Switching to C#

[Rick C. Hodgin]

All,

I'll never leave C/C++, but having had occasion recently to use C#
recently I will be leaving these groups for daily monitoring, for
major new development and related activity. I'll only be back here
periodically.

I've enjoyed and appreciated the help you've given me over the
years. My skills have improved by your input and tutelage, and
I owe specific knowledge to certain people (Ben for understanding
the term "discriminating union," for example).

There are several people here I will miss, and I wish all of you
well.

Take care.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Szyk Cech]

Hi!

> I'll never leave C/C++, but having had occasion recently to use C#
> recently

It is clear to me that God leaves you. C++ is the best portable, objec
oriented and compileable language as of today.

I can tell you in secret that:
God encourage me to perform some misson on Earth and promises help me
dialy as long as I will not criticise him. One of his influence was my
"self" development (in days when I don't know much about programming and
whole Computer Science). So: some how I decided at first to learn binary
nuber system and then Asembler to know how computers work, next I
decided to learn straight C++ (and C as part of it), then I learn Sql
databases. Every of these I learn in so success full way so I be able to
get work as programmer just after technical high school (in spite of
that I was very proly educated electronic).

Now few words abotu your "mind dissabled" "discovery" called: C#.
How can you tell it is better than C++? It has virtual machine (VM)
writen in C++. True wise programmers write in C++ because it is fast and
this is freedom of life and expressions. So M$ programmers write in C++
and only they marketings believe that some other programmers are so
stupid to adict to M$ specific language, and by desing slow down by VM.
The same you can tell about Java.

Another use full wisdom: 80% of language power lies in his libraries. So
don't tell me that some thing is imposible for C++ or easiest in C# -
this is matter of libraries only! Qt shows that C++ is able to be
comfortable for programmer (however they betrayed C++ in flavor they own
"mind dissabled" "discovery" called Qml == JavaScript variant).

More thinking and less stupidity!
best regards
Szyk Cech

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/12/2019 11:32 AM, Szyk Cech wrote:
> ...C++ is the best portable, objec

> oriented and compileable language as of today.

C++ is desirable in many ways, but not all ways. Many programming tasks
do not require maximum performance, but only adequate performance, and
instead do require high productivity for developers.

If you write business apps, writing them in Visual Basic is probably
completely adequate for 98% of them, and that's a lot of applications
and a lot of business in the U.S.A., for example.

> One of [God's] influence was my "self"

> development (in days when I don't know much about programming and whole
> Computer Science). So: some how I decided at first to learn binary nuber
> system and then Asembler to know how computers work, next I decided to learn
> straight C++ (and C as part of it), then I learn Sql databases. Every of
> these I learn in so success full way so I be able to get work as programmer
> just after technical high school (in spite of that I was very proly educated
> electronic).

I started in assembly and XBASE, then went to C, later C++ and extended
XBASE languages like Visual FoxPro (an object-oriented version of XBASE).
I've branched out to various other languages over the years, but more or
less my daily development has been C/C++ and VFP, along with some Java.

> Now few words abotu ... C#.

> How can you tell it is better than C++?

I never said it was better. It's more productive.

> It has virtual machine (VM) writen in
> C++. True wise programmers write in C++ because it is fast and this is
> freedom of life and expressions. So M$ programmers write in C++ and only they
> marketings believe that some other programmers are so stupid to adict to M$
> specific language, and by desing slow down by VM. The same you can tell about
> Java.

I write in multiple languages. Even when I wrote Java, I wrote many
functions in C++ using JNI. And I've discovered in C# that there are
delegate functions and marshaling abilities which allow me to transfer
C# types and receive them in C++ DLLs as other types. Visual Studio
even allows me to do native debugging (switching between C# code into
a C++ function, and be able to STEP-INTO that C++ function, or if there
is a delegate callback from C++ into C#, to STEP-INTO that C# function).

It's a very powerful language, mature, and it has strong familiarity
due to its C/C++ derivation.

> Another use full wisdom: 80% of language power lies in his libraries. So
> don't tell me that some thing is imposible for C++ or easiest in C# - this is
> matter of libraries only! Qt shows that C++ is able to be comfortable for
> programmer (however they betrayed C++ in flavor they own "mind dissabled"
> "discovery" called Qml == JavaScript variant).

For business apps, C# has WinForms and a forms designer IDE for rapid form
development. It has a huge host of library support, and a wide range of
examples online in how to code.

In less than a week I took my Visual FreePro, Jr. database engine and
created a class in C# that integrates every function in a way that exposes
that data natively in a way that's easy to use.

It's proven to be a most effective language, and one which interoperates
in every needful way with existing C/C++ code. You can even use pointers
in C# in unsafe code blocks, and native structure types. It allows non-
forward declaration use of all types.

It removes many hurdles seen in C/C++ code in my experience. And the
fact that it runs in a VM means I can write it once and run it on any
machine (save the machine-native DLL support, which would be fairly
easily re-compiled anyway).

> More thinking and less stupidity!

I would like to suggest a couple things for you to think about: First,
it's not a good idea to criticize people's faith in God, but only to
bring to the individual's attention those things they do which do not
align with the requirements of God, either in their faith (as being a
hypocrite), or if they believe in something that you don't believe in,
to challenge them to examine their religion and see if it truly pro-
vides what they think it provides.

Second, you seem to think that because I made the decision to leave CLC
and CLC++ as my primary focus in USENET that I am somehow abandoning
C/C++ development, or that I had not given it any thought in making the
switch.

I will never leave C/C++. I have hundreds of thousands of lines of code
I've personally written in it. Well-debugged, well-in-use daily code that
I have no intention of re-writing. However, I have a need to move on from
Visual FoxPro. Moving into C# is a natural progression given my skillset,
and it's one I'm happy to pursue.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <qdr3vq$c0e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>All,
>
>I'll never leave C/C++, but having had occasion recently to use C#
>recently I will be leaving these groups for daily monitoring, for
>major new development and related activity. I'll only be back here
>periodically.

Oh no!!!!!

Where we will get our daily dose of religious bullshit from???

How will we ever survive?

Who will step up to fill the void?

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ModernXtian

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Its been a while since I used C#. It was for mocking up a quick GUI. I
also like to create the meat of the logic in C, or C++ and make it into
a little webserver, then use HTML5 canvas for the interface.

[Mr Flibble]

You are finally fucking off? Great news. Oh, and C# is a bag of shite BTW.

/Flibble

--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Szyk Cech]

W dniu 12.06.2019 o 18:04, Rick C. Hodgin pisze:

> I would like to suggest a couple things for you to think about:  First,
> it's not a good idea to criticize people's faith in God

Don't get me wrong:
1. I do not criticse faith in God.
2. I believe in God.
3. I don't believe in Pope (and catholics priests) claims.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

It can create fast graphics... The C code generates a GLSL shader and
uploads it to the HMTL5 GUI.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 6/12/2019 8:01 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a
spin. :^) Send me an ISO.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/12/2019 10:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> C# is a bag of .. BTW.

I find that to be an inaccurate assessment. C# is proving to be quite
a powerhouse language. It also uses keywords which make it clear in
source code what you're doing, such as "ref" and "out" to indicate which
parameters passed to a function are by reference, are output, etc.

It has a nice delegate syntax. You don't have to declare everything
before you use it. It's got an excellent debugger interface. Nice
built-in exception handling.

I wouldn't use it for high-speed apps, but for all business apps, all
GUI-based apps that aren't games, all general purpose apps... it looks
very nice. It's also VM-based, so it works across platforms without
changing a single line of C# code.

Not too shabby.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/13/2019 3:06 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a spin. :^)
> Send me an ISO.

Will do. I'm still working on developing those games I mentioned pre-
viously. It will probably be another year or so until I release CAlive
compared to my original timeline.

Life sometimes punches you in the face. It's one of the reasons we all
need Jesus. While this life is hard, the one He intended for us, and
the one He restores us to, is not. If you read Genesis 3:8, the Bible
refers to "the cool of the day" when Adam was in the garden.

The world God gave us was different from today's world. And He's return-
ing soon to restore that which was lost. All those who believe in Christ
before His return will be part of His millennial reign, and will be here
for the full 1,000 years in a body like the angels that never ages, never
tires, but is always at the top of its game. And that's just the pre-
cursor for what comes after in Heaven.

There's so much to learn from the Bible. I encourage you each to invest-
igate it. You've been lied to by the powers that be in this world about
what true Christianity is. It's all about Jesus, and having that daily,
personal relationship with Him. It's not religion. It's love applied
to one's life (with an exclamation point in bold face type).

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Scott]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:49 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You don't have to declare everything before you use it.

Many people, including myself, consider that to be a bad thing.

[Jens Stuckelberger]

In article <qdr3vq$c0e$1...@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>All,
>

>I'll only be back here periodically.

You have an historic opportunity to take your religious drivel to
a different forum, and you are still intending to come back every so
often? Say it ain't so!

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <qe0eeb$3ov$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Maybe I should start assuming the role formerly played by Rick.

I think I've got the drill down pretty well. Mostly just cut and paste
from various Babble sites and so on.

Let me think about this.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:

http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/DanaC

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Many other people, including myself (and the authors of Go, including
Ken Thompson demonstrating his evolutionary view of the necessity of
forward declarations given modern CPU performance in compilation),
consider it to be a wonderful thing.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/14/2019 11:28 AM, Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> You have an historic opportunity to take your religious drivel to
> a different forum, and you are still intending to come back every so
> often? Say it ain't so!

I have searched for a C# Usenet group but haven't found an active one.
I had not intended to be on Usenet for C# programming.

My interests in C/C++ have not changed, nor in CAlive. I just won't
be here reading on a regular basis.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

You mean not declaring things at all, or not declaring them before first
use?

I find lack of out-of-order declarations in C, to be a considerable
pain. Although I think this mainly applies to functions.

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[Mr Flibble]

Nobody cares.

[David Brown]

As a Python user, I find being able to use things without declaring them
to be a major source of errors, so I would not like that to be possible.
As far as I can tell about C# (having read a small amount, but never
used it), you need to declare variables before using them.

Maybe functions can be used without declaring them first (as long as
they are declared later). That does not seem unreasonable to me. I am
not personally bothered that you need to declare functions before using
them in C, but I understand that it is an inconvenience to some people.
And I would rather that the language allowed calling functions before
they are declared than the mess some people write with long reams of
forward function declarations at the start of C files.

[Bonita Montero]

>> You don't have to declare everything before you use it.

> Many people, including myself, consider that to be a bad thing.

With todays IDEs it's not a pain when there aren't any forward
-declarations. Just right-click at the symbol and click the
option to guide to the definition.
I like C++ but I don't think forward-declarations are an adantage.

[Bart]

On 15/06/2019 17:49, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You don't have to declare everything before you use it.
>
>> Many people, including myself, consider that to be a bad thing.
>
> With todays IDEs it's not a pain when there aren't any forward
> -declarations. Just right-click at the symbol and click the
> option to guide to the definition.

What good does that do? This is not about finding the definition. It is
having to ensure that when writing this (or copying it, moving it,
pasting it):

fn(a,b,c);

that either a definition or declaration of fn has been encountered prior
to this point.

> I like C++ but I don't think forward-declarations are an adantage.

It's a language issue. If the IDE does take care of it, it means it's
generating the necessary code, and also means you aren't strictly
writing in C or C++, but a version of it doesn't need you to explicitly
take care of such things.

If further means there there /is/ a need to deal with that nuisance.

[Scott]

There are ways. Long ago I wrote an assembler that avoided forward
declarations by making two passes over the source. C doesn't do that,
for reasons.

C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.

[Keith Thompson]

nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
[...]

> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.

No, it doesn't. Calling an undeclared function has been a constraint
violation since C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule.

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

[Bonita Montero]

> What good does that do? This is not about finding the definition. It
> is having to ensure that when writing this (or copying it, moving it,
> pasting it):
>    fn(a,b,c);
> that either a definition or declaration of fn has been encountered
> prior to this point.

There aren't any declarations with .net / Java so there isn't such a
problem.

[Scott]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:31:13 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
wrote:

>nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
>[...]
>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>
>No, it doesn't. Calling an undeclared function has been a constraint
>violation since C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule.

Apparently not a fatal one. gcc 7.4 with -std=c99 warns, but builds it
anyway.

[Bonita Montero]

> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.

Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.

[Keith Thompson]

As I said, it's a constraint violation. That means that a conforming
compiler must issue a diagnostic message. It's not required to be
fatal. In fact the only construct that required a fatal error is the
"#error" directive. (I personally wish gcc were more strict, but that's
a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

The lesson is that warnings from C compilers should be taken *very*
seriously.

"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic" results in a fatal error.

[Keith Thompson]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".

In C90, this:

int main(void) {
some_function();
}

was valid, and would implicitly assume that some_function has been
defined with no parameters and a return type of int. (And if that
assumption were violated, you'd have undefined behavior.)

[David Brown]

It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you
use functions properly before declaring them. When a function is used
with an implicit declaration, it is treated as taking an unknown number
of unknown type parameters, using default argument promotions, and
returning an int. If there is a definition (or prototype declaration)
of the function found later in the code, the compiler does not go back
and correct the earlier usage. So as you say, relying on implicit
declarations is a bad idea.


It is also important to note that C++ is a bit more flexible here. When
declaring a class, functions declared within the class can refer to
members and functions that are declared later in the class. And
template code can refer to identifiers declared later on (as long as
they are declared before the template is invoked).

[Bonita Montero]

>> Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.

> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".
> In C90, this:
>
> int main(void) {
> some_function();
> }

In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

[Scott]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 02:24:25 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>

wrote:

>nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:31:13 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
>> wrote:
>>>nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
>> Apparently not a fatal one. gcc 7.4 with -std=c99 warns, but builds it
>> anyway.
>
>As I said, it's a constraint violation. That means that a conforming
>compiler must issue a diagnostic message. It's not required to be
>fatal. In fact the only construct that required a fatal error is the
>"#error" directive. (I personally wish gcc were more strict, but that's
>a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)
>
>The lesson is that warnings from C compilers should be taken *very*
>seriously.
>
>"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic" results in a fatal error.

Hmm. Which gcc are you using? Mine (7.4.0) still gives a warning with
those flags. -pedantic-errors does give an error as I expected. I'm
not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious why we're seeing different
results with the same experiment.

The source snippet I used is this:

int main(void) { return 45 != foo("Hello", 2.5, 45); }
int foo(char *x, double y, int z) { return z; }

[Scott]

[checks Newsgroups header]
[notes presence of C / C++ newsgroups]
[notes lack of Java / .net newsgroups]

[Manfred]

C# works similar to this last sentence of yours. And, since there are no
header files and all function definitions are inside the class
definition, it becomes common that members can refer to others declared
later.
It is as if it does a two pass compilation, so type checking is ensured.

[Keith Thompson]

Sorry, I messed that up.

"gcc -std=c99" should correctly compile all correct C99 programs.

"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic" should do the same and issue all required
diagnostics. In this mode, it should be a conforming C99 compiler.

"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors" turns all required diagnostics into
fatal errors.

[Keith Thompson]

How is that relevant?

Also, when you post a followup please leave the attribution lines in
place for any quoted text.

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:

[...]

>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>>
>
> It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you
> use functions properly before declaring them.

It's even more worth being clear that C does not permit implicit
declarations, and hasn't since 1999.

[David Brown]

On 16/06/2019 23:27, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:
> [...]
>>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>>>
>>
>> It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you
>> use functions properly before declaring them.
>
> It's even more worth being clear that C does not permit implicit
> declarations, and hasn't since 1999.
>

Yes of course, but you had already said that. (And C++ has never
permitted them.)

[Scott]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:24:07 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
wrote:

>"gcc -std=c99" should correctly compile all correct C99 programs.
>
>"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic" should do the same and issue all required
>diagnostics. In this mode, it should be a conforming C99 compiler.
>
>"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors" turns all required diagnostics into
>fatal errors.

Ah yes, that accounts for it. Thank you for checking.

[Bonita Montero]

>> In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

> How is that relevant?

Ths thread is about C# vs. C/C++.

[James Kuyper]

On 6/15/19 9:58 PM, Scott wrote:
...

> C does allow implicit declarations.

Not anymore

You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting.

It also assumed that the return type was "int". If the definition of the
function returned a type incompatible with "int", the behavior was
undefined.

> I think it's a bad idea, ...

So did my instructor in my first C class, in 1979. So do I. So did the
designer of C++, which is why implicit int has never been a feature of
C++. So did the C committee, which is why they removed it in C99, which
became the new official version of the C standard two decades ago.

> ... and

> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea.

Some compilers provided such warnings even before C99 came out. Of
course, you might still receive only warnings. The only thing that you
can put in a C program that would require a conforming implementation of
C to fail to translate your program is a #error directive, which
explicitly instructs it to fail. That's why wise C programmers pay
attention to all warnings, even the non-fatal ones.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 6/14/2019 5:49 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 3:06 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a
>> spin. :^) Send me an ISO.
>
>
> Will do.

Thanks.


> I'm still working on developing those games I mentioned pre-
> viously.  It will probably be another year or so until I release CAlive
> compared to my original timeline.

If you end up getting some time after you are finished, try to perhaps
put it up on the web. Using WebAssembly or something?


> Life sometimes punches you in the face.

Big time. In very unexpected ways. Ahhh...

Sometimes, Life can:

https://youtu.be/FRRzXDxGQ4g

Well, you know. Stink?


  It's one of the reasons we all
> need Jesus.  While this life is hard, the one He intended for us, and
> the one He restores us to, is not.  If you read Genesis 3:8, the Bible
> refers to "the cool of the day" when Adam was in the garden.
>
> The world God gave us was different from today's world.  And He's return-
> ing soon to restore that which was lost.  All those who believe in Christ
> before His return will be part of His millennial reign, and will be here
> for the full 1,000 years in a body like the angels that never ages, never
> tires, but is always at the top of its game.  And that's just the pre-
> cursor for what comes after in Heaven.
>
> There's so much to learn from the Bible.  I encourage you each to invest-
> igate it.  You've been lied to by the powers that be in this world about
> what true Christianity is.  It's all about Jesus, and having that daily,
> personal relationship with Him.  It's not religion.  It's love applied
> to one's life (with an exclamation point in bold face type).
>

I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I just do
not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I just do
> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

It depends on if you have sin or not.

In this current age, in our society, for those who never came
to Jesus, they will die in this world and "go to sleep" the
Bible teaches. They will remain asleep until Judgment Day when
they will be awakened, summoned by name to the Great White Throne
judgment by God. People will be judged by what they did in this
world, as God has commanded all our acts, words, thoughts, etc.,
be recorded for that day. Those books will be opened and we will
each give an account of our lives to God, self-condemning our own
souls in the process.

For the one who believes in Jesus, who has asked to be forgiven
for their sin, they do not have anything recorded in the books to
condemn them. It's all been taken away by God, supernaturally
transferred to Jesus at the cross. He died with our sin. He
stood before God guilty of what we had done. God punished Him
instead of us so that our sin was punished. So we will come to
a different type of judgment before God. It will be a place to
receive rewards for our service to Him. No condemnation, only
accolades.

For the one with their own sin, the judgment will be final. One
sentence carried out: human souls tossed headlong into the Lake
of Fire:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&version=NIV;KJV

God doesn't WANT to judge anyone:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A9&version=NIV;KJV

He wants to save everyone. But only those who have their sin
forgiven by Jesus will be saved. The rest will be cast into
Hell forever.

God keeps His Kingdom clean. He has rules. Those rules are
not burdensome rules, but more like "Don't touch the electrical
lines because you could be harmed" type rules. Even God's rules
are designed to give us maximum enjoyment and fulfillment in our
lives, but people still cast Him and His rules into some kind of
tyrant or brute category, rejecting Him for their thoughts about
Him, never taking the time to realize their thoughts about Him
are wrong, that He's different than they think.

God reaches out His Son to all people in this present age. He
does this to restore human souls, to take them out of judgment,
to make a way back to Heaven, back to eternal life, back to an
ongoing and right and proper relationship with God.

He lives us. He's willing to forgive us because of that love.
But we must come to Him acknowledging our sin, repenting of it,
asking Him for forgiveness. All who do are saved. The rest re-
main damned.

I saw a YouTube video about this recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GN5SN1yrn8

Jesus is returning soon. Those not saved will go through a seven
year tribulation. Most will die during this time. A remnant will
be saved. After the seven years Jesus returns to setup His 1,000
year Millennial Kingdom. At the end of that 1,000 years, then
comes Judgment Day.

Read about it, Chris. You must be saved by Jesus Christ in order
to enter into Heaven.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[Mel]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<invalid_chris_t...@invalid.com> wrote:
> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I
just do
> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

You are not already there?

--
Press any key to continue or any other to quit

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 6/18/2019 1:46 PM, Mel wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
> <invalid_chris_t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I
> just do
>> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!
>
> You are not already there?
>

Not dead yet. Knocking on wood... :^)

[Melzzzzz]

You are not on Ultimate Good side already?

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 6/18/2019 2:11 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2019-06-18, Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2019 1:46 PM, Mel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
>>> <invalid_chris_t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I
>>> just do
>>>> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!
>>>
>>> You are not already there?
>>>
>>
>> Not dead yet. Knocking on wood... :^)
> You are not on Ultimate Good side already?
>

I always try to be a nice person: Is that good enough?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

God doesn't grade on a curve. The standard to enter into Heaven
is literal perfection.

None of us are or can be perfect in and of ourselves. We require
a savior, someone to take our imperfections (our sin) away from
us, thereby purging us of all inquity in God's sight.

That's what Jesus did at the cross. Innocent before God, guilty
by men, able to have all of our sin transferred to Him so He
would die with it, and we would be released from it.

Without Jesus, everybody is literally going to Hell because of
their sin. Literally billions of people alive today will enter
into Hell thinking all the while they were okay, or they weren't
as bad as so-and-so they know, so they must be in good standing
with God.

It's going to be a shocker for so many. The Bible records that
on the day of judgment there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth. People will be so angry at themselves for not seeking
out the truth they knew in their heart. They're going to realize
they've forfeited their entire future for some temporary sin here
on Earth that, in a short period of time after death, will seem
so insignificant compared to the weight of eternity.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Melzzzzz]

Seems so ;)