OT: RIght
Jan Panteltje
Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
And the C programmiong language.
Well deserved!
Tim Wescott
Prompt, too.
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Greegor
JP > Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
JP > http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
JP >
JP > And the C programmiong language.
JP > Well deserved!
TW > Prompt, too.
LOL
John Larkin
C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
gest us out of this mess.
John
Martin Brown
C was a good solution of its time for writing operating systems. I
preferred some of the syntactic sugar of BCPL notably tagged $(.
Industry chose to go for weakly typed badly behaved languages that were
quick to compile and suited hackers. It doesn't make much sense today to
use tools that are so prone to facilitating bad coding, but we are where
we are. CPU cycles are cheap and getting cheaper whilst human cycles are
expensive and well trained ones getting rarer.
Computer science and military went towards strongly typed and harder to
use languages like Algol, Modula and Ada. It depends what you want - if
time to market is everything then the hackers win every time and
customers suffer the consequences. HMRC appear to have mislaid £1$b or
so of National Insurance comtributions in the UK according to a recent
computer audit - all due to "improved" software.
Not clear to me that the second generation languages will ever be sorted
out. It will need a paradigm shift equivalent to the jump between
autocode and true HLL compilers to bridge the gap between demand for new
reliable software and ability to supply it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<ogd0k65q8n07j3fli...@4ax.com>:
But I wrote that especially to wake you up :-)
I am happy with C, and C libraries, and Unix.
So is Jobs, Android, Linux, universities.
As long as I can write stuff like this is an evening what more could I want?
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/spec1.gif
Just got a nice scintillation crystal.
C or an OS is not a purpose or goal in itself, it is a tool.
If you do not know how to use a tool it is your problem.
There may be other tools that can do the same (your BA-SICK for example),
but that is irrelevant.
C and Unix has a much wider base and more powerful libraries available.
I only used:
grml: ~ # whereis xscpc
xscpc: /usr/local/bin/xscpc
grml: ~ # ldd /usr/local/bin/xscpc
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7eef000)
libforms.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so.1 (0xb7e5e000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7e39000)
libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0xb7e2b000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7cf9000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f18000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7ceb000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb7c2c000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0xb7c28000)
And takes no space either on most system, as those libs are already present
grml: ~ # l /usr/local/bin/xscpc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 27892 2011-01-26 16:26 /usr/local/bin/xscpc*
< 28 kB.
Wonder how much the MS bloat would need, probably 400 MB for install to begin with LOL.
C is simple, here is your first lesson, compile it with
gcc -o test test.c
then run it like this:
./test
/* test.c */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int we_have_fun = 1;
while(we_have_fun)
{
fprintf(stdout, "whoopy\n");
}
}
Jan Panteltje
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in <5aX%o.419$Y8....@newsfe06.iad>:
>On 26/01/2011 14:57, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
>>> Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
>>> http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>>>
>>> And the C programmiong language.
>>> Well deserved!
>>
>> C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
>> gest us out of this mess.
>
>C was a good solution of its time for writing operating systems. I
>preferred some of the syntactic sugar of BCPL notably tagged $(.
>
>Industry chose to go for weakly typed badly behaved languages that were
>quick to compile and suited hackers. It doesn't make much sense today to
>use tools that are so prone to facilitating bad coding,
Bit short sighted.
If you are a moron then your coding will look like that.
If you give a monkey a typewriter it will make a LOT of errors.
You can give a monkey an automated machine that uses words from a dictionary,
and it will type nonsense without any spelling errors.
You can give a monkey an automatic translation program,
and it will happily translate Chinese into English by hitting a button,
but it will still look weird.
You can give a monkey a personal human servant to do the work right.
C is a tool, if you do not know how to use it, or are too fragmented in your attention
not to make silly mistakes, should you, with a mind set like that, be allowed to drive a car?
Do you know how many people die in traffic accidents each year?
Does that make cars bad, are you waiting for that project
were all the cars drive behind each other at a fixed distance automatically?
STILL somebody will accidently open a door and fall out.
Oh, but we can automate that door too.
Get a life,.
It is precisely that that people have become weasels and no space exploration is done,
and all chemicals are considered dangerous,
Did you light a match lately? Did you know it can burn down your place?
With humanity going that road it will go the way of the dinos, and mosquitos
will rule, politically incorrect, the earth.
John Larkin
Most programming could some day be done with non-procedural languages,
vaguely LabView sorts of things. The paths through the maze of a
procedural program - much less a multithreaded one - is just more
states than most programmers can manage. It's another order of
infinity.
Ada is better than C because it removes a lot of hazards and allows a
lot of checking... if you want to do a lot of checking. But most
hackers don't have the patience to work in Ada. And it's still
procedural.
Probably the most successful programming language so far is COBOL.
John
John Larkin
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:57:27 -0800) it happened John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
><ogd0k65q8n07j3fli...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
>>>Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
>>> http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>>>
>>>And the C programmiong language.
>>>Well deserved!
>>
>>C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
>>gest us out of this mess.
>>
>>John
>
>But I wrote that especially to wake you up :-)
>I am happy with C, and C libraries, and Unix.
Some people are. Some people can write good C. But big projects, coded
by armies of mere mortals in C, tend to be huge inefficient messes,
and often total failures. How many bugs and hazards has Windows had so
far? Hundreds of thousands? A bug every 10 lines of code? I know of a
bunch of gig projects, millions-of-lines things, that are train
wrecks.
>So is Jobs, Android, Linux, universities.
>As long as I can write stuff like this is an evening what more could I want?
> ftp://panteltje.com/pub/spec1.gif
Decent resolution for a scintillator. But single-evening projects by
one smart programmer aren't the real problem these days. I could have
done something similar in PoweerBasic, or even assembler, but
small-scale methodologies often don't scale.
John
Les Cargill
> On 26/01/2011 14:57, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
>>> Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
>>> http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>>>
>>> And the C programmiong language.
>>> Well deserved!
>>
>> C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
>> gest us out of this mess.
>
> C was a good solution of its time for writing operating systems. I
> preferred some of the syntactic sugar of BCPL notably tagged $(.
>
> Industry chose to go for weakly typed badly behaved languages that were
> quick to compile and suited hackers. It doesn't make much sense today to
> use tools that are so prone to facilitating bad coding, but we are where
> we are. CPU cycles are cheap and getting cheaper whilst human cycles are
> expensive and well trained ones getting rarer.
>
> Computer science and military went towards strongly typed and harder to
> use languages like Algol, Modula and Ada. It depends what you want - if
> time to market is everything then the hackers win every time and
> customers suffer the consequences.
There's an argument that says this is a good "market" solution. And it's
not clear that all the foofraw of strong typing does much of a practical
nature for us. Even 'C' compilers can get pretty persnickety about
typing if you use the right options.
> HMRC appear to have mislaid £1$b or
> so of National Insurance comtributions in the UK according to a recent
> computer audit - all due to "improved" software.
>
Yarg. Sounds more like an organizational psychology problem than
a technology problem to me.
> Not clear to me that the second generation languages will ever be sorted
> out. It will need a paradigm shift equivalent to the jump between
> autocode and true HLL compilers to bridge the gap between demand for new
> reliable software and ability to supply it.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
The political economy of it all probably means that the present
equilibrium will last a very long time. IMO, the paradigm shift happened
decades ago - with LISP.
Hard to write a bootloader in LISP, though.
--
Les Cargill
Joel Koltner
news:5aX%o.419$Y8....@newsfe06.iad...
> Industry chose to go for weakly typed badly behaved languages that were
> quick to compile and suited hackers.
Hey, weakly-typed is better than the no-typing-whatsoever that assembly gives
you. :-)
But I do think you're right -- the kind of guys who develop new technologies
tend to be the hacker/super-programmer types, and they're going to build tools
that emphasize speed and agility over safety; as a particular technology
becomes more mainstream, there's a natural evolution of better safeguarding to
protect the now-more-mainstream users. :-)
> Computer science and military went towards strongly typed and harder to use
> languages like Algol, Modula and Ada. It depends what you want - if time to
> market is everything then the hackers win every time and customers suffer
> the consequences.
That's not always true, though; look at something like OrCAD: The old version
for DOS, developed something pushing two decades ago now, is considerably less
buggy and faster than the Windows version, despite being developed with with
far less capable tools. So I'd argue the main difference is that today the
*mean quality level of programmers* is rather less than it was some decades
back, and *modern tools can sometimes compensate for this* .... but you're
still FAR better off *just hiring really good programmers in the first place!*
(...and having them use modern tools is often a good idea too, when
possible...)
A visit to thedailywtf.com is always useful to see just how bad some
programmers are!
> Not clear to me that the second generation languages will ever be sorted
> out. It will need a paradigm shift equivalent to the jump between autocode
> and true HLL compilers to bridge the gap between demand for new reliable
> software and ability to supply it.
The other big change is trying to figure out how to efficiently/easily support
multi-threaded programming: We've largely hit some upper limits on CPU speeds,
so for the past decade now it's all been about multiple cores, yet today all
the popular languages still leave it up to the programmer to figure out how to
parallelize their code.
---Joel
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<95i0k6p49l9e2c56a...@4ax.com>:
>>But I wrote that especially to wake you up :-)
>>I am happy with C, and C libraries, and Unix.
>
>Some people are. Some people can write good C. But big projects, coded
>by armies of mere mortals in C, tend to be huge inefficient messes,
>and often total failures. How many bugs and hazards has Windows had so
>far?
Microsoft Windows is written in C++ I believe.
C++ is a language deficiency, like a speech problem.
This man is responsible for that:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/
Maybe bs stands for B*llSh*t
Hundreds of thousands? A bug every 10 lines of code? I know of a
>bunch of gig projects, millions-of-lines things, that are train
>wrecks.
>
>
>>So is Jobs, Android, Linux, universities.
>>As long as I can write stuff like this is an evening what more could I want?
>> ftp://panteltje.com/pub/spec1.gif
>
>Decent resolution for a scintillator.
Yes, uses a very nice crystal I bought on ebay.
Very sensitive too.
> But single-evening projects by
>one smart programmer aren't the real problem these days. I could have
>done something similar in PoweerBasic, or even assembler, but
>small-scale methodologies often don't scale.
Scale to what?
The world if full of small embedded stuff, soon all interconnected with IPV6.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
A poor craftsman blames his tools.
If you want to commoditize s/w development, then C isn't the way to go.
Better to stick with a strongly typed, restrictive language and development
platform. But the fixed costs to set up and manage such a development
environment are high. So there's a drive to make everything a big project
so as to recover these costs.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Le Chaud Lapin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:57:27 -0800) it happened John Larkin
> ><ogd0k65q8n07j3flisil94sdlc33vmj...@4ax.com>:
>
> >>On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> >><pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
> >>>Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
> >>>http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>
> >>>And the C programmiong language.
> >>>Well deserved!
>
> >>C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
> >>gest us out of this mess.
There is a very serious class struggle going on right now in the world
of software development.
To use an analogy, there are engineers who feel more comfortable with
trigonometric phasors than Laplace transforms. These engineers are
gradually squeezing out those who see no problem with Laplace
transforms.
It is a sociological complex (no pun intended), that has played out in
every technological field since the beginning of mass application of
technology.
Essentially, the process goes something like this.
1. Some weasel-of-an-engineer figures out a clever way to accomplish
an old engineering task with new, disruptive facility. Think Heaviside
and Laplace transforms, light bubls, airplanes, vaccuum tubes,
transistors, Kalman filters.
2. The peers of the weasel take note. Some attack vigorously, while
others embrace.
Machiavelli's statement about difficulty of establishing new order of
things applies here.
3. There is heavy debate about the merits and demerits of the new
technology.
4. While the debate rages, more than a few companies enrich themselves
by applying new technologies, without fully understanding how the
technology works. They also become famous occasionally. This
phenomenon, becoming rich and famous by using something that is not
quite understood by observers is highly disconcerting to a large
percentage of the human population. At the very least, they want to
feel that they are a part of the process.
Obnoxiousness Begins:
5. The enriched/famous companies catch the eyes of all the other
companies that are not-yet-rich, not-yet-famous.
6. Artisans are hired by not-yet-rich companies to employ the
technology. Some succeed in their application. Most struggle.
7. A kind of stratification builds up between those who are mentally
disciplined and those who are not, those who struggle, and those who
do not.
8. Artisans who struggle are frustrated, and seek to "still become
valuable contributors" in the world of the new technology, but not by
using not the originally-disruptive technology, but something equally
powerful, but not as caustic to learn. No such thing exists. Fred
Brooks warned against such non-sense in his "There Is No Silver
Bullet"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet]
9. Certain engineers who are genetically-predispoed to act as kinds of
"social equalizers" (right-brained pretended to be otherwise) seize
the opportunity to give the wishful-thinkers what they want: a tool
that is not as hard to learn as the original tool, but just as
powerful. [All the new fluffy interpreted programming languages fall
into this category of tools. This accusation, however, must be taken
with a grain of salt. There are cases where a serious engineer might
create a tool for kids to get started, or things of that nature. This
is OK.]
10. Wishful-thinking engineers begin to apply the new tool. Signals
get analyzed, lights get turned on, vehicles fly, signals are
amplified, and objects are tracked; but the inefficiency, relative to
the old disruptive tool, is horiffic. The ratio of actual technical
accomplishment to fluff, like meetings, talking, conferences...becomes
extremely low. No one notices because the process becomes a giant,
masturbatory feast.
11. Managers see the growing disparity of population between competent
engineers and non-competent engineers. Non-competent "Let's just all
use phasors"... begin a subtle class warfare with those who are
competent.
12. In a democracy, the majority wins.
13. The manager has no choice but to acquiesce to the whims of the
non-components, and the skills of the competents are rendered no-
longer-relevant.
14. The companies that prey on the thought pattern of these wishful-
thinking engineers and managers, like Microsoft, who sold the idea
that COM was a cure-all for programming in the 1990's, when in fact,
it simply transferred the burden of accommodating multiple programming
languages from Microsoft to the developers who program using Microsoft
tools; notices unprecendented short-term gains in revenue. Microsoft
made a killing on COM, and many engineers went along with it, because
everyone was getting paid (riding the financial backs of poor non-
technologist end-users who did not understand why it took 18 months to
write simple code to take in name/number/address/etc. onto a web
site). Microsoft is doing it again, this time with .NET.
15. Massive technical inefficiency results on an industry-wide basis.
16. Some clever engineer comes along, sees all the non-sense, and
rights the ship with an even better technological breakthrough.
17. The process repeats itself starting with Step 2.
A few years ago, there was an article online about a company that was
trying to make electrical engineering "accessible to the masses". Just
as there are software engineers who like big, bloated, fat components
that take of 1/8 of available system RAM to run, that which most
people in this group might regard as nearly-finished products, this
company was promoting the idea of EE components, where a *professional
engineer* could assembly a marketable system from things like:
0. encased LED array
1. siren
2. encased RAM bank
3. hard-disk
4. screen
5. keyboard
etc.
Don't laugh: The idea was that a *professional* could become
creatively-proficient as an electrical engineer if the barrier to
entry were lowered sufficiently so that "all could participate",
regardless of their mathematical ability.
[Note the Hegelian, social-equality, odor in this objective.]
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Joel Koltner
news:ihpn7j$d80$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Microsoft Windows is written in C++ I believe.
Which part of it?
Until about Windows Vista, Microsoft themselves didn't write the Kernel using
C++ (just regular C) -- although some 3rd party device drivers were already
being written in C++ about the time Win 2K/XP came out.
For user mode apps, early on C++ was popular, but in the later days of XP and
all of Vista and Win7 the .Net languages have become well-represented too.
> C++ is a language deficiency, like a speech problem.
So what do you think of C#, then? :-)
---Joel
Jan Panteltje
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<v4_%o.331339$ZM.3...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>:
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ihpn7j$d80$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Microsoft Windows is written in C++ I believe.
>
>Which part of it?
>
>Until about Windows Vista, Microsoft themselves didn't write the Kernel using
>C++ (just regular C) -- although some 3rd party device drivers were already
>being written in C++ about the time Win 2K/XP came out.
Well, I used Visual Studio for my work, and that was ++.
I am not a MS widows expert,
and sure in the beginning maybe there was not even C++ (win3.1 times perhaps).
I have read they kept porting 16 bit device drivers and stuff, maybe even just ported the executable code, I dunno.
I *DO* know that most MS windows applications usually ask for a huge 'install space',
crash on a regular basis, and provide little functionality for the code size,
be it the executable itself or the DLLs.
So bloated and crap.
I got so fed up with that stuff that I burned my xp disk and removed the crap and repartitioned
the disk for reiserfs after the second re-install of xp (re-install an OS? insane),
and it finally had it working (took me whole Saturday, just staring at the stupid MS commercials
while xp was 'installing', and then I switched it on Monday morning and it told me my mouse
was a MS mouse, and the cursor was out of control, all aver the screen.
I do not even HAVE a MS mouse, it is a Logitech mouse.
So that did it for me, MS foundation classes, whatever they used, and closed source,
nothing you can fix, lookup, or improve.
I burned the xp disk and made a video from that, it is available for 110$,
you have to accept a non-disclose paragraph, put a sticker on your PC with a special number,
I may come busting into your place it should be there, else you have to pay
thousands of damages to me.
So, anyways, I mean that xp could not even do anything, I tried their video editor,
it was slower than a sick snail.
>For user mode apps, early on C++ was popular, but in the later days of XP and
>all of Vista and Win7 the .Net languages have become well-represented too.
>
>> C++ is a language deficiency, like a speech problem.
>
>So what do you think of C#, then? :-)
I have never tried C#, I have no idea what it is, what it does, and why I should need it.
grml: ~ # uname -a
Linux grml 2.6.21 #1 Fri Jul 17 14:57:16 CEST 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
LTspice runs on Linux in wine (windows emulator), for all other things
I either wrote the application myself or there is one with source code available.
From Open Office (LibreOffice) to cups (printing), from Gimp to imagemagick (pictures),
from dvdauthor to transcode (optical disks), any communication related program you can imagine,
from cryptology to FPGA tools, compilers, assemblers, also for many micros,
cross platform, I could go on for hours,
WHY would anyone need MS bloat.
www.panteltje.com runs on a 10 year old mobo with that kernel,
same PC does the home automation, the video recording, security webcams in H264, satellite recording,
ftp server, mail server, is part of DNS (named), does audio (2 sound cards),
all those things at the same time, plus web browsing, flash 10, xpdf pdf viewers open
and it is not even fully loaded;
top - 20:20:42 up 7 days, 1:28, 10 users, load average: 0.35, 0.41, 0.44
Tasks: 114 total, 6 running, 108 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.0% us, 5.0% sy, 31.7% ni, 58.1% id, 0.0% wa, 1.7% hi, 2.6% si
Mem: 386028k total, 373256k used, 12772k free, 41564k buffers
Swap: 499992k total, 149912k used, 350080k free, 135956k cached
All that in 380 MB of memory.
Sure MS and industry work together to sell you ever more powerful hardware,
the hardware is needed because of the OS bloat, and application bloat.
Soon you will need a 6 core to write an email 'hello world'.
So, I rather stay with this system.
If I need anything that I cannot find, or do not like the available stuff,
or it simply does not exist, then I write it:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
Use open source, and give some back to the pool.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/satellite/index.html
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/subtitles/index.html
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/index.html
Joel Koltner
> So that did it for me, MS foundation classes, whatever they used, and closed
> source,
> nothing you can fix, lookup, or improve.
Just as a point of reference, MFC actually does come with its source code, as
do the C run-time libraries (MSVCRT). Or at least they did last time I had to
use them, some years back...
You're correct, of course, that most of Windows doesn't, though... unless you
happen to work for one the few large companies that has a source license
agreement with Microsquish.
> LTspice runs on Linux in wine (windows emulator), for all other things
Yeah, but if you use WINE you're still condoning the use of the Win32 API
standard, you know? :-)
> Soon you will need a 6 core to write an email 'hello world'.
Well, it's not like modern Linux distributions recommend any less (hardware
power-wise) than Windows does. Windows XP is now over a decade old, after
all!
---Joel
Martin Brown
> On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:57:27 -0800) it happened John Larkin
> <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
> <ogd0k65q8n07j3fli...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
>>> Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
>>> http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>>>
>>> And the C programmiong language.
>>> Well deserved!
>>
>> C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
>> gest us out of this mess.
>>
>> John
>
> But I wrote that especially to wake you up :-)
> C and Unix has a much wider base and more powerful libraries available.
> I only used:
> grml: ~ # whereis xscpc
> xscpc: /usr/local/bin/xscpc
> grml: ~ # ldd /usr/local/bin/xscpc
> linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
> libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7eef000)
> libforms.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so.1 (0xb7e5e000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7e39000)
> libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0xb7e2b000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7cf9000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f18000)
> libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7ceb000)
> libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb7c2c000)
> libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0xb7c28000)
>
> And takes no space either on most system, as those libs are already present
> grml: ~ # l /usr/local/bin/xscpc
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 27892 2011-01-26 16:26 /usr/local/bin/xscpc*
>
> < 28 kB.
I am so impressed. NOT!
That is *huge* for such a minimalist program. The smallest that any of
my tools can make it on a PC compiled with a HLL is JPI/Topspeed
Modula2. The source code is shorter too and a lot more explicit.
MODULE HelloWorld;
FROM IO IMPORT WrStr, WrLn;
BEGIN
LOOP
WrStr("Hello World");WrLn;
END
END HelloWorld.
19.5kB DOS executable with no optimisation (self contained).
Compresses to a 2,644 bytes EXE with PKLITE.
ISTR modern ISO M2 version requires s/IO/InOut/ s/Wr/Write/
Not bad for a compiler that dates back to the mid 1980's.
A modern day compiler would warn that the program never terminates.
Any compilers and smart linkers that can beat 2,644 bytes DOS EXE?
(for "Hello World")
I wonder how big PowerBasic makes it?
> Wonder how much the MS bloat would need, probably 400 MB for install to begin with LOL.
You assume that all compilers on PCs are written by MickeySoft. That is
incorrect - there are other high quality compiler vendors around.
Even the Intel compilers have some interesting features in their profile
directed optimisation and deeper hardware access.
>
> C is simple, here is your first lesson, compile it with
> gcc -o test test.c
> then run it like this:
> ./test
>
> /* test.c */
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<stdlib.h>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> int we_have_fun = 1;
>
> while(we_have_fun)
> {
> fprintf(stdout, "whoopy\n");
> }
> }
How typical of a C hacker to write a trivial program that never
terminates. Obviously never heard of the halting problem.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<lf%%o.7900$rC5....@newsfe03.iad>:
28 kB for the gamma spectrum display program is really small.
It has also a complete terminal emulator build in, and control
functions for the PMT.
Look at the C source (old version):
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
>That is *huge* for such a minimalist program. The smallest that any of
>my tools can make it on a PC compiled with a HLL is JPI/Topspeed
>Modula2. The source code is shorter too and a lot more explicit.
>
>MODULE HelloWorld;
>
>FROM IO IMPORT WrStr, WrLn;
>
>BEGIN
> LOOP
> WrStr("Hello World");WrLn;
> END
>END HelloWorld.
>
>19.5kB DOS executable with no optimisation (self contained).
>Compresses to a 2,644 bytes EXE with PKLITE.
>
>ISTR modern ISO M2 version requires s/IO/InOut/ s/Wr/Write/
>
>Not bad for a compiler that dates back to the mid 1980's.
I dunno, I can probably write that in x86 asm in a few bytes calling BIOS.
Now please write the spectrograph in yo uown language, and then we compare sizes.
It is easy, you have the C source as staring point.
Watch out it is multi-threaded.
>A modern day compiler would warn that the program never terminates.
>Any compilers and smart linkers that can beat 2,644 bytes DOS EXE?
>(for "Hello World")
>
>I wonder how big PowerBasic makes it?
>
>> Wonder how much the MS bloat would need, probably 400 MB for install to begin with LOL.
>
>You assume that all compilers on PCs are written by MickeySoft. That is
>incorrect - there are other high quality compiler vendors around.
>Even the Intel compilers have some interesting features in their profile
>directed optimisation and deeper hardware access.
>>
>> C is simple, here is your first lesson, compile it with
>> gcc -o test test.c
>> then run it like this:
>> ./test
>>
>> /* test.c */
>> #include<stdio.h>
>> #include<stdlib.h>
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> int we_have_fun = 1;
>>
>> while(we_have_fun)
>> {
>> fprintf(stdout, "whoopy\n");
>> }
>> }
>
>How typical of a C hacker to write a trivial program that never
>terminates. Obviously never heard of the halting problem.
Idiot, even a newby knows about ctrl C.
Obviously your brain halted.
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Bye
Jan Panteltje
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Q7%%o.647335$iV7.3...@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com>:
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ihpt0t$mgr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> So that did it for me, MS foundation classes, whatever they used, and closed
>> source,
>> nothing you can fix, lookup, or improve.
>
>Just as a point of reference, MFC actually does come with its source code, as
>do the C run-time libraries (MSVCRT). Or at least they did last time I had to
>use them, some years back...
>
>You're correct, of course, that most of Windows doesn't, though... unless you
>happen to work for one the few large companies that has a source license
>agreement with Microsquish.
>
>> LTspice runs on Linux in wine (windows emulator), for all other things
>
>Yeah, but if you use WINE you're still condoning the use of the Win32 API
>standard, you know? :-)
Yes, it is up to LT to port it to Unix.
But I am very happy with it anyways.
>> Soon you will need a 6 core to write an email 'hello world'.
>
>Well, it's not like modern Linux distributions recommend any less (hardware
>power-wise) than Windows does. Windows XP is now over a decade old, after
>all!
Maybe if it is Novel, or 'Open Suse' or whatever, they are in bed with MS.
Or RatHead, they are money making machines.
But look at this, this is what I run now (old version):
www.grml.org
There are many < 1GB solid state (SDcard) based Linux 'distros' too,
I have Puppee for the eeePC for example.
The whole eeePC is a 4GB FLASH chip with 1 G of RAM.
I have an old Linux on a 128 MB USB memory stick too somewhere.
John Larkin
To big, long-term, multi-programmer projects.
John
John Larkin
PowerBasic Console Compiler:
#COMPILE EXE
#DIM ALL
FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG
LOCATE 10, 10
PRINT "Hiya, world!"
SLEEP 1000
END FUNCTION
compiles to 7 kbytes.
John
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
As an executable sure.
Far easier and smaller to make that executable in assembler.
John Larkin
OK, post your code.
John
Martin Brown
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:57:27 -0800) it happened John Larkin
>> <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>> <ogd0k65q8n07j3fli...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2011 Japan Prizes Awarded to : Dr. Dennis Ritchie and
>>>> Dr. Ken Thompson for the development of UNIX
>>>> http://www.japanprize.jp/en/press.html
>>>>
>>>> And the C programmiong language.
>>>> Well deserved!
>>>
>>> C set the world back by decades. The Nobel prize will go to whoever
>>> gest us out of this mess.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> But I wrote that especially to wake you up :-)
>> I am happy with C, and C libraries, and Unix.
>
> Some people are. Some people can write good C. But big projects, coded
> by armies of mere mortals in C, tend to be huge inefficient messes,
Big projects have other problems related to communications in large
teams and management failures. Creeping specifications or none being th
emost common error. Senior management often pays only lip service to
quality - they want it shipped now to get money in and maximise their
bonuses. Many hardware makers see the software only as a cost of doing
business and do the bare minimum needed to sell their hardware.
Sadly the weak point of C is actually its terse efficiency. The worst
security defect in MS Windows comping from the canonical fast but dodgy
pointer to string copy construct: while (*t++ = *s++);
These days software doesn't have to be brutally efficient except in a
handful of very tight inner loops (graphics rendering for instance).
Most of it would be much better off a bit slower and defensively range
checked - at least in commercial business software.
> and often total failures. How many bugs and hazards has Windows had so
> far? Hundreds of thousands? A bug every 10 lines of code?
I suspect it is slightly better than the industry average at about 1 in
2000 lines of code. It is just that there are a lot of lines.
> I know of a
> bunch of gig projects, millions-of-lines things, that are train
> wrecks.
That should tell you something about programming in the large.
>
>
>> So is Jobs, Android, Linux, universities.
>> As long as I can write stuff like this is an evening what more could I want?
>> ftp://panteltje.com/pub/spec1.gif
>
> Decent resolution for a scintillator. But single-evening projects by
> one smart programmer aren't the real problem these days. I could have
> done something similar in PoweerBasic, or even assembler, but
This is a part of the problem. People think that a trivial one day
project can be scaled to 100 man year projects. Managing a team of
individual programmers with this attitude is like herding cats.
> small-scale methodologies often don't scale.
>
> John
Hurrah!
You are beginning to learn something about large software projects.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<lbk1k6t6cer4a71df...@4ax.com>:
>>> But single-evening projects by
>>>one smart programmer aren't the real problem these days. I could have
>>>done something similar in PoweerBasic, or even assembler, but
>>>small-scale methodologies often don't scale.
>>
>>Scale to what?
>
>To big, long-term, multi-programmer projects.
>
>John
Yes, I have some specific ideas about 'large scale multi programmer projects' too.
Especially in IT in big companies.
Sort of a self propelling mass acquiring thing.
When in the end 100 programmers (example) do the same thing that one good
one could do if they just let him write code.
On that subject you are right.
I have been fortunate never to work in such a 'team'.
But it would be silly to blame it only on the programmers, I think a French
poster quite accurately described it (how that happens) here in the thread.
MS window is an example.
I cannot understand how that con scheme can keep getting so much money out of a 10 cent
DVD filled with bloat.
Their sales department is really good.
It brainwashed most of the world.
I have read that Russia has now mandated open source and Linux for the government
and schools.
They still have a clear view.
John Larkin
Beginning?
John