Here is how to understand C++ compilers

[Ramine]

Hello,


Here is how to understand C++ compilers..

I have written this, read it carefully:

====
C++ compilers today follow a weak memory model and this is error prone
when you want to reason about sequential consistency when doing parallel
programming.

But Delphi and FreePascal compilers don't reorder loads and stores,
so it is less error prone than C++ on a strong memory model of x86
architecture and on strong memory model of ARM architecture.

This is why i am using Delphi and Freepascal Dynamic Link Libraries
from C++ compilers.
===


Now you have understood the philosophy of C and C++ compilers,
it's that they give much more priviledge to speed than to security, they
look like assembler compilers in this regard, this is why they follow a
weak memory model that is more error prone than Delphi and FreePascal
compilers.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[Bonita Montero]

You are an idiot. Locks are mandantory when you access shared
data-structures and when you use locks, memory-reordering isn't
an issue because when using locks constrains the threads not to
reorder access beyond this locks.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 3:19 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You are an idiot. Locks are mandantory when you access shared
> data-structures and when you use locks, memory-reordering isn't
> an issue because when using locks constrains the threads not to
> reorder access beyond this locks.
>

I am not an idiot Sir Bonita Montero, i have invented many
synchronization algorithms, and i am speaking also
about this synchronization algorithms like locks etc.
when you invent or you design those synchronization algorithms
you have to think about sequential consistency.



Thank you,
Amine mOULAY Ramdane.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Ramine wrote:
> I am not an idiot Sir Bonita Montero...

Bonita is female, Ramine.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 3:19 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

> You are an idiot. Locks are mandantory when you access shared
> data-structures and when you use locks, memory-reordering isn't
> an issue because when using locks constrains the threads not to
> reorder access beyond this locks.
>

Sir Bonita Montero, you have to understand me, i am thinking security
like in Spark and ADA..

Now you have understood the philosophy of C and C++ compilers,
it's that they give much more priviledge to speed than to security, they
look like assembler compilers in this regard, this is why they follow a
weak memory model that is more error prone than Delphi and FreePascal
compilers.

I have invented many synchronization algorithms, and i am speaking also

about this synchronization algorithms like locks etc.
when you invent or you design those synchronization algorithms
you have to think about sequential consistency.

C++ compilers today follow a weak memory model and this is error prone
when you want to reason about sequential consistency when doing parallel
programming.

But Delphi and FreePascal compilers don't reorder loads and stores,
so it is less error prone than C++ on a strong memory model of x86
architecture and on strong memory model of ARM architecture.

This is why i am using Delphi and Freepascal Dynamic Link Libraries
from C++ compilers.

[Bonita Montero]

> I am not an idiot Sir Bonita Montero, i have invented many
> synchronization algorithms, and i am speaking also
> about this synchronization algorithms like locks etc.
> when you invent or you design those synchronization algorithms
> you have to think about sequential consistency.

Writing synchonization-primitves for C++ since C++11 is not necessary
because C++11 supplies almost anything you need with mutexes and con-
dition-variables. Using this means ensures proper memory-odering.
Such things like lock-free structures are beneficial in very rare cases.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

Madam Bonita Montero, you have to understand me, because when you think
security like in Spark and ADA, you don't talk as you are talking,
because in safety-critical systems you have to ensure a high level
of security, like is doing Spark and ADA, this is why your answer is
not acceptable to me.

[Bonita Montero]

>> Writing synchonization-primitves for C++ since C++11 is not necessary
>> because C++11 supplies almost anything you need with mutexes and con-
>> dition-variables. Using this means ensures proper memory-odering.
>> Such things like lock-free structures are beneficial in very rare cases.

> Madam Bonita Montero, you have to understand me, because when you think
> security like in Spark and ADA, you don't talk as you are talking,
> because in safety-critical systems you have to ensure a high level
> of security, like is doing Spark and ADA, this is why your answer is
> not acceptable to me.

That doesn't make wrong what I wrote.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

I was aware of you suggestion to use just synchonization-primitives of
C++ since C++11..

But i have invented many synchronization algorithms that i have
ported to C++, and since Delphi and FreePascal compilers don't reorder

loads and stores, so it is less error prone than C++ on a strong memory
model of x86 architecture and on strong memory model of ARM

architecture, this is why i am using Delphi and Freepascal Dynamic Link
Libraries from C++ compilers.


Here it is, read about my inventions:

C++ synchronization objects library for Windows and Linux:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/c-synchronization-objects-library

[Bonita Montero]

Your "inventions" are useless. C++ supplies everything that is needed.
And no one needs your code with very frequent bug-updates.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 3:59 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Your "inventions" are useless. C++ supplies everything that is needed.
> And no one needs your code with very frequent bug-updates.
>

You are rude and you are getting stupid, where do you find my
SemaMonitor on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable RWLocks
on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable SeqlockX on C++ ?
and where do you find my scalable MLock on C++ ? etc.
you don't find them on C++ and this is the truth.

And i am an experienced programmer and i think that my C++
synchronization objects library is more stable and fast.

[Bonita Montero]

> You are rude and you are getting stupid, where do you find my
> SemaMonitor on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable RWLocks
> on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable SeqlockX on C++ ?
> and where do you find my scalable MLock on C++ ? etc.
> you don't find them on C++ and this is the truth.

You can derive the necessity for such synchronization-primitives
from the frequency that they are implemented / used.

> And i am an experienced programmer and i think that my C++
> synchronization objects library is more stable and fast.

With frequent bug-updates ...

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

And where do you find my following threadpool that scales well and
that supports processor groups on windows and that is NUMA-aware and
NUMA efficient and that eliminates the contention on the consumer
threads side ? etc. You don't find it elsewhere, and you don't find it
in C++

Please look at it and read about it here:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-that-scales-well

You have to reason correctly Madam, i am an experienced programmer
who knows more about programming.

[Bonita Montero]

> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.

I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 4:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.
>
> I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.
>

Hello.....

To madam Bonita Montero, how can i be stupid? read about
this philosophical problem that i wrote and you will know
that i am not stupid, i have learned english fast,
because my native language is arabic and french, we speak
arabic and french in my native country Morocco:

I am a white arab...

I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
And "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.

I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.

So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.

But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:

We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.

And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:

As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system, since the
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and
which facilitates because of its speed of computation as in the case of
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 4:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.
>
> I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.
>

Hello...


How can i be stupid ?

Read also the following that i wrote:

I am a white arab...

Now I will give my explanation of what is consciousness...

I hope that in my previous messages you have understood my explanation
of how the consciousness of time is generated by our brain, I have said
that the brain has a sense of direction that makes it possible to say
that one object is left or on the right and back or front etc., and the
brain is also able to see space in 3 dimensions with the sense of the
gaze for example, that is to say to give coordinates as cartesian or
polar in three dimensions to objects in the space of reality, and also
the brain by means of the sense of touch and the eye is capable of the
sense of the measurement of the magnitudes in the space of reality,
these are ingredients of the brain which gives birth to the
consciousness of time, for consciousness
of time means that for two objects that follow each other, we
are able to feel the existence in space
of the back of the first object (by the sens of the orientation of the
brain)
Which is for example "nothing", and that one also feels the existence in
the space of the back of the second object which is the first object,
and that we are therefore able to associate the back of the second
object to the word "before", and this is how the consciousness of time
is engendered ... now i come to a question even more
important, but what is consciousness really?
i start with an example so that you can understand what
it really is: when you touch your hands with water
very hot, you are able to feel the pain and
to say that it is you who feel the pain, so the meaning
of touch is closely linked to the consciousness of the "I", but
Let us return, if you like, to the experiences of a child,
you will notice that a necessary condition for the child
to be able to learn and understand is to be able to
ask the question of "what is", but you see this question has as a
necessary condition the consciousness of the self, for when the child
arises, question of "what is" is that it would mean:
"I would like to know what it is", and the "I would like to know"
demonstrates the presence of a consciousness of the pre-ego which
guide the questioning of the child, but then what is this
awareness of the pre-ego that guides the questioning that
makes a consciousness too? Here is my answer: I believe that
as in the case of the sense of touch which is in close relationship
with the consciousness of the ego, the act of reflection is also a sens
as the sens of touch that is able to make us feel that
we exist and feel the space in three dimensions, as for touching the
very warm water that allows us to feel that the feeling of hot water
hurts us ... what would I like to say?
that the sens of touch and the sens of smell for example are adjoined
to space-time to give a better consciousness of space-time,
that is, the ideas we have of space-time are not
, for example, just rules of logic, but also are recorded with
sensations of touch and other sensations to give a better
consciousness, so the act of reflection is not just able to logically
reason with simple rules of logic for building more complex logic rules
etc. But it is also capable of associating space-time sensations with
objects that are displaced in a 3-dimensional world, and therefore my
theory makes us see the act of thought as also being also another sens
that resembles the sens of touch , this is my explanation of how the
consciousness and consciousness of the ego is engendered by the brain.

When you say in mathematical logic:

A or B

How do you think you understand this logical rule?
You must go back to your childhood when you were
to learn it, you were told for example there are two balls,
and you had to take just one and give it back, and the teacher
made us understand for example the following: when you want to take two
balls you are informed with gestures that it is NO,
And when you just take one and turn the ball back, you get
to know that it is YES, therefore I affirm that it is thanks to the
existence of space-time which is also a consequence of our interior
sensation of the space-time which gives the consciousness of space-time,
I mean you are able for example with your brain
to feel and understand what BEFORE or BEHIND
Or LEFT or RIGHT, and you are able to feel the
space and to say that it exists and what it is, so you
are able to feel the space-time, and this sensation
in our brain that we have of space-time helps us
to understand the logical rule of: A or B, or the logical rule
of: A and B.

So let us return to the following theorem in mathematical logic:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

So how do you understand the:
If A then B? As in my explanation above, you can not
understand this rule without being conscious and without feeling
space-time, because even if you are a blind person, you can
feel your individuality and your singularity
which is the consciousness of the ego, and this self-consciousness
is a consequence of the sensation in our brain of space-time that allows
us to feel that the object which is
"WE" is different from other objects etc. Then what makes
even the blind man feels the space-time and is capable
to say that this object is before that object in time,
So it is able to understand the logical rule of:
If A then B, and since he is capable of doing so, he is capable, thanks
to the sensation of the space-time
that we have in our brain, that permit us to understand
The following theorem:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

This is my evidence based on the empirical facts
and this proves that mathematical logic is also a consequence
of the sensation that we have in our brain of space-time,
without this sensation we can not, in my opinion, understand
mathematical logic, and since the machine is incapable of
feeling like a human space-time, then
we can not say that artificial intelligence
Is capable of achieving the emergence of
consciousness.


thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:04:08 -0400
Ramine <to...@toto.net> wrote:
> On 3/18/2017 3:59 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > Your "inventions" are useless. C++ supplies everything that is
> > needed. And no one needs your code with very frequent bug-updates.
> >
>
> You are rude and you are getting stupid, where do you find my
> SemaMonitor on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable RWLocks
> on C++ ? and where do you find my scalable SeqlockX on C++ ?
> and where do you find my scalable MLock on C++ ? etc.
> you don't find them on C++ and this is the truth.
>
> And i am an experienced programmer and i think that my C++
> synchronization objects library is more stable and fast.

Your libraries seem useless. That is evident by the frequency with
which you post ceaseless corrections, sometimes only 30 minutes apart.
It seems difficult to believe that anyone uses them.

It also appears that you are not an experienced programmer. This
follows from the fact that you have failed to understand the basic point
which Bonita was making: if you use a C++ mutex, then that automatically
provides the non-reordering guarantees that you find so attractive in
Delphi. That is a language requirement.

You also seem unaware that the default memory ordering in C++ for
atomic variables is sequential consistency, which you also find so
attractive in Delphi. If you want to choose weak memory ordering then
you have to do so explicitly. Having said that, the whole-program
store ordering for atomic variables provided by sequential consistency
is very rarely necessary. In most circumstances acquire/release
ordering on atomics is all that is needed, and more or less comes for
free on x86/64. You cannot write really high performance code with full
sequential consistency.

The fact that you do not understand that seems to show that you are a
novice.

[Bonita Montero]

You're focussed on tiny algorithms. That doesn't make you an experienced
programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
from that point because you are bewildered.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 4:43 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
> The fact that you do not understand that seems to show that you are a
> novice.

You seem to not understand that i am not a C++ programmer, i am
a Delphi and FreePascal programmer, i have learned fast C++ to be
able to port my softwares that i have written in Object Pascal to C++,
and C++ is not difficult for me, because i am an experienced programmer
in Delphi and FreePascal.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 4:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You're focussed on tiny algorithms. That doesn't make you an experienced
> programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
> large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
> from that point because you are bewildered.
>

We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile, and V&V
and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what do you think
is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.

[Bonita Montero]

> We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile,
> and V&V and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what
> do you think is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.

I won't rely on someone like you when planning even a mid-sized
project. You're obviously mentally disordered and bewildered to
an extent that you won't handle such projects with a acceptable
quality. This can be derived from the bug-frequency of your libs,
which are only very tiny projects.
For real-world applications, someone needs much more knowledge
and creativity than for such tiny projects.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Bonita Montero]

> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.

Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.


--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Chris Vine]

You seem to either not understand logic, or you cannot remember what

you wrote a few hours ago. You said:

"C++ compilers today follow a weak memory model and this is error
prone when you want to reason about sequential consistency when doing
parallel programming.

But Delphi and FreePascal compilers don't reorder loads and stores,

so it is less error prone than C++ on a strong memory model of x86

architecture and on strong memory model of ARM architecture."

It is pleasing at least that you now admit that you do not understand
enough C++ to qualify yourself to make these remarks, which were simply
wrong about the C++ defaults. In view of that, can I suggest that you
stop posting your inane remarks about C++ in this newsgroup until you
know something about the subject.

The fact that you need full sequential consistency to understand your
own code also shows that you have a lot to learn about threads before
you can claim not to be a novice. I suggest that you need to read up on
memory ordering and memory barriers before you do anything further.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 4:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

> You're focussed on tiny algorithms. That doesn't make you an experienced
> programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
> large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
> from that point because you are bewildered.
>

And what do you think many are doing here on this forum of C++ ?

They are like following guidelines like ISO for large projects, by
showing how to use meta-programming with templates to simplify
complexity of managing bigger projects, and using constexpr to optimize
like for ROM etc. do you think i am stupid? i am not interested by there
guidelines, because i know what they are doing.

And i have just said also that:

We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile and V&V

and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what do you think
is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.

[Bonita Montero]

> And what do you think many are doing here on this forum of C++ ?

They're not focussed on a very small set of problems like you.
And they post ofen topics which are of interest for much readers
- unlike you.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Real Troll]

On 18/03/2017 20:59, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>
> You're obviously mentally disordered and bewildered to
> an extent that you won't handle such projects with a acceptable
> quality.

He is a Muslim and so by definition he must be mentally sick. He is
just looking for a way to blow himself up. Look what that Muslim did in
France early today.

Why are you getting involved with him? Some of us have kill-filed him
long time ago.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 5:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
>
> Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
> programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
>
>

You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..

I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded of mathematics
at the unversity level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.


You see ?

You don't understand about me.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 5:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
>
> Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
> programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
>
>

Read again:

You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..

I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal in

Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.


You see ?

You don't understand about me.

[Ramine]

She is stupid because she thinks that i am a programmer that have to do
larger projects..

Read again:

You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..

I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.


You see ?

You don't understand about me.

[Bonita Montero]

> You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..

Minutes ago you wrote:

> i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming

Please stop spamming this newsgroup.
Your postings are disturbing and of note for no one.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:14:37 -0400
Ramine <to...@toto.net> wrote:
> On 3/18/2017 5:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and
> >> FreePascal.
> >
> > Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
> > programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
> >
> >
>
> Read again:
>
> You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
>
> I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
> mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal
> in Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
> i am not seeking to do bigger projects.

Oh great. First you admit you do not know enough C++ to qualify you to
comment on C++. Now you admit that you are not even a programmer, let
alone the "experienced programmer" you claimed to be less than an hour
ago.

Can I suggest that you stop posting to any programming related news
groups until you have learnt to program, except for the purpose of
asking questions? For that purpose, you cannot learn to program just by
writing your little toy projects. You need to learn about the
disciplines necessary to write working code, and practise it.

In the meantime, your views on philosophy will, I imagine, be well
received on newsgroups concerned with such matters. This one is not.

[Ramine]

What is you are talking about..

I am using Dynamic Link Libraries of Delphi and FreePascal from C++,
i know how to program in Delphi and FreePascal. So this not an issue.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 5:22 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
>
> Minutes ago you wrote:
>
>> i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming
>
> Please stop spamming this newsgroup.
> Your postings are disturbing and of note for no one.
>

Hello,


You are kind of stupid Bonita Montero...

I am just a technician in Microelectronics, i have got a diploma
of technician in Microeclectronics, and i have succeeded one
year of mathematics at the university level, and i have done
pascal and assembler programming in Microelectronics, i am
not a programmer that has to do larger projects.. and i am
not a software engineer, you are assuming that i am a software
engineer, but i am notm, you are getting stupid y talking
before knowing.

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 5:22 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>> You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
>
> Minutes ago you wrote:
>
>> i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming
>
> Please stop spamming this newsgroup.
> Your postings are disturbing and of note for no one.
>

Hello,


You are kind of stupid Bonita Montero...

I am just a technician in Microelectronics, i have got a diploma
of technician in Microeclectronics, and i have succeeded one
year of mathematics at the university level, and i have done
pascal and assembler programming in Microelectronics, i am
not a programmer that has to do larger projects.. and i am
not a software engineer, you are assuming that i am a software

engineer, but i am notm, you are getting stupid by talking
before knowing.

[Bonita Montero]

You are stupid if you assume your postings are of interest for
anyone here. Please stop spamming this newsgroup. For my part
spam comp.programming.threads, which is is a dead newsgroup,
so your postings don't harm.

--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

[Ramine]

On 3/18/2017 5:49 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You are stupid if you assume your postings are of interest for
> anyone here. Please stop spamming this newsgroup. For my part
> spam comp.programming.threads, which is is a dead newsgroup,
> so your postings don't harm.
>

What are you talking about ?

I am posting rarely on this forum of C++..

I am not seeking to write more on this forum of C++..

It is you who is getting stupid by assuming that i was a software
engineer, so you was talking before knowing and that's not smart.

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:38:18 -0400
Ramine <to...@toto.net> wrote:
[snip]

> What is you are talking about..
>
> I am using Dynamic Link Libraries of Delphi and FreePascal from C++,
> i know how to program in Delphi and FreePascal. So this not an issue.

No, you are persistently missing the point.

The issues are: first, you now admit you know little about C++, even
though you deluged this newsgroup yesterday and today with your views
on the language with great repetition, and have repeatedly done so
before. Secondly your lack of knowledge and the fact that you so
frequently post corrections to your own toy libraries seems to indicate
that you know that they are no good.

To remedy these issues I have suggested that you should read up on
memory ordering and memory barriers, learn the disciplines necessary to
program effectively, and if you are going to express your opinions on
C++ for us then you should learn that language also so you are
qualified to do so. In the meantime you need to accept that you are a
novice and conduct yourself accordingly.

Have you got the point yet?

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:52:58 -0400
Ramine <to...@toto.net> wrote:
> On 3/18/2017 5:49 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > You are stupid if you assume your postings are of interest for
> > anyone here. Please stop spamming this newsgroup. For my part
> > spam comp.programming.threads, which is is a dead newsgroup,
> > so your postings don't harm.
> >
>
> What are you talking about ?
>
> I am posting rarely on this forum of C++..

Err, in the last 2 days (since 16 March inclusive) you have posted 59
times on this news group. That is far, far in excess of other posters,
and was mostly repetitive rubbish.

Your ad hominem remarks about certain posters on this newsgroup are also
completely unacceptable, tempered only by the fact that you appear to
be ill.

> I am not seeking to write more on this forum of C++..

Please ensure you don't.