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

Groups > comp.programming > #9626 > unrolled thread

Re: C is not a low level language

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
                      Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
      Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
          Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
            Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
          Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
            Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
                                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
                                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
                              Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
                                  Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
                                    Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
                                    Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
    Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800

Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#9731

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:10:17 -0500
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
> 
> | CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop),
> | AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes.
> |
> | Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself.
> |
> 
>   That's one way to look at it, but you completely
> missed the points I was making. By your definition
> an abacus is a programming language. So what? 

	Nope, an abacus does nothing without a human being. Turing
completeness has been the effective definition of a programming language
for longer than I have been in the business.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9722

Mayayana wrote:
> webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized
> software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So
> it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see
> how you might call js programming code.

JS is not single task. You can include it in PDF and as far as I know
you can also use it for general purpose programming. You might need some
very small HTML to wrap around, but then other languages too have APIs
for in- and output.

-- 
/¯\   No  |    Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger    Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
\ /  HTML |    Roald-Amundsen-Straße 2a     Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
 X    in  |    D-50829 Köln-Ossendorf      http://berger-odenthal.de
/ \  Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

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

#9737

On 25/02/2019 18:44, Axel Berger wrote:
[Javascript]
> You can include it in PDF and as far as I know
> you can also use it for general purpose programming. You might need some
> very small HTML to wrap around,

No, you don't. node.js allows to run Javascript outside of a browser
environment. It's focused on server-side web development -- but that
kinda makes sense: if you're developing a web thing, it helps if the
server- and the browser-side of the equation are written in the same
language (so you don't always have to switch language when you switch
from server to client or vice versa; and you can share some code between
the two where that makes sense)

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

#9690

On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote:
> 2) What do you need in the result?
> 
>   Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java
> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the
> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful,
> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore
> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and
> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
> allowed to survive. :) 

Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.

Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
easily maintained.

Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

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

#9698

In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst 
<w@uter.be> writes:
>On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote:
>> 2) What do you need in the result?
>>
>>   Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java
>> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the
>> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful,
>> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore
>> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and
>> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
>> allowed to survive. :)
>
>Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
>
>Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
>easily maintained.

Or C, or any language - even BASIC.
>
>Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Or the beer holder! That applies to more than just pulchritude: one 
should not code when under the affluence!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What's awful about weird views is not the views. It's the intolerance. If
someone wants to worship the Duke of Edinburgh or a pineapple, fine. But don't
kill me if I don't agree. - Tim Rice, Radio Times 15-21 October 2011.

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

#9702

On 25/02/2019 10:44, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst 
> <w@uter.be> writes:
<snip>
>>
>> Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
>>
>> Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
>> easily maintained.
> 
> Or C, or any language - even BASIC.

*Any* language?

I think I would draw the line at BrainF**k, or Ook!, or Whitespace, or 
Piet. These languages were *designed* not to be readable.

>> Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#9707

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive.

	This program is pretty ...

#define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
            _-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
            _-_-_-_
}


	... but far from readable.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9724

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather 
>> attractive.
>
> This program is pretty ...
>
> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> {
>            _-_-_-_
>       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>            _-_-_-_
> }
>
>
> ... but far from readable.

I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do, but when I 
compile and run it on my Pi it prints out "0.250". Mind you, it does 
generate loads of compiler warnings so I bet it's not doing what it was 
intended to do, even though it compiles. 

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

#9738

On 25/02/2019 19:08, NY wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather
>>> attractive.
>>
>> This program is pretty ...
>>
>> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
>> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
>> {
>>            _-_-_-_
>>       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>            _-_-_-_
>> }
>>
>>
>> ... but far from readable.
> 
> I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do,

It's not that hard.

The first line defines the symbol "_" to expand to the second part.
We'll come back to that later.

The next line defines the global variables 'F' and 'OO', which are both
initialized to 0 (written as "00", but that's the same thing), and then
defines the main function.

The main function calls the function F_OO, then prints the result of
multiplying 4 by -F divided by OO divided (again) by OO. The dot beween
the 4 and the * turns the 4 into a floating-point number, which is
necessary for the printf format, but is otherwise uninteresting.

The function F_OO simply has several lines of the _ and - characters.
The latter is simply retained; the former gets expanded because it's a
macro.

_-_ would turn into:

|-----macro----| |-----macro----|
-F<00||--F-OO--;--F<00||--F-00--;

The minus between the two underscores gets prepended to the macro
expansion. However, macro expansion cannot turn a unary minus operator
into a prefix decrement operator, so that means that you should read the
second expansion as "-(-F)< 00".

As such, for every first expansion, the single unary minus there turns
the negative value in the F variable into a positive value (or it
remains at zero on the first line, which is also not negative and
therefore also triggers the logical or), which means that the F and OO
variable get decremented. They then get subtracted from one another, but
the result of that subtraction is not stored anywhere so it is thrown
away (or optimized away by most modern compilers).

For every second and later expansion of every line, the condition
"--F<00" must be true, and therefore the "--F-00--" part is not called.

So, every line, F is decremented once, and OO is decremented once.

There are 16 lines, so that must mean that at the end of the function,
both F and OO contain the value -16.

The result is that main calculates 4 * -(-16) / -16 / -16, which is 4 *
16 / -16 / -16, which is 4 / 16, which is indeed 0.25.

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

#9750

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:08:50 -0000
"NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
> news:20190225142618.6663a9845e7fe4eb9c60ad89@eircom.net...
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather 
> >> attractive.
> >
> > This program is pretty ...
> >
> > #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> > int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> > {
> >            _-_-_-_
> >       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> >            _-_-_-_
> > }
> >
> >
> > ... but far from readable.
> 
> I haven't a hope in hell of working out what it's supposed to do, but
> when I compile and run it on my Pi it prints out "0.250". Mind you, it
> does generate loads of compiler warnings so I bet it's not doing what it
> was intended to do, even though it compiles. 

	It's in K&R C rather than ANSI C so it needs some fiddling with
compiler options to make it compile correctly on a modern system. It
calculates pi by measuring the area of the crude circle drawn in the source
code.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9797

[Dropped extraneous newsgroups]
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:38 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Which is the saving grace of Piet. Piet programs can be rather attractive.
>
> 	This program is pretty ...
>
> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
> {
>             _-_-_-_
>        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>     _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>   _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>   _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>     _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>         _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>             _-_-_-_
> }
>
>
> 	... but far from readable.

That program is from the 1989 IOCCC (International Obfuscated C Code
Contest).  It doesn't produce the expected result because it makes an
assumption about the behavior of the C preprocessor.

Changing the #define line to

#define _ F-->00||F-OO--;

fixes the problem.  (It still produces some warnings, and strictly
speaking has undefined behavior, fixable by updating adding an #include
directive and updating the function declarations.)

With this change, the output is

    3.141

https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c
https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#9798

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>> #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
>> int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
>> {
>>             _-_-_-_
>>        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>     _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>   _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>   _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>     _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>         _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>>             _-_-_-_
>> }
>>
>>
>> 	... but far from readable.
>
> That program is from the 1989 IOCCC (International Obfuscated C Code
> Contest).  It doesn't produce the expected result because it makes an
> assumption about the behavior of the C preprocessor.

Correction: 1988.

> Changing the #define line to
>
> #define _ F-->00||F-OO--;
>
> fixes the problem.  (It still produces some warnings, and strictly
> speaking has undefined behavior, fixable by updating adding an #include
> directive and updating the function declarations.)
>
> With this change, the output is
>
>     3.141
>
> https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c
> https://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#9814

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> news:YvvWcMx6b8ccFwKI@
255soft.uk Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:44:10 GMT in alt.windows7.general, 
wrote:

> In message <60mckf-teg.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst 
> <w@uter.be> writes:
>>On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote:
>>> 2) What do you need in the result?
>>>
>>>   Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java
>>> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the
>>> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful,
>>> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore
>>> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and
>>> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
>>> allowed to survive. :)
>>
>>Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
>>
>>Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
>>easily maintained.
> 
> Or C, or any language - even BASIC.
>>
>>Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Or the beer holder! That applies to more than just pulchritude: one 
> should not code when under the affluence!

Oh, one can. but.. some very interesting umm, new features can be 
introduced in your code when doing so. <G>


-- 
Confucius say: Man who abuse his computer get bad bytes!

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

#9703

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:35:50 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:

> Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
> easily maintained.

	Quite so, writing unreadable code in any language is stupid unless
it's for a stunt like the three line RSA implementation or the obfuscated
code competitions.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9708

"Wouter Verhelst" <w@uter.be> wrote

| >  Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
| > allowed to survive. :)
|
| Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
|
| Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
| easily maintained.
|
| Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

   Yes. I was just teasing. It seems to me that different
languages suit different personalities. In general it seems
that the more math-oriented people like terser languages.
But that's just my observation. I don't have any evidence. 

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

#9714

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:36:49 -0500
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "Wouter Verhelst" <w@uter.be> wrote
> 
> | >  Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
> | > allowed to survive. :)
> |
> | Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
> |
> | Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
> | easily maintained.
> |
> | Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
>    Yes. I was just teasing. It seems to me that different
> languages suit different personalities. In general it seems
> that the more math-oriented people like terser languages.
> But that's just my observation. I don't have any evidence. 

	Q: Which is the right language to program professionally
	A: The one your employer tells you to use

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9741

On 25/02/2019 17:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 	Q: Which is the right language to program professionally
> 	A: The one your employer tells you to use

Actually, if that happens, either convince them otherwise or quit.

Q: Which is the right language to program professionally?
A: The one you're fluent in and that seems a good fit for the task at hand.

If you've got a job to do, it doesn't really help if you need to learn
the language first.

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

#9760

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:20:50 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:

> On 25/02/2019 17:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > 	Q: Which is the right language to program professionally
> > 	A: The one your employer tells you to use
> 
> Actually, if that happens, either convince them otherwise or quit.
> 
> Q: Which is the right language to program professionally?
> A: The one you're fluent in and that seems a good fit for the task at
> hand.

	If you're not fluent in the language of choice at your place of
employment then you are either in the wrong place or you have some learning
to do.

> If you've got a job to do, it doesn't really help if you need to learn
> the language first.

	If there's an established code base and in-house expertise in a
language then you need a *damn* good reason to use anything else. Making
everybody else learn your favourite language will not go down well even
when there is a good reason.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9766

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:00:55 +0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:02:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
> > 	If there's an established code base and in-house expertise in a
> > language then you need a *damn* good reason to use anything else. Making
> > everybody else learn your favourite language will not go down well even
> > when there is a good reason.
> 
> Spot on.
> 
> This should also apply to programming standards. 

	Even more so IMHO - programming standards are the programmers
version of bike shed paint. For my sins I have been on the standards group
for a large distributed team, almost *every* decision is of the "it doesn't
really matter what we choose but we *must* choose something and stick to
it" kind and every one of them caused complaints essentially of the "I
wanna do it my way" variety and they all had to be told "Yes there's
nothing wrong with your way but - DO IT OUR WAY or else face code review
rejections.".

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9777

On 26/02/2019 01:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:20:50 +0200
> Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/02/2019 17:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> 	Q: Which is the right language to program professionally
>>> 	A: The one your employer tells you to use
>>
>> Actually, if that happens, either convince them otherwise or quit.
>>
>> Q: Which is the right language to program professionally?
>> A: The one you're fluent in and that seems a good fit for the task at
>> hand.
> 
> 	If you're not fluent in the language of choice at your place of
> employment then you are either in the wrong place

Yes, that was my point.

> or you have some learning
> to do.

If you're starting a job and *then* start learning the language, you're
wasting your employer's time.

>> If you've got a job to do, it doesn't really help if you need to learn
>> the language first.
> 
> 	If there's an established code base and in-house expertise in a
> language then you need a *damn* good reason to use anything else.

Sure.

But if there's an established code base and in-house expertise and it's
so far away from what you understand that you have to learn the language
first, you're not in the right place to begin with, is my point.

> Making
> everybody else learn your favourite language will not go down well even
> when there is a good reason.

Right.

And not knowing the language that's in use locally when you begin the
job seems like a waste of everyone's time.

If you see a job posting for "C programmer" and you come along and say
"I'm not really a C programmer, but I've been doing a lot of BASIC these
past few years so I'm definitely a programmer", then you're not doing it
right...

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

Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web