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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #352324

Re: A maybe interesting code challenge

From Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: A maybe interesting code challenge
Date 2016-04-27 21:48 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nfrpuh$586$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <sandman-12d16528a1215c44f80acc4fd8e897c9@individual.net> <nfon0i$jik$1@dont-email.me> <sandman-ebbc47e852d0466e10672f028475c38e@individual.net> <nfqt8e$1dq$1@dont-email.me> <sandman-c42675c49dd8f55ca954a2fad8b9bfc6@individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/27/2016 05:32 PM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <nfqt8e$1dq$1@dont-email.me>, DFS wrote:
>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> I described it though. IT disregarded the qualifiers
>>>>> and just gave a scalar containing all the parts of no
>>>>> knowledge of what part is a field and what part is a value.
>>>>
>>>> DFS:
>>>> You/anyone can NEVER know that. The user could input everything
>>>> in reverse or jumbled. Which is why I had to write other bloated
>>>> code to make sure they enter only valid field names
>>>> (name,street,city,state,zip)
>>>

Not part of the original post... goal post moved again.

>>> Sandman:
>>> This is incorrect. By using qualifiers, the user states the
>>> placement of the fields, separated by a qualifier.
>>
>> You are incorrect. The presence of an operator (it's not a
>> qualifier) doesn't state the placement of the field.
>
> Sorry, I'm Swedish. But the user would not search using the phrase "*20045
> like zip" or "Washington = city".
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> He's a moron either way.
>>
>> He doesn't seem to think so.
>
> Few morons do. :)
>
>> He claims to be some kind of genius  research scientist in the field
>> of image processing.
>
> I have shot down so many of his moronic threads where he has made absurd and
> idiotic claims of image processing, attributing the functionality of
> ImageMagick (released in 1990) to Linux.
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> I parse, interprete, structure, process and handle data for a
>>> living, yes.
>>
>> After talking with you for just a little, and observing your smug
>> attitude, I can see you 'interpreting' data as you see fit.
>
> Any smugness is totally unintentional. I have only spoken badly about Basic
> and that was a direct response of your arrogance of my preferred scripting
> languages that have proven to be more efficient, faster and easier than your
> examples.
>
>>>> DFS:
>>>> Hope not, but if so that doesn't mean you're right that the
>>>> proper methodology is to always store key-value pairs.
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> It is.
>>
>> ... definitely not.
>
> Incorrect.
>
>>>> DFS:
>>>> That's exactly what my original code does.  That's exactly what
>>>> everybody else has done, too.
>>>
>>>> Do you think you're telling everyone something new? Do you think
>>>> you're the only one who can do that?
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> What is wrong with you?
>>
>> You have a cranky, know-it-all attitude.  Very offputting.
>
> Need I quote you from your first OP again?
>
>    "You - and the slow, bumbling, incomprehensible New/Linux
>     bash and perl  crapware - CANNOT compete.  You know it and I
>     know it.  You're fired for  promoting that hobbyware."
>     / DFS- 04/12/2016
>
> You reap what you sow, my good man. I have been very forthcoming and shown
> you just how incorrect and misplaced that arrogance and attitude of yours
> was.
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> I *specifically* stated that I *skipped* any such step because A.
>>> it's a moronic way to handle data and B. *everyone* knows this is
>>> possible in *any* programming language and as such is not needed
>>> as a part to showcase how the task should be done. It's a mere
>>> nitpick on your part when you realized that 2 lines of PHP code
>>> parsed input data elegantly and easily what took basic some 20+
>>> lines to do
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>> Your 2 lines did NOT do what my 20 lines did. You failed the
>> challenge, then mumbled about "it's just details" because you don't
>> agree with moving the data into those variables.
>

   The challenge as stated was incomplete.

> The actual "challenge" is parsing the input, not to assign variables. Surely
> you're not trying to say that assigning values to variables is something
> unique or special in basic?
>
>>>> DFS:
>>>> So I can send anyone in the [Windows] world a VBScript .vbs file
>>>> and a list of addresses and they can go to town. No db wanted or
>>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> "a list of addresses" *should* be a database. Use a sqlite3 file
>>> if you want to and then query it using sqlite3, instead of a plain
>>> text file.
>>
>> Why would I EVER force every user to install SQLite and an ODBC
>> driver (or a SQLite COM object, or whatever other option) on Windows
>> when I can just give them a .vbs script file?
>
> WTF? Basic hasn't got built in support for even SQLite? See my separate
> thread, no "installation" needed. Everything just comes free with the
> scripting language. All you need are two files - one is the search script and
> the other is a file with all the addresses in sqlite format.
>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> So why was one "like" and the others "=" if the
>>>>> difference isn't important? Why didn't you use "=" in all your
>>>>> examples?
>>>>
>>>> DFS:
>>>> It wasn't important to /this challenge/.
>>>

What happens if the input data contains:

state = GA;name like Like a Virgin Bridal Gowns;zip = 12345
state = ZZ;name like Some like it Hot Sauces
name like Unlikely Suspects Mystery Dinner

>>> Sandman:
>>> If it wasn't important, then don't include it. Luckily, my code
>>> took it into account and made the best of it while yours ignored
>>> it.
>>
>> I didn't include it. I never said a word about the operators. Only
>> you made a big deal out of it.
>
> You did include the operators, though. Do you want me to quote them for you?
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> What. The. Fuck?
>>
>>> A DB has fuck all to do with neither skill nor tools and
>>> everything to do with *SPEED*.
>>
>> I told you 8x it runs fast enough as only-code.
>
> And I have shown you that you're far from "fast".
>

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

Thread

A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:37 -0400
  Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:45 -0700
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:57 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:02 -0700
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 01:54 +0000
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 18:57 -0700
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 02:45 +0000
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 23:01 -0400
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:56 +0000
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 11:06 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 16:13 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 17:27 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 19:07 +0000
  Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 19:01 -0700
  Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 09:37 +0000
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-22 08:33 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:03 +0000
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:22 -0400
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 19:48 +0000
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 17:24 -0400
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:18 +0000
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:26 +0000
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:43 +0000
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:50 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-23 13:07 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 09:58 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 21:48 +0000
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 17:00 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 21:56 +0000
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0400
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-23 15:25 +0000
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 13:14 -0400
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 18:37 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 16:50 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 21:15 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 18:36 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 23:24 +0000
  Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-22 08:21 -0400
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:04 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 00:09 -0400
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 00:18 -0400
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 05:59 +0000
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:46 -0400
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 19:04 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 20:40 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 17:48 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 22:14 +0000
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 23:15 -0400
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 23:30 -0400
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-24 08:52 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-24 10:06 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-24 15:59 +0000
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-24 15:45 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 10:19 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-25 20:26 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 23:24 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:03 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 11:40 -0400
  Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-25 15:14 +0000
    Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0400
      Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-25 18:06 +0000
        Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:41 -0400
          Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-26 18:03 +0000
            Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 17:39 -0400
              Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 05:50 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 06:43 -0500
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 13:11 +0100
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 13:32 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:32 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 15:02 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:17 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 16:21 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 21:39 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:25 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:34 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:37 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:42 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:45 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 18:40 +0200
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:58 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:57 +0200
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:06 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 22:44 +0200
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:38 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:07 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 15:51 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:30 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:38 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 11:33 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 09:14 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 14:17 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 18:49 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:42 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 13:42 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-29 10:54 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 11:20 -0700
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 00:31 +0200
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 19:00 -0400
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-30 10:36 -0400
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-02 07:54 -0500
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-02 15:55 +0200
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:23 -0700
                Snit digest 215 / 2016-05-02 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-02 14:39 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 215 / 2016-05-02 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:54 -0700
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-02 14:36 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:53 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 11:11 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 14:44 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 17:53 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-29 23:56 +0200
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 18:09 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-29 19:09 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:31 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-01 08:21 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 08:47 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-02 14:54 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-02 21:54 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:39 -0600
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:48 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-29 16:57 -0600
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:33 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-28 05:45 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 21:32 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:48 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 22:57 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:44 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 16:32 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 23:05 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:20 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:52 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-29 02:46 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:33 -0700
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-30 09:31 -0400
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:42 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 06:17 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 06:56 +0000
                Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-28 05:46 -0400

csiph-web