on a vacation job. > > He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster. > > faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms We had an 8080 cross-assembler that was written in Fortran. A friend wrote one in COBOL that would finish before the Fortran one could get queued for scheduling. -- /~\ 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 | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njlgmuFei39U49@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94209 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:52:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > We had an 8080 cross-assembler that was written in Fortran. > A friend wrote one in COBOL that would finish before the Fortran one > could get queued for scheduling. Was the problem Fortran or JCL?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <swgBS.284887$rAy2.147817@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #94280 |
On 2026-10-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:52:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> We had an 8080 cross-assembler that was written in Fortran. >> A friend wrote one in COBOL that would finish before the Fortran one >> could get queued for scheduling. > > Was the problem Fortran or JCL? Fortran. The code was apparently written to be compilable on various architectures (e.g. Univac 1100 and 90/30). I never saw the source code, but for some reason it ran like molasses through a pinhole in January. The slowness was in execution, not scheduling. My friend's version was just way more efficient - and being written in COBOL appealed to our sense of perversity. -- /~\ 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 | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <avkfqmxatr.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94142 |
On 2026-10-18 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 18/10/2026 11:09, Nuno Silva wrote: >> But yeah, the distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't >> imply anything about performance, and it's completely possible for a >> language implementation with some sort of compilation to perform >> terribly (see e.g. CPython). > > Apocryphally Gary Kildall was called upon to fix some industrial > assembler while on a vacation job. > > He rewrite in Fortran, It ran ten times faster. > > faster instructions are no substitute for shitty algorithms > Long ago (~1985) I rewrote a commercial antivirus (it checked boot sector and command.com, I think) in TurboPascal. It was slower than the original, but my code did a few things more. Then I rewrote the comparison of arrays in assembler, using basically a single instruction (compare string of up to 64 KB). The result was 10 times faster than the original. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ad526ec$0$2500$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #94235 |
Le 18-10-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > > Long ago (~1985) I rewrote a commercial antivirus (it checked boot > sector and command.com, I think) in TurboPascal. > > It was slower than the original, but my code did a few things more. > > Then I rewrote the comparison of arrays in assembler, using basically a > single instruction (compare string of up to 64 KB). > > The result was 10 times faster than the original. The best anti-virus ever: "format C:". Fast and perfect. Doesn't run on Linux but it's not important as it needs only to run on Windows. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <42bBS.51202$fY7.6892@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #94238 |
On 2026-10-18, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: > Le 18-10-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > >> Long ago (~1985) I rewrote a commercial antivirus (it checked boot >> sector and command.com, I think) in TurboPascal. >> >> It was slower than the original, but my code did a few things more. >> >> Then I rewrote the comparison of arrays in assembler, using basically a >> single instruction (compare string of up to 64 KB). >> >> The result was 10 times faster than the original. > > The best anti-virus ever: "format C:". Fast and perfect. Doesn't run on > Linux but it's not important as it needs only to run on Windows. Well, there's always mkfs - and not only can it get rid of Windows viruses, it can get rid of Windows itself. -- /~\ 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 | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20261016131327.00002892@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93809 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:45:44 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > I'd argue knowing the difference between compiled and interpreted is > > basic CS. > > Knowing that the difference is even less significant than you might > think is even more basic CS. > > After all, where does “hardware” end and “software” begin? On which > side of the line do you place things like “firmware” (note the name) > and “microcode”? The “P” in “PLA” stands for “programmable”; does > that mean the gate connections are still “hardware”, or not? That's an inane thing to say when we're talking about software from the CPU's perspective. "Firmware" is software; the fact that it's stored in non-volatile memory doesn't change that. PLAs being programmable in their own right has no bearing on their use in implementing what is, to the CPU, definitely *not* software. The only term that actually blurs the lines here is microcode; this can indeed be seen as another layer for programmatically directing the operations of hardware, even if it's only used to implement the machine's official instruction set. But then not all CPUs are actually microcoded in the first place. And all of this has precious little to do with the difference between compiled and interpreted languages from an application/OS perspective. Whether a CPU is microcoded or not makes no difference to the fact that its native instruction set is the most elemental group of *available* operations for software running on it. Compiled languages by definition translate their own fundamental language operations into sequences of native instructions (ideally with a compiler that optimizes them at compile time.) Interpreted languages, by the classical definition, do not, and the overhead of running the interpreter along with the actual program causes performance penalties which may be anything from moderate to severe. There are also other strategies - compiling to "pseudocode" operations targeting a virtual-machine architecture that's lower-level than the source language (which has a lower overhead than classical interpreters and is useful for portability) or just-in-time compilation (which is more performant than a pure interpreter, but has a higher memory over- head) - and all of these have their own upsides and downsides. Claiming that the distinction is of minimal significance is, frankly, absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11au4sj$3k12p$18@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93919 |
On 16/10/2026 21:13, John Ames wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:45:44 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >>> I'd argue knowing the difference between compiled and interpreted is >>> basic CS. >> >> Knowing that the difference is even less significant than you might >> think is even more basic CS. >> >> After all, where does “hardware” end and “software” begin? On which >> side of the line do you place things like “firmware” (note the name) >> and “microcode”? The “P” in “PLA” stands for “programmable”; does >> that mean the gate connections are still “hardware”, or not? > > That's an inane thing to say when we're talking about software from the > CPU's perspective. "Firmware" is software; the fact that it's stored in > non-volatile memory doesn't change that. PLAs being programmable in > their own right has no bearing on their use in implementing what is, to > the CPU, definitely *not* software. The only term that actually blurs > the lines here is microcode; this can indeed be seen as another layer > for programmatically directing the operations of hardware, even if it's > only used to implement the machine's official instruction set. But then > not all CPUs are actually microcoded in the first place. > Every single *86 processor is. Traditional simpler ARM cores use hardwired control logic, while modern high-performance ARM cores (like Apple Silicon and Cortex-X) use internal micro-operation (µop) translation layers > And all of this has precious little to do with the difference between > compiled and interpreted languages from an application/OS perspective. Well anyone can change the question to make their answer fit > Whether a CPU is microcoded or not makes no difference to the fact that > its native instruction set is the most elemental group of *available* > operations for software running on it. > Not if its microcode is held off chip or can be flashed onto NVram in the chip Intel microcode is reprogrammable. While the base microcode is permanently baked into the processor's Read-Only Memory (ROM) during manufacturing, Intel CPUs feature a mechanism that allows this code to be patched or overwritten dynamically. > Compiled languages by definition translate their own fundamental > language operations into sequences of native instructions (ideally with > a compiler that optimizes them at compile time.) Interpreted languages, > by the classical definition, do not, and the overhead of running the > interpreter along with the actual program causes performance penalties > which may be anything from moderate to severe. > Golly. whoda thunk it? > There are also other strategies - compiling to "pseudocode" operations > targeting a virtual-machine architecture that's lower-level than the > source language (which has a lower overhead than classical interpreters > and is useful for portability) or just-in-time compilation (which is > more performant than a pure interpreter, but has a higher memory over- > head) - and all of these have their own upsides and downsides. Claiming > that the distinction is of minimal significance is, frankly, absurd. > I cant work out who you think this might be news to. -- "Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold." ― Confucius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web