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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #347117

Re: Developers Not Programmers

From Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: Developers Not Programmers
Date 2016-03-21 21:47 +0000
Organization NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Message-ID <ncpq5r01k35@news3.newsguy.com> (permalink)
References <ncjba801dga@news4.newsguy.com> <ncmt3d$j7v$1@dont-email.me> <ncn0np215qs@news6.newsguy.com> <ncp6rt$k3j$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:21:14 -0400, DFS wrote:

>
> You worship a language that still has no String data type 
> (null-terminated array of chars...  heh!).  That didn't have booleans 
> until 25 years after it was introduced? 
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What a demented jerk!

In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data
type.  A string is an array of unsigned byte (char) values
and that's exactly how C defines it.  All other languages
obscure the machine with their unnatural and abstract string
data types.

Furthermore, any "string" type must be accompanied by the necessary
"garbage collection" routines.  Stack variables may disappear but anything
on the heap, like strings, have to be memory managed.  C avoids such
built-in overhead because it seriously degrades performance and hence
C avoids the unnatural "string" data type.

Secondly, there is absolutely no need for a special "boolean"
data type.  Any pair of values based in hardware types could,
in principle, suffice.  C happens to consider any value or expression
that is non-zero or evaluates to non-zero to be TRUE.  Zero is FALSE.
In C this adds flexibility and allows such things as "if(expression)"
or "while(expression)" to be perfectly "boolean" in character.

C is a language that is very close to hardware structure.  It would be
silly to define things in C that have no direct hardware counterpart.


>
> It's also extremely unintuitive: 
>
> I posted the following to comp.lang.c in May 2014, asking why it 
> executed printf twice.  The fix stumped a bunch of gurus, and we talked 
> about it for 5 days.  The thread was "Why does my simple while loop 
> printf 2x?" 
>
> [snip extremely shoddy and laughable C code]
>
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

If it required FIVE DAYS of discussion to arrive at an answer, then
not only YOU but that whole fucking group are a pack of severely
retarded dumb-fuck assholes.

In the first place, that little code snippet is atrocious.  If that's
your idea of gathering user input then you should be shot for unforgivalbe
incompetence.  There are so many things wrong with that crap it would
make even a novice C programmer shriek with disbelief and frustration.
Only a brain-dead dumb-fuck like you could ever produce it.

Just to begin, one never ever exits a loop of any kind using a "break"
instruction.  Such behavior harks back to the "spaghetti" code of the
children's BASIC language.  C is for producing structured code that
uses clear logic to exit loops.

To just mention one more thing, user input on a basic level is better
handled through the scanf() function -- but I will say no more about
this mess of shit code.

Why does the printf() execute twice?

Because it has no fucking choice.  There is no fucking mystery.

TWO CHARACTERS are input and that is how the stupid loop handles two
characters, by executing twice.

One must undersand that the ctype function getchar() operates on a
data "stream" and in this case that data stream happens to be STDIN.

STDIN, coming from a Unix terminal, has two different modes: cooked
and raw.  The default mode is "cooked," which means that the STDIN
stream is first processed before being sent to the executing program.
In this case, the stream is not sent until the "Enter" key is pressed
and thus there are TWO CHARACTERS sent to the program, a key character
and a newline character (hexadecimal 0x10).

We can now discuss another atrocious aspect of this ridiculous code.
This kind of input is far better done with ncurses library functions
that will allow better control of the terminal characteristics and
insure better compatibility accross different systems.  IOW, the exact
behavior or your asinine code will be hard to predict on differnt
systems.

Also, because getchar() operates on streams the return value is
of type integer, but you have used the type char to store the
returned value.  Although type int can implicitly be cast into
type char, a return value of type integer is ALWAYS recommended.
In this stupid case it makes no difference but in other kinds of
streams it certainly will make a BIG difference.

Lastly, regarding your claim that C is "extremely un-intuitive"
I will only say this:

C is un-intuitive to YOU because you have no understanding or
comprehension of hardware principles or system operation.  To those
who do understand these things C is perfectly natural and eminently
intuitive.

My advice to you is to stay away from C.  You have not the competence
to apply it properly.  You should stay with the baby-brained programmers
and use C# and VB.  Those languages are made for stupefied assholes.

C is for men, not retarded babies.

Thanks for posting.  You have demonstrated to the world that you
are indeed the dumbest of dumb-fuck shills.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-19 10:57 +0000
  Real programmers use C++ John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 05:09 -0700
    Re: Real programmers use C++ Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:11 -0700
    the umpteen layers of abstraction inside of the Linux DE John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:39 -0700
  Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0400
    Re: Developers Not Programmers 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-03-20 20:33 +0000
  Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 15:22 -0400
    Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:01 +0000
    Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:21 +0000
      Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 12:21 -0400
        Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0000
          Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 17:48 -0400
            Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 22:28 +0000
            Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 20:06 -0400
          Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 00:35 +0100
            Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 09:38 +0000
              Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:53 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:11 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:23 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:41 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:51 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 11:54 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:11 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:36 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:28 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:48 -0400
              Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:05 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-22 14:11 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:39 +0100
              Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 15:57 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 21:40 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 22:25 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 02:47 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:51 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:38 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 00:08 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:37 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 13:36 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:57 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-24 06:45 -0500
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 10:26 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 22:07 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 10:11 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-24 11:32 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:27 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 21:40 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:50 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-25 21:56 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 19:43 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-25 19:49 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 01:05 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:04 +0000
                Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:42 +0000
                Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 12:27 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 22:42 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 22:25 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 00:42 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:50 -0700
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 09:52 +0200
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-27 14:56 -0700
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.dead> - 2016-03-26 17:36 -0500
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 20:09 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:52 -0700
                Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-26 02:42 +0000
            Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 07:25 -0500
              Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:52 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:03 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:38 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 02:09 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:50 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 11:33 +0100
                Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 07:04 -0500
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 08:49 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0500
                Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 21:48 +0000
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 11:11 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 10:17 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:01 -0400
                Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 23:57 -0400
          Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:58 -0400
            Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:20 +0100
              Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 14:46 -0500
              Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 15:04 -0700
              Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:09 -0400
    Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-20 22:42 +0100
      Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-20 19:22 -0400
        Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 01:01 +0100
          Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 08:18 -0400
            Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 15:03 +0100
        Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-20 21:08 -0400
      Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 21:07 -0400
  Re: Developers Not Programmers Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-03-22 14:25 +0000
    Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-25 14:36 -0400

csiph-web