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

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Started by	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
First post	2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Last post	2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 210 — 21 participants

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

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

Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →

#93952

From	Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
Message-ID	<11auej2$3nk2l$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93913

On 2026-10-16, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:56:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> Ah: you reduced the problem to a known one with known complexity in
>>>> order to derive an upper bound! :o)
>>> 
>>> Typical CS remark
>>> 
>>> No, we safely pulled a motor out of a forklift truck.
>>> 
>>> The guy doing it was a great guy, Trained as a diesel fitter. Proper
>>> engineer of the old school sort.
>> 
>> Mh, this reminds me that I will never wrap my head around the fact that
>> English uses the same word ("engineer") for a person who works with a
>> slide rule and a pencil and a person who works with a wrench.
>
> No, an engineer is the guy who drives the train.

This. And also a person who is controlling a bunch of the flight systems
in some aircraft models, like the right side of this photo:

<http://www.saveconcordegroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/G-BOAC1.jpg>

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfCthmyq-Ig
>

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#93958

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
Message-ID	<11aumns$3r5cq$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93849

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:

> Mh, this reminds me that I will never wrap my head around the fact
> that English uses the same word ("engineer") for a person who works
> with a slide rule and a pencil and a person who works with a wrench.

The original meaning of “engine” referred to any kind of device or
contraption. The slide rule itself was a calculation engine.

If it helps, the word has the same root as “ingenuity”.

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

#94056

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Message-ID	<ccPAS.187044$iS_f.90305@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#93958

On 2026-10-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>
>> Mh, this reminds me that I will never wrap my head around the fact
>> that English uses the same word ("engineer") for a person who works
>> with a slide rule and a pencil and a person who works with a wrench.
>
> The original meaning of “engine” referred to any kind of device or
> contraption. The slide rule itself was a calculation engine.

And now we have search engines...

> If it helps, the word has the same root as “ingenuity”.

-- 
/~\  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]

#94102

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
Message-ID	<njirakFei39U23@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#94056

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 18:33:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-10-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>>
>>> Mh, this reminds me that I will never wrap my head around the fact
>>> that English uses the same word ("engineer") for a person who works
>>> with a slide rule and a pencil and a person who works with a wrench.
>>
>> The original meaning of “engine” referred to any kind of device or
>> contraption. The slide rule itself was a calculation engine.
> 
> And now we have search engines...

And the V8 engine...  I read a couple of days ago that Dahl, the creator 
of Node.js, has moved on to a new scheme based on the Cloudflare model.

https://thenewstack.io/cloudflare-acquires-deno-ryan-dahl/

He said his attempt to fix node with deno failed because of the industry 
demand that it be compatible with node. Sometimes you can get away with 
breaking changes, sometimes not.

bun was another attempt but Anthropic bought it and appears to be making 
it a dispenser of Claude AI slop.  Think I'll stick with Node and Express.

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

#94136

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
Message-ID	<11b27p2$11pis$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#94056

On 17/10/2026 19:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-10-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>>
>>> Mh, this reminds me that I will never wrap my head around the fact
>>> that English uses the same word ("engineer") for a person who works
>>> with a slide rule and a pencil and a person who works with a wrench.
>>
>> The original meaning of “engine” referred to any kind of device or
>> contraption. The slide rule itself was a calculation engine.
> 
> And now we have search engines...
> 
>> If it helps, the word has the same root as “ingenuity”.
> 

Yes  to all that. It was originally the art of making mechanisms. 
Primarily for war.
US corrupted it to mean 'driver' or 'machine controller'
Europe corrupted it to mean 'man with a technical degree' - especially a 
second class SCIENTIST.

In the UK it's always been a man who makes stuff that hasn't been made 
before. Otherwise its a technician or a mechanic

-- 
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before 
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

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

#93912

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
Message-ID	<njfc03Fit4rU23@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#93813

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:26:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The lads were preparing to lift the engine out of IIRC a fork lift truck
> using a chain hoist strapped to a wooden beam or rather insubstantial
> proportions. I stopped them :
> "We ought to calculate if that beam can take it"
> "Don't worry, it can"
> "How do you know"
> "Because we used it to pull a bigger motor out last week when you
> weren't looking"

The first company I worked for chose to assemble the larger machines on 
the 3rd floor and fabricate small parts on the 1st floor for unknown 
reasons. They finally built a machine that wouldn't fit into the elevator. 
Like many old mills, there was a door that opened to the outside.

One weekend the managers rigged a boom and tried to lower the machine with 
a hoist. The boom failed. Come Monday the grunts got to repair the damage. 
Moral: don't let the director of engineering, an EE, do CE calculations.

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

#93925

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
Message-ID	<11au47v$3k12p$15@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93912

On 16/10/2026 20:24, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:26:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> The lads were preparing to lift the engine out of IIRC a fork lift truck
>> using a chain hoist strapped to a wooden beam or rather insubstantial
>> proportions. I stopped them :
>> "We ought to calculate if that beam can take it"
>> "Don't worry, it can"
>> "How do you know"
>> "Because we used it to pull a bigger motor out last week when you
>> weren't looking"
> 
> The first company I worked for chose to assemble the larger machines on
> the 3rd floor and fabricate small parts on the 1st floor for unknown
> reasons. They finally built a machine that wouldn't fit into the elevator.
> Like many old mills, there was a door that opened to the outside.
> 
> One weekend the managers rigged a boom and tried to lower the machine with
> a hoist. The boom failed. Come Monday the grunts got to repair the damage.
> Moral: don't let the director of engineering, an EE, do CE calculations.

LOL
Fist engine I lifted out we used a 5 ton block and tackle designed for 
yacht use.
Whole car was less than 2 tons

Engine got stuck but we kept on heaving.

Now that block may have nee able to withstand 5 tons, but it was bent to 
buggery just with under two.

Floor beams are not specified for the load they can carry without 
breaking, they are specified for the load they can carry without the 
floor looking like a saucer.

Aircraft wings are specified for the load they can stand without 
buckling, They bend all over the shop in flight


-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

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

#94088

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
Message-ID	<vr3dqmxr17.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#93912

On 2026-10-16 21:24, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:26:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> The lads were preparing to lift the engine out of IIRC a fork lift truck
>> using a chain hoist strapped to a wooden beam or rather insubstantial
>> proportions. I stopped them :
>> "We ought to calculate if that beam can take it"
>> "Don't worry, it can"
>> "How do you know"
>> "Because we used it to pull a bigger motor out last week when you
>> weren't looking"
> 
> The first company I worked for chose to assemble the larger machines on
> the 3rd floor and fabricate small parts on the 1st floor for unknown
> reasons. They finally built a machine that wouldn't fit into the elevator.
> Like many old mills, there was a door that opened to the outside.
> 
> One weekend the managers rigged a boom and tried to lower the machine with
> a hoist. The boom failed. Come Monday the grunts got to repair the damage.
> Moral: don't let the director of engineering, an EE, do CE calculations.

In Spain, the Telefónica exchanges were built like that. Maybe three 
levels, each one very tall (allowing to have cables under a false floor 
and also above the tall racks).

Each level had a huge door to the outside, with iron beams above to 
attach pulleys. And two removable rails. I never saw one of those working.

Now they are almost empty, using VoIP machinery that I have not seen.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#93802

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Message-ID	<11asel3$31l32$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93798

On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:53:57 -0700, Peyton wrote:

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

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

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

#93805

From	"Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us>
Date	2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Message-ID	<87a4oe40v3.fsf@solcaium.us>
In reply to	#93802

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

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

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

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

#93807

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Message-ID	<njdvb5Fit4rU14@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#93805

On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:26:40 -0700, Peyton wrote:

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

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

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

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

#93808

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Message-ID	<11askeu$33cuk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93805

On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:26:40 -0700, Peyton wrote:

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

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

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

Somehow I don’t think so ...

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

#93806

From	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
Date	2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Message-ID	<18deef3d76b2b714$10949$2836843$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
In reply to	#93802

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 06:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#93812

From	c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date	2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Message-ID	<YIucnXGZp-ogQ0z3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#93802

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

   There is NO really good reason for C++

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

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

#93838

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Message-ID	<11ass82$33n8m$19@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93812

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

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

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


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

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

Groucho Marx

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

#93811

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Message-ID	<11asmmn$33n8m$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93798

On 16/10/2026 05:53, Peyton wrote:
> I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C#
> binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python
> script.
>


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

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

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

And concluding that it must have been written by computer scientists

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

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

#93982

From	Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Date	2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Message-ID	<6ad33478$0$28048$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
In reply to	#93798

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

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

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

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

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

#93985

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Message-ID	<11avcvt$59n$15@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93982

On 17/10/2026 09:40, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Now, there are almost no more
> interpreted scripts.

PHP...

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

  George Santayana

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

#94087

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Message-ID	<11b0ms8$iems$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93982

On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts.

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

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

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

#94089

From	Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date	2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Message-ID	<11b0pbe$3pvda$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#94087

On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>> Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts.
> 
> Shell scripts are still interpreted. Not only that, but the shell
> actually seeks through the source file to do a transfer of control.
> 
> How do I know this? Try making changes to the script while it is
> running. ;)

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

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

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

Janis

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

   while read ; do
       echo $REPLY
   done

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

   sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh

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

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

Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →

csiph-web

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Contents

#93952

#93958

#94056

#94102

#94136

#93912

#93925

#94088

#93802

#93805

#93807

#93808

#93806

#93812

#93838

#93811

#93982

#93985

#94087

#94089