Re: C programming in 2011

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: C programming in 2011
Date	2011-06-01 12:53 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<is5qqb$8bo$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <9879610a-8794-4ed7-8553-5c37716fc662@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <lnpqmyogp9.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <307fb2d6-7e7f-475d-ae7d-ef4a8a121639@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <is5gsr$24o$1@dont-email.me> <bdc98020-79b4-4978-847c-cd676a0ab1b8@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/01/2011 11:21 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:04�pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
...
> The 'hypothetical' was enough. 'Hypothetical' means 'I have no
> counterexample so i'll just start playing games'.

It doesn't bother me that I have no counter-example, because the point
I'm making only concerns with what the standard mandates and allows.
Keeping track of what's actually true on all current implementations of
C is something that would require more work than I have time for.

If that constitutes "playing games" in your book, then feel free to
think of it that way; I'll continue to think of what you're doing as
"making unjustified assumptions".

...
>> No, it simply means that we prefer to avoid writing code that relies
>> upon guarantees not provided by the standard.
> 
> How nice.
> 
>> You don't care about that,
> 
> Nope. I just program _real_ computers instead of hypothetical ones.

I program real computers with code that will work even on hypothetical
ones, so long as there is a compiler on those machines which is at least
backwardly compatible with C99; which means my code will continue to
work even if your assumptions about what "real machines" do become
inaccurate.

...
> Besides, your claim to know what i care about or not is not only
> presumptious, but also quite pigheaded.

You're correct, I can only infer what you care about from your actual
words, you could secretly care about these issues far more than your
words imply. But I can only pay attention to your words, I don't have
the power to read your mind. I'll have to form my guesses as to what you
care about based upon your actual words. If those guesses are
inaccurate, it's due to a failure of your words to correctly reflect
your true beliefs.

...
>> With that right comes the
>> responsibility of accepting the consequences in the event (which you
>> consider very unlikely to occur) that your code needs to be ported to an
>> implementation which violates them.
...
> Your rather pompous assertions about my sense of responsability

I said nothing about your sense of responsibility, only your
responsibilities themselves. That you might be insensible of those
responsibilities seems entirely plausible, and even likely.

...
>> I'm
>> not a hardware designer, I'm sure I'd make lots of mistakes in any
>> attempt to provide such a specification. Are you really in doubt about
>> the feasibility of implementing signed arithmetic?
> 
> Nope. I just wanted to know whether or not you have any idea what
> you're talking about. It appears you have no idea.

I have an idea, it's just not my specialty. I know enough to know that
all three of the methods permitted by the C standard for representing
signed integers have actually been implemented, on the hardware level,
on real machines, and that only one of those methods (admittedly, the
most popular) provides any support for your arguments. That is, it would
provide such support for your arguments, if it were the only possible
way of doing signed integer arithmetic; but it isn't.

...
>> You'll need to explain the point you're trying to make. It's not at all
>> clear to me what problem you're thinking of, so I can't evaluate whether
>> it makes any sense to worry about that problem.
> 
> In terms of hardware, the actual gates being used, both 1's complement
> (mainly because of the double 0) and signed magnitude are expensive.

Which is very different from being impossible, which is what would need
to be the case to support your argument. The other ways of representing
signed integers have their own peculiar advantages, or they would never
have been tried. When our current technologies for making computer chips
have become obsolete, and something entirely different comes along to
replace them, with it's own unique cost structure, the costs could
easily swing the other way.

I don't know whether this particular assumption will ever fail. But if
you make a habit of relying on such assumptions, as seems likely, I can
virtually guarantee that one of your assumptions will fail. Code which
avoids making unnecessary assumptions about such things will survive
such a transition; the programmers who have to port the other code will
spend a lot of time swearing at you.
-- 
James Kuyper

Thread

C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
  Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 22:33 -0500
  Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:58 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 21:06 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:24 -0500
  Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 07:51 +0000
    Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:15 +0100
      Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 06:53 -0400
        Re: C programming in 2011 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:12 +1200
      Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 00:39 +0100
        Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:38 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-01 22:34 +0100
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 21:42 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
    Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 03:41 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-28 00:46 +0000
    Re: C programming in 2011 Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:09 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 15:07 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-27 07:42 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-27 07:30 -0400
    Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 01:15 +0300
      Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 22:24 +0000
        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 16:08 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:47 +0000
            Re: C programming in 2011 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-28 16:58 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:49 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-29 11:13 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> - 2011-06-04 08:05 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:20 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 14:35 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:49 -0700
                OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:13 -0500
                Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-30 12:17 -0400
                Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:52 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 23:58 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-30 14:42 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-30 17:40 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2011-05-30 22:38 +0200
                Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-30 00:38 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:14 +0300
              Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-29 06:55 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:47 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 15:02 +0300
        Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:01 +0300
          Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-30 08:51 +0000
            Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-31 01:54 +0100
              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:00 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 16:44 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:43 -0700
  Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:13 +0100
  Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:04 +0200
    Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:21 +0200
      Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 17:23 +0200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 19:15 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:29 +0000
            Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:10 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-26 17:35 +0000
            Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:53 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-26 11:13 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 21:57 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:13 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:06 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 17:57 +0000
            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 11:31 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 20:43 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 14:53 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:03 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 01:59 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 02:55 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 06:36 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 05:57 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 09:23 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 07:50 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 01:46 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-01 10:07 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 04:12 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 07:46 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-06-01 16:28 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:28 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 21:24 -0600
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:04 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 08:21 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:37 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:52 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:00 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:19 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:53 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:41 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:12 +0200
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:28 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:38 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 01:00 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 09:13 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 02:52 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 11:41 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 05:53 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 06:49 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 14:18 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-02 21:02 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 23:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 08:37 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:49 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 11:52 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 11:11 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 18:23 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 18:59 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 19:48 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:02 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 12:19 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 13:40 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:11 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:24 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:34 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 17:10 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 17:34 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-04 09:47 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 10:02 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 12:17 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 08:48 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 10:35 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.jpem8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 23:32 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 00:12 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.5k8u2@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 05:18 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 08:16 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 18:06 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.zourz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 21:25 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 01:14 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.donaz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 04:36 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 09:02 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.k6ruq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 18:36 -0500
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 10:14 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 19:56 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 14:54 +0200
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 13:07 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-01 14:10 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 19:58 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:07 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 09:29 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-06-07 02:18 -0400
                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 09:31 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-06-09 14:55 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 02:35 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:57 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0200
  Re: C programming in 2011 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 12:27 -0400
  Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:02 +0100

csiph-web