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 204 — 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 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 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
                          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
          Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
            Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
              Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
                Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
                  Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
                    Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
                      Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
                        Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI 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 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 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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →

#94048

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Message-ID	<5cPAS.187028$iS_f.33869@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#93965

On 2026-10-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:19:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> That depends on the key, and whether your instrument can accept a capo.
>> Some female vocalists pick the damnedest keys, which is why I describe B
>> (which is a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key".
>> Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't.
>
> I play, among other things, Irish flutes/whistles. The standard D simple-
> system flutes have both C and C# so you can play in D or G. If you want B 
> you'd better scare up a new flute.  
>
> There is a duet by Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash. Cash asks what key 
> they're going to play in and Nelson names some weird key like B flat 
> major. Cash mutters 'That figures.'

"Neighborhood of B"  -- O Brother Where Art Thou?

I heard a story about Chet Atkins that had him saying something like
"Mention E-flat and you'll see capos coming out everywhere."

> For better or worse I can't sing and I don't play with groups so it's all 
> the same to me. I've got a capo but no reason to use it. 

With mandolin or fiddle I have enough fingers to manage just about
any key - but I won't be doing all those drones like I can in A or D.

-- 
/~\  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]

#94099

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date	2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
Message-ID	<njiomnFei39U20@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#94048

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 18:33:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> With mandolin or fiddle I have enough fingers to manage just about any
> key - but I won't be doing all those drones like I can in A or D.

I never messed around with a mandolin. I'm left handed but play guitars 
normally. Decent tremolo picking with my right hand isn't in the cards. 
I've taken a couple of shots at Dick Dale style surf that didn't work out 
well.

Banjo is the same deal. You can play any key in G tuning but you've got 
the fifth string. Playing for my own amusement I don't need railroad 
spikes or one of those fifth string capos.

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

#93996

From	Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
Date	2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
Message-ID	<11avj5s$39m8$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93942

Charlie Gibbs wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> On 2026-10-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 16/10/2026 20:01, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>>
>>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis:
>>> 
>>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style
>> 
>> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read.
>
> That's why he said "or memorize".  As the old joke goes:
>
> Q: How do you stop a classical musician from playing?
> A: Take away his sheet music.
> Q: How do you stop a bluegrasser from playing?
> A: Put sheet music in front of him.
>
> I play both classical and bluegrass (although not professionally);
> I have the best of both worlds.
>
>>> - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time
>>> with the original key)
>> 
>> That isnt exatly hard
>
> That depends on the key, and whether your instrument
> can accept a capo.  Some female vocalists pick the
> damnedest keys, which is why I describe B (which is
> a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key".
> Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't.

Speaking of females:

AI Overview

    Joni Mitchell uses more than 50 custom and alternate guitar
    tunings—adapting them largely because of hand weakness from
    childhood polio and a gradually lowering voice over the
    decades.

>>> <snip>

-- 
BOFH excuse #321:
 
Scheduled global CPU outage

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

#94002

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
Message-ID	<11avke8$3m0b$9@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93996

On 17/10/2026 11:37, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
peaking of females:
> 
> AI Overview
> 
>      Joni Mitchell uses more than 50 custom and alternate guitar
>      tunings—adapting them largely because of hand weakness from
>      childhood polio and a gradually lowering voice over the
>      decades.
> 
>>>> <snip>
> 
Keith Richards, of the Stones, uses many guitar tunings to avoid having 
to play difficult chords.

AFAIK he never learnt any music and cannot sight read, He listened to 
stuff and tried to play it himself. And succeed well enough to at least 
be a good riff man.

At his best with Mick Taylor to do the real lead guitar.
-- 
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, 
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

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

#94052

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Message-ID	<8cPAS.187036$iS_f.86876@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#93996

On 2026-10-17, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>
>> That depends on the key, and whether your instrument
>> can accept a capo.  Some female vocalists pick the
>> damnedest keys, which is why I describe B (which is
>> a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key".
>> Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't.
>
> Speaking of females:
>
> AI Overview
>
>     Joni Mitchell uses more than 50 custom and alternate guitar
>     tunings—adapting them largely because of hand weakness from
>     childhood polio and a gradually lowering voice over the
>     decades.

Interesting.  That would explain a lot of it.

I once saw fingerstyle guitarist Don Ross in concert.
At one point he said, in his usual low-key tone:
"I play in over a hundred tunings.  Don't try this at home."

-- 
/~\  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]

#94078

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
Message-ID	<0t1dqmx8a1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#93942

On 2026-10-17 00:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-10-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 16/10/2026 20:01, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>>
>>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis:
>>>
>>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style
>>
>> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read.
> 
> That's why he said "or memorize".  As the old joke goes:
> 
> Q: How do you stop a classical musician from playing?
> A: Take away his sheet music.
> Q: How do you stop a bluegrasser from playing?
> A: Put sheet music in front of him.
> 
> I play both classical and bluegrass (although not professionally);
> I have the best of both worlds.
> 
>>> - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time
>>> with the original key)
>>
>> That isnt exatly hard
> 
> That depends on the key, and whether your instrument
> can accept a capo.  Some female vocalists pick the
> damnedest keys, which is why I describe B (which is
> a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key".
> Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't.

I saw an harmonium in a church in which the entire keyboard could be 
raised and moved left or right.


> 
>>> Now imagine if Marty were thrown in the continuo section for a performance
>>> of Bach's Christmas Oratorio.
>>
>> That is a completely different and dare I say it archaic, music form
>>
>> They used orchestras because electric amplification did not exist. There
>> was a necessity to manage large numbers of plates
> 
> Yes, but some people still play it.  A working _classical_ musician
> knows how.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#94091

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Message-ID	<IYSAS.85679$TYg.73324@fx21.iad>
In reply to	#94078

On 2026-10-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> I saw an harmonium in a church in which the entire keyboard could be 
> raised and moved left or right.

Cool - the great-grandaddy of the pitch bend wheel.  :-)

-- 
/~\  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]

#94045

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
Message-ID	<piqcqmxlgi.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#93868

On 2026-10-16 16:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 16/10/2026 13:15, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:54:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>>> Engineering is not applied science. Only a CS would think it was There
>>> is very little science in engineering.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering:
>>
>> "Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science
>> and mathematics to design and improve systems."
>>
> That is of course bollocks
> No engineer would have written that
> 
> A better definition is 'an engineer is wsomeone who can make for five 
> bob (£0.25) what any damn fool can make for a quid (£1)
> 
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering
>>
>> "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines,
>> engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or bridges
>> using scientific principles"
> 
> Again its bollocks.
> 
> "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines,
> engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or bridges
> using *whatever systems work* in the context.
> 
> Early engineers were carpenters,masons  and blacksmiths. A windmill for 
> grinding corn is a machine, but there is no science used in its design

Yes, there is. You have to know how big to make the sails, and what gear 
reduction ratio you need, and how big stones you need.

It may be know how from previous failed and working attempts.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#93876

From	Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net>
Date	2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
Message-ID	<18df0a68a1e460b8$2716$2693458$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
In reply to	#93819

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:55:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 
> In fact almost all design is done by draughtsmen
> 
> Or technicians.
> 
> I learnt this at my first company - a military and aerospace  company. 
> Boffins were very thin on the ground. What there were, were enormous 
> quantities of low paid technicians, who understood enough to take 
> something someone else had designed, often from another project,  and 
> fiddle with it till it met the spec.
> 

That's describes the "99+ percent" that was referred to in an earlier post.

But to get to Mars, or back to the moon, will require the "1- percent."
Technological progress cannot be sustained by mere technicians or
draftsman.

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

#93804

From	"Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us>
Date	2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
Message-ID	<87ecdq41bl.fsf@solcaium.us>
In reply to	#93801

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

> On 10/16/26 00:53, Peyton wrote:
>> 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.
>
>   Worrisome.
>
>   However do note that MOST of the Python functions
>   are writ in 'C'.
>

>> Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in
>> everyday software.
>
>   Not so much.
>
When you don't know the basics you'll make some bone headed
decisions that'll impact efficiency and/or correctness. Hopefully the AI
tool being used will catch it. But from my
experience it doesn't do it all the time and will even
encourage bad practices. 
>   Yer guy didn't need a CS degree - just someone
>   to TELL him the diff between compiled and
>   interpreted. That's all.
>

I agree. That is the very issue. I'd argue knowing the difference between
compiled and interpreted is basic CS. 





--

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

#93809

From	Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date	2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
Message-ID	<11askn8$33cuk$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#93804

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.

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?

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

#93880

From	"Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us>
Date	2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
Message-ID	<87fqy5d55d.fsf@solcaium.us>
In reply to	#93809

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. 


--

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

#93894

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]

#93935

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]

#93950

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]

#94081

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]

#94118

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]

#93966

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]

#93919

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]

#93928

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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →

csiph-web

Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI

Contents

#94048

#94099

#93996

#94002

#94052

#94078

#94091

#94045

#93876

#93804

#93809

#93880

#93894

#93935

#93950

#94081

#94118

#93966

#93919

#93928