What's the purpose of CAlive?

[Chad]

Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 02/11/15 16:05, Chad wrote:
> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

Could you *please* ask this in a newsgroup where CAlive is topical? This
is not that newsgroup.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Jay Braun]

> Could you *please* ask this in a newsgroup where CAlive is topical? This
> is not that newsgroup.
>

Heh-heh, I get your point. But since so much bandwidth of this unmoderated newsgroup seems to have been recently devoted to CAlive, perhaps the author of CAlive can briefly tell us what problems he is trying to solve. I'm looking for 50 words or less.

Jay

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project. It aims
to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.

http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Liberty_Software_Foundation
http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Village_Freedom_Project

In a paragraph:

I want to create a full hardware and software stack to give to
people, one with its roots and foundations built entirely upon
a love offering of the skills and talents we (devout Christian
believers) were first given by the Lord, so as to be an offering
unto Him, and unto mankind, and not one given over to money,
power (control), fame, or other "worldly" attributes.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I'm looking into creating a comp.lang.calive group... but the process is
non-trivial. In addition, there must be people interested in it before
the group will be approved. Apart from interest in bashing it, I don't
see too much interest in it yet, so it's likely to be something which
comes to fruition anytime soon.

[Johannes Bauer]

On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> It aims
> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.

I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.

Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.

I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

Cheers,
Johannes

--
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> > It aims
> > to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> > the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
>
> I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.
>
> Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.
>
> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
Do you have sin in your life with regards to Biblical standards?
Ever had sex outside of marriage? Ever told a lie? Ever stolen
anything? If married, ever even looked after another person with
lust in your heart even if you didn't act?

Jesus Christ came to set men free from the death sentence of sin.
He does this by taking our sin away from us when we come to Him and
ask Him to forgive us. He transferred that sin from us to Him at
the cross, so that when He died, our sin died with Him.

The reason why many people cannot understand how this can be real
comes from the fact that there are two natures at work: (1) carnal,
and (2) spiritual. The carnal nature is our flesh, our reasoning
mind. The spiritual nature is something that's not easily described
to someone who is not born again, but it exists as a new set of
"eyes," a new ability to understand things, all of which leads a
person toward a closer walk with the Lord, and the ways of His
Kingdom, an ongoing process called sanctification.

In any event ... there is a spirit at work in this world which leads
men falsely. That spirit is the enemy, trying to condemn men's
eternal souls through sin, and through believing lies rather than
believing the truth. And there is the spirit of the Living God at
work in this world, reaching out to men with the truth. And all who
will hear the truth, and seek the truth honestly, will hear His call
upon their life, will come to His Son, Jesus Christ, will ask for
forgiveness, and will receive forgiveness and be saved.

-----
It is the enemy spirit which operates in delusion and lies. That
enemy seeks to destroy your soul in Hell. Jesus came to set you
free from that end. And His offer is extended to all people
world-wide no matter of status, stature, age, or race. All people
are called. You need only respond to receive Him, and eternal life.

[August Karlstrom]

On 2015-11-02 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
>> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?
>
> CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
> for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project. It aims
> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.

Hopefully it will not turn into a flying spaghetti monster like C++.


-- August

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Amen to that! :-)

-----
CAlive will add support for the basic class, exceptions, and some of
the relaxed syntax requirements, though it will keep C's weaker
pointer type checking (producing only warnings, not errors).

Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.

[David Brown]

Namespaces would be an obvious choice - they are pretty close to zero
cost, and should not cause much confusion or complications for either
the compiler writer or the compiler user.

Consider allowing const expressions to be used in more places. C++
allows a "const int" (effectively a "static const int" by C++ rules)
value to be used as the size of an array, for example, offering several
advantages over the #define names typically used in C.

Have a look at Jacob's llc-win, and the extensions he has made to C.
Some of them are closely related to C++ features, but like you he has
tried to avoid the complexity of C++. There may be ideas you can
"borrow" from there.

Can I assume you don't want to include templates?

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

> Consider allowing const expressions to be used in more places. C++
> allows a "const int" (effectively a "static const int" by C++ rules)
> value to be used as the size of an array, for example, offering several
> advantages over the #define names typically used in C.

What C++ does is expand the set of expressions that are constant
expressions. Specifically, if an integer object is defined with "const"
*and* its initializer is a constant expression, then the name of that
object is a constant expression. (The words "const" and "constant"
despite their similarity, are quite different things; there's no such
thing as a "const expression".)

You can do a limited form of what C++ does in C by using an enum:

const int answer = 42;
/* `answer` is a constant expression in C++, but not in C. */

enum { answer = 42 };
/* `answer` is a constant expression of type int in C;
in C++ it's a constant expression of an anonymous enum type */

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 4:12:43 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/11/15 22:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, August Karlstrom wrote:
> >> On 2015-11-02 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
> >>>> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?
> >>>
> >>> CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
> >>> for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project. It aims
> >>> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> >>> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
> >>
> >> Hopefully it will not turn into a flying spaghetti monster like C++.
> >
> > Amen to that! :-)
> >
> > -----
> > CAlive will add support for the basic class, exceptions, and some of
> > the relaxed syntax requirements, though it will keep C's weaker
> > pointer type checking (producing only warnings, not errors).
> >
> > Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
> > as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.
> >
>
> Namespaces would be an obvious choice - they are pretty close to zero
> cost, and should not cause much confusion or complications for either
> the compiler writer or the compiler user.

That would be doable.

> Consider allowing const expressions to be used in more places. C++
> allows a "const int" (effectively a "static const int" by C++ rules)
> value to be used as the size of an array, for example, offering several
> advantages over the #define names typically used in C.

I'm surprised to hear this, so maybe I'm not understanding what you're
saying properly.

I have used const int values for sizes since 2011 (mostly because they
show up in the debuggers as viewable values). I learned that trick
from Shiv Shankar Dayal when I was taking care of my mother before she
died. He was writing his C book at that time, and we were on chat most
everyday.

Is this what you mean by const int? Around line 1514, or search for
'gnProps_masterSize':

https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/source/vjr/source/objects/accessors.h

> Have a look at Jacob's llc-win, and the extensions he has made to C.

Jacob Navia?

> Some of them are closely related to C++ features, but like you he has
> tried to avoid the complexity of C++. There may be ideas you can
> "borrow" from there.
>
> Can I assume you don't want to include templates?

I've had about two occasions in my life where I really could've
used templates. Can you make a "great argument" for why they
should be included as a general feature?

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
> > Consider allowing const expressions to be used in more places. C++
> > allows a "const int" (effectively a "static const int" by C++ rules)
> > value to be used as the size of an array, for example, offering several
> > advantages over the #define names typically used in C.
>
> What C++ does is expand the set of expressions that are constant
> expressions. Specifically, if an integer object is defined with "const"
> *and* its initializer is a constant expression, then the name of that
> object is a constant expression. (The words "const" and "constant"
> despite their similarity, are quite different things; there's no such
> thing as a "const expression".)
>
> You can do a limited form of what C++ does in C by using an enum:
>
> const int answer = 42;
> /* `answer` is a constant expression in C++, but not in C. */
>
> enum { answer = 42 };
> /* `answer` is a constant expression of type int in C;
> in C++ it's a constant expression of an anonymous enum type */

Keith, I'm almost positive you have me killfile'd, but I want you to
know that I respect your knowledge greatly.

[Malcolm McLean]

llc-win also has the merit of being actually implemented. It's a
released compiler that you can use for serious development.

[Chad]

I still haven't seen an actual link where I can download and install CAlive.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:00:04 PM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
> I still haven't seen an actual link where I can download and install CAlive.

CAlive is under development. It is not a downloadable product yet. You
can track my development progress at:

Parent directory:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/exodus/tools

Rapid Development Compiler framework:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/exodus/tools/rdc

CAlive compiler (LibSF CAlive Compiler):
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/exodus/tools/lcc

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Excellent. Thank you, Malcom. I appreciate the assistance.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Also the book I'm writing on CAlive here:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/books/rdc/rdc.odt

[Malcolm McLean]

It's got garbage collection.
So you can have garbage collection in C Alive for free, if you use llc-win.
That might help you get something up and running.

Ultimately you'll want to compile to standard C, and then straight to
machine code. But take one step at a time.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Johannes Bauer <dfnson...@gmx.de> writes:

> On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> It aims
>> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
>> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
>
> I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.
>
> Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.
>
> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

I *really* hope you're being facetious.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:28:38 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 12:14:01 AM UTC, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:43:51 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >
> > > llc-win also has the merit of being actually implemented. It's a
> > > released compiler that you can use for serious development.
> >
> > Excellent. Thank you, Malcom. I appreciate the assistance.
> >
> It's got garbage collection.
> So you can have garbage collection in C Alive for free, if you use llc-win.
> That might help you get something up and running.

My goals are to create an offering for the Lord, one which is founded
upon Him and the skills and talents He first gave me, as an offering
given back to Him, and then also to mankind.

To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian. As such, I could
not use any of his work to build the product I'm in pursuit of because
the thing I'm building is not just a tool. There are lots of tools in
the world which already work.

-----
What I'm building is that offering unto the Lord, one that is from the
ground-up founded on a pursuit of Him in my life, and, prayerfully, in
the lives of those others who would come and help me with development.

> Ultimately you'll want to compile to standard C, and then straight to
> machine code. But take one step at a time.

I'm building a full compiler framework, and then the compiler within
that framework. Theoretically, once I get RDC and CAlive completed,
I'll have a product constructed that is robust enough I'll be able to
then turn around and write a Java syntax compiler using the same
framework, simply by creating a new compiler database. And then repeat
the process for one which supports C# syntax, and so on.

Such is my pursuit. And, Lord willing, it will come to pass in time.
I have quite a fire in my belly to get it completed.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:40:19 AM UTC, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian. As such, I could
> not use any of his work to build the product I'm in pursuit of because
> the thing I'm building is not just a tool. There are lots of tools in
> the world which already work.
>

Our Christian community doesn't reject the secular work of non-Christians.
We attach a high but not excessive value to work, and we beleive that
every able-bodied man has the right to support himself and his family
by his work, except in unusual cases he also has the duty to do so.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Which Christian community is that?

There is a spirit at work in non-believers, and also in
many believers who are not actively pursuing
holiness in their life. It is in contrast to that spirit
that I stand up and make my offering unto the Lord
with a purposeful noise.

It is the foundation I am building, a ground-up
"explicitly for the Lord" offering. Every algorithm,
every line of code, all of it original work from inside
of us, given expressly for Him.

God is central in the universe. He upholds all things
continuously by the word of His power. When John
was called up to Heaven in Revelation by Jesus,
the first thing he saw was God's throne. Not streets
of God, or beautiful angels, but His throne.

God is central in our lives. His Son's blood atonement
is crucial for us to have eternal life. These are not
like other things, but rather they are the real foundation.
They are the solid assurance. Yet so many live their
lives without holding God in His proper place as Lord,
and Master.

I am building an offering for the Lord using the
skills and talents He gave me. I am in pursuit of
holiness in my life, and my offering, and I do this
because of His call to be holy, for He is holy, is a
call upon my life.

Others are welcome to come, but there is a standard
I am upholding in this offering. It is not just a work.
Not just a tool. It is an expression of love and devotion
to my Lord and Savior, because without Him reaching
into my sinful life, I would be a wretched man only
on his way to Hell. But because of what He's done
I will shine like the stars forever with all the saints.

Such an end is worthy of such an offering with my
life, for it is His life, and He lives inside of me.

[Chad]

So I looked at the links. You haven't even started the lexer nor the abstract syntax tree yet? Or is this going to be an interpreted language?

[Ben Bacarisse]

Malcolm McLean <malcolm...@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 12:14:01 AM UTC, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:43:51 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> > llc-win also has the merit of being actually implemented. It's a
>> > released compiler that you can use for serious development.
>>
>> Excellent. Thank you, Malcom. I appreciate the assistance.
>>
> It's got garbage collection.
> So you can have garbage collection in C Alive for free, if you use
> llc-win.

Jacob uses the Boehm garbage collector. I works with lots of compilers
and on lots of systems.

http://www.hboehm.info/gc

--
Ben.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <87twozx...@bsb.me.uk>,

That hardly matters, given that Jacob is not a Christian.

Do we know at this point whether or not Hans Boehm is a Christian?

--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.

CLC in a nutshell.

[Johannes Bauer]

On 06.11.2015 05:33, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

>> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
>> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.
>
> I *really* hope you're being facetious.

Sadly, not really.

I mean there's all sorts of crazy in Usenet. People who claim they can
predict earthquakes, people who have found the definitive scheme to
winning Roulette, etc.

But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
to humanity. That's a tad bit too much for my taste.

[Johannes Bauer]

On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.

Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.

> Do you have sin in your life with regards to Biblical standards?

Nope!

> Ever had sex outside of marriage?

Never!

> Ever told a lie?

Never ever, I swear to god!

> Ever stolen
> anything?

No, that would be totally wrong!

> If married, ever even looked after another person with
> lust in your heart even if you didn't act?

How could I! Of course not.

So seems to me that I'm safe even according to your arbitrary rules.
Good for me! I hope you obey MY set of arbitrary rules, though. Because
if not -- oh my god. Don't even want to think about it.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>
> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.

Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is topical. I
would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves. You
have your opinion of them, I have mine, and RCH has his. None of those
opinions is topical here. If someone wants to kick off a discussion of
the subject in a newsgroup where it's topical and, perhaps, drop a note
in here to the effect that they have done so, then anyone who wants to
can go and argue the toss without clogging up a technical newsgroup with
endless non-technical discussions.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Chad wrote:
> So I looked at the links. You haven't even
> started the lexer nor the abstract syntax tree
> yet?

I have no formal training in language design. The
closest I've come are some YouTube videos by Alex
Aiken from Stanford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm0QQO-WZlM

So, apart from a few fundamental ideas, I'm simply
thinking my way through the whole process.

I am using Visual FreePro, Jr's parsing engine to
to tokenize everything, and am building some
fundamental expression parsing algorithms. I am
using and a custom-built tool, called SourceLight,
to identify the various patterns and relationships
between sub-expressions, thereby invoking the correct
sub-expression handler.

It may or may not work. So far it is encouraging.

> Or is this going to be an interpreted language?

Compiled into a binary using a new ABI called
LiveCode, which is fully edit-and-continue.

[Ben Bacarisse]

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>
>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
> topical.

But only after you've had a chance to comment? You do seem keen to get
a comment in.

> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.

You just did. If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
comment.

<snip>
--
Ben.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Fri, 2015-11-06, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 05:33, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>>> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
>>> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.
>>
>> I *really* hope you're being facetious.

...

> But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
> believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
> to humanity.

You need to spend either more or less time on Usenet ;-)

But seriously, let's not press those buttons on people. comp.lang.c++
got a lot less useful after religion flamewars the other year ...

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Richard Heathfield]

On 06/11/15 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>>
>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>
>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
>> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
>> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
>> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
>> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
>> topical.
>
> But only after you've had a chance to comment? You do seem keen to get
> a comment in.

<shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this
newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.

>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>
> You just did. If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
> Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
> comment.

Well, I hope you will at least agree that those sentences were neutral
in tone - neither for nor against.

[David Brown]

On 05/11/15 22:24, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> Consider allowing const expressions to be used in more places. C++
>> allows a "const int" (effectively a "static const int" by C++ rules)
>> value to be used as the size of an array, for example, offering several
>> advantages over the #define names typically used in C.
>
> What C++ does is expand the set of expressions that are constant
> expressions. Specifically, if an integer object is defined with "const"
> *and* its initializer is a constant expression, then the name of that
> object is a constant expression. (The words "const" and "constant"
> despite their similarity, are quite different things; there's no such
> thing as a "const expression".)

That is more accurate - I was merely giving a rough description, with
"const expression" being an informal way to describe "an integer object
defined with const and initialised to a constant expression".

>
> You can do a limited form of what C++ does in C by using an enum:
>
> const int answer = 42;
> /* `answer` is a constant expression in C++, but not in C. */
>
> enum { answer = 42 };
> /* `answer` is a constant expression of type int in C;
> in C++ it's a constant expression of an anonymous enum type */
>

Yes, enums are an alternative to #define's for constant expressions in
C, and sometimes they are appropriate. I think "const int" or "static
const int" (initialised to a constant expression) is often neater -
especially in C++ with namespaces and/or structs/classes to limit the scope.

However Rick wants to handle the details and terminology, I think they
would be worth considering for him.

[David Brown]

"const int" is part of standard C. The difference between C and C++
here is that this is legal C++, but not legal C:

const int size = 20 * 4;
int array[size];

Also, such file-scope or namespace-scope const objects are effectively
"static" in C++ unless explicitly declared "extern".

I recommend you make the such objects constant expressions in CAlive,
like they are in C++ (Keith's post gave the correct terms), especially
if you also include namespaces to help scoping and avoiding global
namespace pollution.

>> Have a look at Jacob's llc-win, and the extensions he has made to C.
>
> Jacob Navia?

Yes.

>
>> Some of them are closely related to C++ features, but like you he has
>> tried to avoid the complexity of C++. There may be ideas you can
>> "borrow" from there.
>>
>> Can I assume you don't want to include templates?
>
> I've had about two occasions in my life where I really could've
> used templates. Can you make a "great argument" for why they
> should be included as a general feature?
>

How about, they are so useful in C++ that newer versions of the C++
standards put significant focus on making them better?

No, I am not going to argue why /you/ should put templates in CAlive.
They are not a simple feature, such as the others I have suggested here.
It is very much up to /you/ if you want the power, flexibility - but
complexity and effort - of templates.

[Noob]

On 06/11/2015 11:54, Johannes Bauer wrote:

> But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
> believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
> to humanity. That's a tad bit too much for my taste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS

[Rick C. Hodgin]

That is the only way I've known it to work, and the only way I would've
coded it. It's one of the advantages?? of using a C++ compiler to write
mostly C code. :-)

> >> Have a look at Jacob's llc-win, and the extensions he has made to C.
> >
> > Jacob Navia?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >> Some of them are closely related to C++ features, but like you he has
> >> tried to avoid the complexity of C++. There may be ideas you can
> >> "borrow" from there.
> >>
> >> Can I assume you don't want to include templates?
> >
> > I've had about two occasions in my life where I really could've
> > used templates. Can you make a "great argument" for why they
> > should be included as a general feature?
> >
>
> How about, they are so useful in C++ that newer versions of the C++
> standards put significant focus on making them better?

Nope. :-)

> No, I am not going to argue why /you/ should put templates in CAlive.
> They are not a simple feature, such as the others I have suggested here.
> It is very much up to /you/ if you want the power, flexibility - but
> complexity and effort - of templates.

Some of this functionality I'd like to migrate into the GUI editor
so it can auto-generate code as needed based on a few setup features.
It makes the compiler simpler, and the GUI editor far more robust,
which are two features I'm explicitly targeting.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <e53c3e86-c943-407a...@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>> >> Have a look at Jacob's llc-win, and the extensions he has made to C.
>> >
>> > Jacob Navia?

See .sig for why anything involving Jacob is anathema (both literally and
figuratively) to Ricky.

--

To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian.

- Rick C Hodgin -

[Ben Bacarisse]

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 06/11/15 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>>
>>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>>> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
>>> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
>>> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
>>> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
>>> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
>>> topical.
>>
>> But only after you've had a chance to comment? You do seem keen to get
>> a comment in.
>
> <shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this
> newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.

"Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
might be right, after all)"

is not an appeal to honour the topicality of this newsgroup.

>>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>>
>> You just did. If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
>> Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
>> comment.
>
> Well, I hope you will at least agree that those sentences were neutral
> in tone - neither for nor against.

If I answered that, you'd have dragged me into the discussion! The best
option is not to comment on these posts, ut if you want to post a "take
it elsewhere" post, then it's best to say nothing else.

--
Ben.

[bartekltg]

On 05.11.2015 22:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, August Karlstrom wrote:
>> On 2015-11-02 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
>>>> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?
>>>
>>> CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
>>> for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project. It aims
>>> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
>>> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Hopefully it will not turn into a flying spaghetti monster like C++.
>
> Amen to that! :-)
>
> -----
> CAlive will add support for the basic class, exceptions, and some of
> the relaxed syntax requirements, though it will keep C's weaker
> pointer type checking (producing only warnings, not errors).
>
> Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
> as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.

So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.

And, despite popular opinion, c++ wasn't created for the glory
of Cthulhu, as a tribute for his testicles, allegedly
represented by convoluted language structures.


bartekltg

[Osmium]

"bartekltg" wrote:

> So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.

Try the following analogy. Take all the natural languages on the planet,
English, Spanish, Mandarin, ... and combine them into a new language called
Ultimate.

No one has enough neurons or patience so that two people can converse
fluently in Ultimate. It's not a new problem, PL\1 was a less similar, but
less grandiose thing. It was a blending of Fortran Cobol and Algol.

[Bartc]

How about listing the things that you would leave out from C++? That
might be a shorter list!

The problem is that C++ is a very complicated language and it's even
more complicated writing a compiler for it, running into many man-years
if starting from scratch.

C++ is also the result of some 30 years of development. (I was going to
say 'refinement', but 'refined' is not how I would describe the language!)

So for what is likely to be a one-person effort for a new language (and
I believe by someone of limited experience, even aided by this
mysterious "lord"), you really want to leave out as much as possible.

--
Bartc

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:01:29 AM UTC-5, bartekltg wrote:
> On 05.11.2015 22:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, August Karlstrom wrote:
> >> On 2015-11-02 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
> >>>> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?
> >>>
> >>> CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
> >>> for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project. It aims
> >>> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> >>> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
> >>
> >> Hopefully it will not turn into a flying spaghetti monster like C++.
> >
> > Amen to that! :-)
> >
> > -----
> > CAlive will add support for the basic class, exceptions, and some of
> > the relaxed syntax requirements, though it will keep C's weaker
> > pointer type checking (producing only warnings, not errors).
> >
> > Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
> > as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.
>
> So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.

For the same reasons I cannot contribute to GNU or Linux -- I've
examined the spirit of their founders / leaders, and they are of
the world. Richard Stallman of GNU and FSF, Linus Torvalds of Linux,
and Bjarne Stroustrup of C++ ... they are all operating in ways which
wholly target the world's ways of looking at things. They are in no
way targeting anything related to Jesus Christ, His Kingdom, or of
His Holy Spirit.

I cannot participate in adding to such things, so I am working on
Godly alternatives.

-----
It is my hope and prayer that other devout Christians will come on
board and offer their skills and talents to help me complete these
tasks.

It took me from July 12, 2012 through March 8, 2015 before the first
software developer came on board to help me out with Visual FreePro.
In fact, it was exactly 969 days when it happened, which I found
interesting was the number of the year age of Methuselah in the Bible
when he died, and the flood came. That support also came at a point
when I was considering throwing in the towel because I had concluded
after so long and no developer help that it was not something God
wanted me pursuing. I was to the point in my prayers of saying, "I
tried, Lord. I honestly tried. I just pray that I did not operate
against your will during this time, but I am now prepared to go in
whatever way you guide." And it was within days of that prayer that
I received my first real C/C++ help (another devout Christian had
helped me back in late 2012 and early 2013 with the wiki and some
other non-coding things).

-----
As of Oct.18.2015, that developer has contributed 69 separate functions
to the Visual FreePro, Jr. programming language, bringing the total
number of functions completed up to 178:

http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/VXB#Contributions

So now I am wondering how long it will be until a developer comes on
board to help me work on RDC and CAlive. Since they are completely
new designs, I imagine it will be like what happened with Visual
FreePro, Jr. I had to get things to a certain point before people
would consider helping out. My latest public release prior to that
developer coming on board, for example, had all of the drawing
algorithms completed, an object hierarchy, and a largely developed
IDE design:

http://www.visual-freepro.org/images/vjr_055.png

I'd imagine I'll have to have the language defined, my book completed,
and a lot of the front-end (what I call) parsing and dictionary logic
created, before there will be enough for people to see tangibly and
then come and offer help.

I pray I'm wrong about that though, and that help comes much sooner.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:14:59 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> So for what is likely to be a one-person effort for a new language (and
> I believe by someone of limited experience, even aided by this
> mysterious "lord"), you really want to leave out as much as possible.

There is no specific limitation that I am operating within. The tasks
I have carved out for this project are huge. I am well aware of that.
But they are the fundamental forms I feel comfortable operating at
when I turn to the Lord in prayer. When I am operating at these levels,
I do not feel like I'm "taking shortcuts" or "cutting corners," but
rather I feel in all points when I self-examine the effort that what I
am in pursuit of is a true, fundamental offering, something that I am
please with, and have no conviction over.

It's also why I'm coding everything myself from scratch. I am making
sure that everything I code has that same fundamental non-conviction
origination, so that it is a securely built offering unto the Lord,
and not one which was just thrown together, but rather is one that is
wrought over much time, much prayer, much consideration, much love,
and much devotion to the One who has saved me from damnation, and
given me the most amazing gift imaginable: eternal life in the paradise
of God.

In short: I am offering the Lord my best, and doing so at all points
where I feel pleased and comfortable with my offering unto Him, for He
is worthy of all I could ever give Him.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 06/11/15 13:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

<snip>

>> <shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this
>> newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.
>

> "Frankly,[...] all)"

>
> is not an appeal to honour the topicality of this newsgroup.

Oh, I see. Yes, that was by way of an introduction (I am amongst the
wordiest of fellows), but I do see your point now. Thanks for clarifying.

[Johannes Bauer]

On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> business, not mine.

It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
to save you.

> I
> would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
> a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.

[...]

> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.

Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
acceptable.

Regards,

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:14:59 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:

One other point:

I am not limiting my offering based on "what's technically unfeasible
or difficult to implement." Instead, I look to what I want to offer
people in terms of a language.

I believe C needs the basic class. It has needed it all along since
the concept was invented. It's one of those fundamental things which
relates the mechanics of the machine to human thought in a much more
natural way.

And when I consider the potential additional difficulties I will have
on my side in writing the compiler, I recognize that I am someone with
a particular skillset capable of creating a tool that does these
things, and that it only has to be done once. Once it is done, then
long-term maintenance is relatively easy compared to origination. And
by that more difficult offering I incur upon myself, I make the code
that others will use that much cleaner, capable, more robust, etc.

It's a tradeoff I am happy to make, and one I have a history of making
for my customers ... a little more coding on my part allows the features
they have at their disposal to make their job to be a little easier for
them.

A one-time effort given for me, for a many-use gain by others. To me,
it's the only natural course. And, in just thinking about this, it's
in the same manner as what the Lord did for us at the cross: A one-
time effort given by Him, for a many-saved offering by others. Wow.
That's interesting.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:44:10 AM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
> >> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
> >
> > Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> > business, not mine.
>
> It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
> to save you.
>
> > I
> > would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
> > a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.
> [...]
> > I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>
> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".
>
> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised.

The intolerance I possess for these things comes from God Himself,
who is putting away in Hell forever all people who operate under
that spirit, and in that manner. Judgment has already been made,
and the enemy of this world has been condemned. All who are in
pursuit of that enemy are condemned along with him. But all that
will be set free by their faith in Jesus Christ are saved, their
sin debt cancelled, and a new spiritual rebirth given to them,
the born again nature, alive in eternity forevermore.

-----
His is the way of life, the way of truth, for He is the way, and
the truth, and the life. And when I stand up and make this public
profession explicitly for Him, that is what I am doing: speaking
of Him BECAUSE of who He is.

It is the division which exists in the world, and the one Jesus
came to set men free from: falseness, and truth. Sin, and
holiness. Self-seeking, and God-seeking.

Mine are God-seeking efforts because they are the manner God asks
us to pursue. I am rejecting self-seeking efforts, or worldly-
seeking efforts, because they have no foundation of substance.
They are whimsical and topsy-turvey, but the foundation of God
cannot be shaken, and never will be shaken.

I am building my offering atop that foundation. And I will
continue to do so, and profess His name, and state the reason why
I am doing so, until there is no breath left within me. It is
exactly because of who He is, and what He has done for me.

King of kings.
Lord of lords.

Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is
Lord, all to the glory of God the Father.

> Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

The problem you perceive resides with Jesus Christ and truth, and
not with me. You will not receive Jesus Christ, which is to say you
will not receive truth, which is why you find my speech as hate
speech.

But God sends men like me out into the world to teach those we
encounter about such things so they too will know the truth. It is
that same enemy spirit I talk about here in my posts that you are
also operating under. It has blinded you to the truth, given you
false ideas to embrace as though they were truth.

I warn you that you are in pursuit of falseness, and that pursuit
will cost you your eternal soul. I advise you that Jesus Christ
will forgive you of your sin, and save you, and give you the free
gift of eternal life if you will humble yourself, repent of your
sin and receive Him.

The ways of Jesus Christ are of peace, truth, rightness, righteousness,
holiness, love, and community. They are the fundamental ways of all
manner of longevity in this universe: everything working together in
harmony. But here upon this Earth there is discord because of sin,
because of dis-unity brought about by sin. The enemy is at work here,
and he is leading men to their eternal destruction.

Don't be deceived by that enemy, Johannes. Seek the truth honestly.
Pursue it all the way to its ends. When you do, you will find it,
and you will find Jesus Christ, and God the Father will draw you to
Him so that you will recognize your sin, repent of your sin, ask
forgiveness of your sin, and be saved in eternity, given new life,
the born again nature, which will then let you follow after Him for
all the days of your life on this Earth.

I pray you do receive Him, Johannes. I would like to see you in
Heaven.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 06/11/15 14:43, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>
>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>> business, not mine.
>
> It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
> to save you.

Thanks for that, but if you could attempt to save me in
alt.teapots.russell (oh, please, please, there *must* be... oh dear, no
there isn't, at least not at the moment, but someone could presumably
create it...) rather than in comp.lang.c I'd appreciate it.

>> I
>> would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
>> a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.
> [...]
>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>
> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

I think it's absurd to call it "hate speech", but you're probably right
in law (so yes, I think the law is absurd, too). As long as he's not
actually inciting anyone to acts of violence, I would very much prefer
it if he were free to say anything he chooses (up to and including
verbal attacks on minority groups if that's what floats his boat), not
because I approve of such things (clearly I don't) but because the
alternative - an increasingly oppressive bound on what we are allowed to
say - is so monstrous. But let him say it in a newsgroup where it's topical.

> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

You're right that it isn't acceptable, but wrong to say that not
responding to it is an implicit acceptance. This is the Internet, where
new instances of outrageous drivel appear by the million, every single
day. Nobody can possibly object (in the sense of posting an objection)
to *all* of them because there aren't enough hours in the day. So to
suggest, with Thomas More, that "silence implies assent" (or at least
acceptance) doesn't really work.

[Richard Bos]

bartekltg <bart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05.11.2015 22:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
> > as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.
>
> So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.

Because then he'd have to admit that turning C into C++ _again_ will
only lead to C++ _again_.

> And, despite popular opinion, c++ wasn't created for the glory
> of Cthulhu, as a tribute for his testicles, allegedly
> represented by convoluted language structures.

Well, of course not! Para-molluscs from the non-Euclidian angles of
outer space don't even have testicles, they spawn autosexually...

Richard

[Keith Thompson]

Johannes Bauer <dfnson...@gmx.de> writes:
[...]

> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

I'm not going to ask you to take this discussion somewhere else. You're
free to do so, of course, but it doesn't matter to me whether you do or
not.

I'm only going to ask you not to take it here.

> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred.

Yes, it is. (I express no opinion on whether "hatred" is an accurate
description.)

> Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

No, not responding to it means that it's not socially acceptable
to post off-topic discussions in this newsgroup.

I don't believe Rick is a deliberate troll, but there are plenty
of them out there. Which means that anyone who posts something
off-topic and sufficiently provocative can successfully cause you
to respond so you can refute whatever offensive thing they've said.
That's part of why this newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio has been
so poor lately. Sadly, trolling works.

I believe Rick posts under a valid e-mail address. If you want
to discuss his beliefs *with him*, you're free to do so. The rest
of us don't need to read about *your* opinions about *his* beliefs
any more than we need to read about his beliefs in the first place.

Why am I complaining to you and not to Rick? Because I've tried and
failed to persuade Rick to change is behavior, as have many others,
so there's no further point in complaining to him. You might still
be persuadable.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

> "const int" is part of standard C. The difference between C and C++
> here is that this is legal C++, but not legal C:
>
> const int size = 20 * 4;
> int array[size];

It's legal in C at block scope (in C99, and in C11 for an implementation
that supports VLAs), but for different reasons than in C++.

In C, `size` can't be used in a case label, for example.

[...]

[bartekltg]

On 06.11.2015 15:12, Osmium wrote:
> "bartekltg" wrote:
>
>> So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.
>
> Try the following analogy. Take all the natural languages on the
> planet, English, Spanish, Mandarin, ... and combine them into a new
> language called Ultimate.
>
> No one has enough neurons or patience so that two people can converse
> fluently in Ultimate. It's not a new problem,

Joke for joke, seems fair...

bartekltg

[bartekltg]

On 06.11.2015 17:24, Richard Bos wrote:
> bartekltg <bart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05.11.2015 22:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Those are my starting points. If someone can make a great argument
>>> as to why other C++ features should be added, I will consider it.
>>
>> So why don't just use c++? You do not have to use all c++ features.
>
> Because then he'd have to admit that turning C into C++ _again_ will
> only lead to C++ _again_.

I think I don't understand.

>> And, despite popular opinion, c++ wasn't created for the glory
>> of Cthulhu, as a tribute for his testicles, allegedly
>> represented by convoluted language structures.
>
> Well, of course not! Para-molluscs from the non-Euclidian angles of
> outer space don't even have testicles, they spawn autosexually...

The madness bothered me and corrupted this post.
I wanted to write "tentacles". Uncountable number
of tangle tentacles. Like c++, according to many
people:-)

[resisting a temptation to spam Stroustrup's talks/papers
about sane, pretty and coherent subset... ]

bartekltg

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:28:38 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 12:14:01 AM UTC, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:43:51 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>>> llc-win also has the merit of being actually implemented. It's a
>>>> released compiler that you can use for serious development.
>>>
>>> Excellent. Thank you, Malcom. I appreciate the assistance.
>>>
>> It's got garbage collection.
>> So you can have garbage collection in C Alive for free, if you use llc-win.
>> That might help you get something up and running.
>
> My goals are to create an offering for the Lord, one which is founded
> upon Him and the skills and talents He first gave me, as an offering
> given back to Him, and then also to mankind.
>
> To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian. As such, I could
> not use any of his work to build the product I'm in pursuit of because
> the thing I'm building is not just a tool.

Was the bloke who invented the wheel a Christian?

--
Ian Collins

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Ian Collins wrote:
> Was the bloke who invented the wheel a Christian?

If you're interested, here's a video I recorded
about three years ago. If I recall correctly,
beginning around 30:00 to 35:00 into the video,
I begin explaining why I'm doing this.

http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2012_12_08__01_vvmmc__and_vfrps_relationship_to_christianity.ogv

All my videos are downloadable here:
http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/

In short: Jesus is returning soon to establish His
Kingdom forever. His ways are THE ways that will
exist forever. And His ways are right. The ways of
this world are in opposition to His ways, and whereas
I cannot change the world overnight, I can change
the way I operate in those areas I have control
over: namely these software endeavors. So, that
is what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:20:22 AM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your

> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is topical
>

Do you believe in the Utah teapot?

(Not quite a topical teapot, but the most topical teapot I can think of).

[August Karlstrom]

From Edsger Dijkstra's ACM Turing Award speech:

"Finally, although the subject is not a pleasant one, I must mention
PL/1, a programming language for which the defining documentation is of
a frightening size and complexity. Using PL/1 must be like flying a
plane with 7000 buttons, switches and handles to manipulate in the
cockpit. I absolutely fail to see how we can keep our growing programs
firmly within our intellectual grip when by its sheer baroqueness the
programming language —our basic tool, mind you!— already escapes our
intellectual control. And if I have to describe the influence PL/1 can
have on its users, the closest metaphor that comes to my mind is that of
a drug. I remember from a symposium on higher level programming language
a lecture given in defense of PL/1 by a man who described himself as one
of its devoted users. But within a one-hour lecture in praise of PL/1.
he managed to ask for the addition of about fifty new “features”, little
supposing that the main source of his problems could very well be that
it contained already far too many “features”. The speaker displayed all
the depressing symptoms of addiction, reduced as he was to the state of
mental stagnation in which he could only ask for more, more, more...
When FORTRAN has been called an infantile disorder, full PL/1, with its
growth characteristics of a dangerous tumor, could turn out to be a
fatal disease."

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html


-- August

[Malcolm McLean]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:54:38 AM UTC, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> That hardly matters, given that Jacob is not a Christian.
>
> Do we know at this point whether or not Hans Boehm is a Christian?
>
His homepage is semi-protected. You have to know the first names of his
children. But since he uses the term "first name" he's probably not a
very dedicated Christian.
See what you can derive from very limited information.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 8:33:31 AM UTC, August Karlstrom wrote:
>
> "Finally, although the subject is not a pleasant one, I must mention
> PL/1, a programming language for which the defining documentation is of
> a frightening size and complexity. Using PL/1 must be like flying a
> plane with 7000 buttons, switches and handles to manipulate in the
> cockpit. I absolutely fail to see how we can keep our growing programs
> firmly within our intellectual grip when by its sheer baroqueness the

> programming language --our basic tool, mind you!-- already escapes our

> intellectual control. And if I have to describe the influence PL/1 can
> have on its users, the closest metaphor that comes to my mind is that of
> a drug. I remember from a symposium on higher level programming language
> a lecture given in defense of PL/1 by a man who described himself as one
> of its devoted users. But within a one-hour lecture in praise of PL/1.
> he managed to ask for the addition of about fifty new "features", little
> supposing that the main source of his problems could very well be that
> it contained already far too many "features". The speaker displayed all
> the depressing symptoms of addiction, reduced as he was to the state of
> mental stagnation in which he could only ask for more, more, more...
> When FORTRAN has been called an infantile disorder, full PL/1, with its
> growth characteristics of a dangerous tumor, could turn out to be a
> fatal disease."
>

Absolutely right.
C is quite simple. But it needs more simplification rather than
more complexities added.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <77d39b68-3f41-4939...@googlegroups.com>,

Well done, sir!


--
To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody
actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree."

- author unknown -

[Philip Lantz]

Ian Collins wrote:
>
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean wrote:

> >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> llc-win also has the merit of being actually implemented. It's a
> >>>> released compiler that you can use for serious development.
> >>>
> >>> Excellent. Thank you, Malcom. I appreciate the assistance.
> >>>
> >> It's got garbage collection.
> >> So you can have garbage collection in C Alive for free, if you use llc-win.
> >> That might help you get something up and running.
> >
> > My goals are to create an offering for the Lord, one which is founded
> > upon Him and the skills and talents He first gave me, as an offering
> > given back to Him, and then also to mankind.
> >
> > To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian. As such, I could
> > not use any of his work to build the product I'm in pursuit of because
> > the thing I'm building is not just a tool.
>
> Was the bloke who invented the wheel a Christian?

Many, probably most, of the people who designed and built the microprocessor
you are using are not Christian. It was probably designed in Israel.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I posted a request on the comp.arch group a while back asking if the
people who created the VIA Technologies CPUs were Christians or not.
They have used Biblical names for their CPU core designs, and even
some products (VIA "Eden" for example):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VIA_microprocessor_cores

I never heard a response from anyone at VIA.

-----
My desire all along has been to build from the complete ground up the
tools necessary to build a complete computer offered unto our Lord as
a product using the skills and talents He's given us, and to mankind.
To not do it for money, but to do what's right at all points, the best
design, the best features, the best possible materials, and so on, all
in pursuit of giving Him our best.

I would still like to do that, but I haven't found anyone else who is
interested in it. I was hoping on comp.arch that someone who's 75 yrs
old, who has retired from the semiconductor industry, who was there
from the 70s until they retired, who has enough money to pay for the
full ground-up designs and development, who is a born again Christian,
who can has the contacts to find other born again Christians who want
to help us build a fab, and so on... to produce an entire offering
from a group of people sitting down in an empty office, using our full
knowledge and skills to assemble together everything we need as that
foundational offering unto the Lord, to create the CPU, memory, chipset,
graphics, communication, sound, cases, keyboard, power supplies, and
then also the operating system and software, to produce a full product
that people can buy, one which is designed for God, to honor God, and
to be of help to our fellow man, from inception through to product.

I believe in God. I believe such a thing is possible. And for me and
others who are interested in hardware and software, this would be our
offering unto the Lord, and unto mankind. But then our spark would
trigger activity in other industries. People would begin doing the
same for kitchen appliances, and televisions, and game consoles, and
everything else that would be an offering for the Lord. They'd remove
"Grand Theft Auto" titles, and replace it with games that would be
entertaining and teaching in the way a holy-living Christian should be
in this world. No destruction, but helping.

All aspects of our lives could operate in this way. It begins with
each of us making this decision, and then moving forward with it. It
begins with each of us trusting in the Lord with our lives as Lord and
Savior, and then moving forward with it. It begins with each of us
coming to the end of ourselves, and turning away from evil, and turning
to the Lord and saying, "Here am I, Lord. Use me!" ... and then moving
forward with it.

I'm desiring to do just that ... anyone with me?

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> -----
> My desire all along has been to build from the complete ground up the
> tools necessary to build a complete computer offered unto our Lord as
> a product using the skills and talents He's given us, and to mankind.
> To not do it for money, but to do what's right at all points, the best
> design, the best features, the best possible materials, and so on, all
> in pursuit of giving Him our best.

You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
dollars such a project would require.

--
Ian Collins

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > -----
> > My desire all along has been to build from the complete ground up the
> > tools necessary to build a complete computer offered unto our Lord as
> > a product using the skills and talents He's given us, and to mankind.
> > To not do it for money, but to do what's right at all points, the best
> > design, the best features, the best possible materials, and so on, all
> > in pursuit of giving Him our best.
>
> You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?)

God is in the masculine because that's how He's revealed Himself to us.
The marriage we have here upon this Earth is an Earthly form of the
marriage that will take place in Heaven, us (the church, the bride) to
Him (the Bridegroom). It's why marriage is between a man and a woman
only, and why, of course, the enemy is enticing marriage to mean
something else -- that enemy desires to lead men falsely, to encourage
them toward behavior which keeps them bound in the deceit of sin so
they will grab hold of those lies and therefore never come to the
truth, never pursue the truth because they pursue sin more than they
desire to pursue the truth.

> for the billions of
> dollars such a project would require.

It will be an inside-out operation. God has put this into my heart.
I am moving forward. He has prepared other people in other places for
their parts. We will come together if it's part of His plan. If not,
then it will simply wind up being me in my life using my talents as
best I can as a continuous offering unto Him, until the Day He calls
me Home.

God moves people from the inside. Our lives are not our own, and we
(born again believers) are not alone in this world. We do not operate
on our own, but we have a Shepherd who guides us, protects us, watches
over us, protects us from the enemy, and moves us through the various
courses we chart in this world, bringing us to the places that are part
of our desires, His pleasure, and usually a combination of the two.

God is not the God that the enemy has taught. He is revealed in His
Son, Jesus Christ. We were still sinners when Jesus came to die for
us. It was us, in our sin, in our rebellion, who were nailing Him
to the cross, condemning the innocent to pay the price that was not
His, yet for us. And it was not nails that kept Jesus on the cross.
It was Love. Agape Love. A special kind of Godly Love because He has
the desire to be with us forever in Heaven where He is. It's why He
came, to save that which was lost.

I pray you come to know Him, Ian. I would like to see you in Heaven.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:26:25 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
>
> You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
> dollars such a project would require.
>

For bonfire night, I made bonfire toffee and parking pigs. Rather
than just buying them, I thouhgt it would be nice to make my own.

To make toffee you take butter, sugar, evaporated milk, and treacle,
heat them gently in a saucepan until mixed, then bring to a boil
until a ball of the mixture quenched in cold water crystallises.
So an entirely practical proposition.

Now let's say it's decided that Carnation evaporated milk is satanic.
We have to make our own. Now that's a bit of a nuisance, you have to
heat milk at a low temperature for a long time to avoid boiling
it.

But say we then realise that the cows have been raised on a satanic
farm. Now it's much more difficult. Grazing an accommodation for
a single cow is a significant expense.

Then it's revealed that the cattle cake for the cows comes from
satanically-exploited African labourers. Now its difficult. Modern
cows will starve if fed entirely on grass. They need high density
food. But buying a chunk of an African plantation is a very challenging proposition. Especially since we're only trying to make toffee.
I'd go as far as to say that's the limit, it's essentially
impossible.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

You begin where you're able to move, and go forward. Other people do
the same. Before long, there are no more satanic farms because there
is a movement of people who seek to have a primary relationship with
God, who have received the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, so that
there are Christian alternatives, and these are the ones receiving
the business from those who pursue God with their lives in this way,
in submission to Jesus Christ, and to God's Holy Spirit.

It's the same for all things.

Until men stand up and begin moving for the Lord, that movement will
never take place. But Biblical history has shown that when people
call upon the name of the Lord, things in that place change. The
evil that's there isn't allowed to remain for long. And whereas we
are in the end-times, approaching the truest end of the end-times,
the change this time will be a much more pronounced change than
there has been in the future because this is the enemy of this world's
"last hurrah." His time is over in very short order, and he knows it.

http://biblehub.com/revelation/12-12.htm
"Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But
woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down
to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time
is short."

The enemy is "filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

For those who are in Jesus Christ, we long for that day of His coming.
And until He does, we obey the Lord's prayer, "Thy Will be done on
Earth as it is in Heaven." In short, we move as He would have us move,
which is to say: for Him.

He is King of kings, Malcom. Lord of lords. The Living One. The One
who was, and is, and is to come. The Alpha and the Omega (beginning
and ending, first and last).

It's time for all who profess the name of Jesus Christ to stand up for
Him and make a joyous noise in this world unto His Holy Name. To
profess your King in this world of darkness and wanton lasciviousness
toward sin.

The King is coming soon! Until He does, we will move for Him in this
world. And all who are known to Him will move likewise, for His Holy
Spirit is upon us, and He is calling out to us from the inside-out.
We are His. And He is ours. And He will never forsake us, for He
is called Faithful and True (http://biblehub.com/revelation/19-11.htm).
His reward is with Him, and He will give to each according to their
works.

Revelation 22:12-13
http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/22.htm
"12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be.
"13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first
and the last."

-----
My life for Him. In prayer. In submission. Ongoing. Until the Day
He Returns. It is the life of a born again Christian on this world,
for it is not "me" that lives, but Him living in me, giving me a view
on all things which is His view, and not just a worldly view. It's
why born again believers change ... God is with them. Always.

[Keith Thompson]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
[...]

> You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
> dollars such a project would require.

Ian, please don't feed the troll (or whatever he is).

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> [...]
> > You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
> > dollars such a project would require.
>
> Ian, please don't feed the troll (or whatever he is).

Keith, I am a prayerful servant of Jesus Christ. I pray you come to
know Him as Lord and Savior. I would like to see you in Heaven.

First. Jesus first in each of our lives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWQV3OiRqA&index=22&list=PL4QXN2CVPii7zbX3SmNkyaZcomT2Jj1-8

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ln37wh1...@kst-u.example.com>,

Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>[...]
>> You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
>> dollars such a project would require.
>
>Ian, please don't feed the troll (or whatever he is).

Keith, give it up.

Rick has destroyed this newsgroup, just as surely as Donald Trump has
destroyed the Republican Party. And using pretty much the same techniques
in both cases. It really is a thing of beauty (in both cases).

--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.

CLC in a nutshell.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <MPG.30a80df...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Philip Lantz <p...@canterey.us> wrote:
...

>Many, probably most, of the people who designed and built the
>microprocessor you are using are not Christian. It was probably designed
>in Israel.

Is that really true? Do you have a reference for it?
(Not that I am doubting you; I am genuinely curious)

But, anyway, it don't bother him none; he intends to start with sand and
build it all from there.

--
The last time a Republican cared about you, you were a fetus.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:20:36 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> [snip]
> ...he intends to start with sand and

> build it all from there.

I intend to start with a firm faith in Jesus Christ, and then proceed
to discussion with like fellows, which lead to ideas and thought, all
of which are held before Him in how to proceed.

Personally, I believe a sapphire-based solution is the way to go,
possibly silicon-on-sapphire, but possibly something else. When
God walked upon the Earth in the Old Testament, where His feet
touched the ground, it was changed into sapphire:

http://biblehub.com/exodus/24-10.htm
"And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet
as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were
the body of heaven in his clearness."

The vision Ezekiel had when he saw the throne above the awesome
sea of crystal, there was a throne, and it looked like sapphire:

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/1-26.htm
"And above the firmament that was over their heads was the
likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone:
and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the
appearance of a man above upon it."

Peregrine Semiconductor has already demonstrated the benefits of
silicon-on-sapphire:

Ron Reedy of Peregrine gives a laymen's talk on the technology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1donjejh_U8

I've also had the thought that the third temple, described in much
greater detail in scripture than the other two temples, may relate
to a circuit. It describes, for example, windows of narrowing
thickness, with other components which were palm trees:

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/40-16.htm
"And there were narrow windows to the little chambers, and to
their posts within the gate round about, and likewise to the
arches: and windows were round about inward: and upon each post
were palm trees."

This described structure is massive, and some have made 3D renderings
of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNmERZkT6JM

At 2:48 it shows 30 dining rooms. It does not include the back
fourth wall, but if it did there would be 40 dining rooms, and
I had the vision back in 2014 which later led me to pursue my
40-bit extension LibSF 386-x40 CPU design.

If you look closely, and consider things from this perspective,
you can also see there are parts around it which look like
semiconductor structures:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/1951321
http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/44512/media/image2.png

It just occurred to me one day while watching that YouTube video.
I thought how much the entire temple layout looked like a
semiconductor circuit.

However, I could be completely wrong in that thinking. And I
would be content to be wrong about it. It just struck me.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:20:36 PM UTC, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <MPG.30a80df...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Philip Lantz <p...@canterey.us> wrote:
> ...
> >Many, probably most, of the people who designed and built
> >the microprocessor you are using are not Christian. It was
> >probably designed in Israel.
>
> Is that really true? Do you have a reference for it?
> (Not that I am doubting you; I am genuinely curious)
>

Israel has a flourishing semi-conductor design industry,
and Intel has an office there. However whilst I don't know
the exact proportion of work, I doubt that Intel has put
itself in the position where it relies on the Israeli office
to be able to design processors at all.

Most of the Israeli employees will of course be non-Christians.
But that's also likely to be true of the American employees,
depending how you define it.

Britain also has a large micro-processor design industry, based
in Cambridge.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Just to be clear, I am not shunning non-Christians. They are
part of continuous outreach. I walk out into the world and
encounter all manner of non-Christian behavior. However, in
my life, and in the things I do, I lift them to the Lord, and
I encourage and teach those around me to do the same, for those
ends are profitable, and desirable, in our walk here upon this
Earth.

[Philip Lantz]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Philip Lantz wrote:
> >Many, probably most, of the people who designed and built the
> >microprocessor you are using are not Christian. It was probably
> >designed in Israel.
>
> Is that really true? Do you have a reference for it?
> (Not that I am doubting you; I am genuinely curious)

Just based on market share, he is "probably" using an Intel
microprocessor, though of course I don't know that. As I understand
it, about half of Intel processors were designed in Israel until
a few years ago, and all of them are now, so slightly better
than 50-50 that a current system with an Intel processor contains
a processor designed in Israel. For instance, Sandy Bridge, Ivy
Bridge, and Skylake were all designed in Israel. I think Haswell
was designed in Oregon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)

> But, anyway, it don't bother him none; he intends to start with sand and
> build it all from there.

Yeah, I hadn't read that part until after my response.

Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but none of the above has anything
to do with my work and is not in any way a statement of Intel's
knowledge or position on anything.

[Philip Lantz]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > ...he intends to start with sand and
> > build it all from there.
>
> I intend to start with a firm faith in Jesus Christ, and then proceed

> to discussion with like fellows ...

Then why are you /here/? :-)

> Personally, I believe a sapphire-based solution is the way to go,
> possibly silicon-on-sapphire, but possibly something else. When
> God walked upon the Earth in the Old Testament, where His feet
> touched the ground, it was changed into sapphire:
>
> http://biblehub.com/exodus/24-10.htm
> "And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet
> as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were
> the body of heaven in his clearness."

That probably meant Lapis lazuli, which is probably completely
unsuitable for silicon-on-sapphire. An interesting connection,
though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The fact that it was pure and crystal clear makes me think it wasn't
Lapis lazuli. I think that's why the King James translators also used
that word, and also why the NIV translators used Lapis lazuli (because
there are many things in the NIV which literally reverse the prior
translations, even taking crucial verses completely out, changing
fundamentally the meaning / teaching).

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:13:41 PM UTC-5, Philip Lantz wrote:

> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > > ...he intends to start with sand and
> > > build it all from there.
> >
> > I intend to start with a firm faith in Jesus Christ, and then proceed
> > to discussion with like fellows ...
>
> Then why are you /here/? :-)

I didn't see this in my first reply.

I am on comp.arch because that's where semiconductor architects are. I
post about these things waiting for the one(s) who will come forward and
say, "I have the technical expertise" or "I have the capital" and then,
"Let's do it."

Until then, it is the area where such discussions take place.

I have expertise in software, so I am here on comp.lang.c talking about
software because I program in Visual FoxPro and C (using a C++ compiler)
for about 99% of all of my programming.

I am using the expertise I have, where I have it, yet doing it for the
Lord, which is His call upon our life (whatever situation we were in
when we came to faith in, remain there). I was 34 before I became a
believer, and I had a many-year established software history, which is
the reason why I have been content to continue developing in/on Windows
and Linux during this time as I write my own products, because the Lord
called me from that place knowing my great desire to write alternatives,
and having been doing so for years in DOS and Windows.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-20.htm
"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called."

God receives people where they are. He leads them out of sin and
toward holiness, but if their vocation is not something like stripping,
prostitution, a bar tender, a thief, etc., then you can remain where
you were ... just now do it for Him.

[Ian Collins]

Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> Modern
> cows will starve if fed entirely on grass. They need high density
> food.

Not in this part of the world they don't.

--
Ian Collins

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <c168f8b9-4f97-4896...@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>God receives people where they are. He leads them out of sin and
>toward holiness, but if their vocation is not something like stripping,
>prostitution, a bar tender, a thief, etc., then you can remain where
>you were ... just now do it for Him.

Note the subtle slam against bartenders...

The Donald would be proud.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <c168f8b9-4f97-4896...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >God receives people where they are. He leads them out of sin and
> >toward holiness, but if their vocation is not something like stripping,
> >prostitution, a bar tender, a thief, etc., then you can remain where
> >you were ... just now do it for Him.
>
> Note the subtle slam against bartenders...

It's not bartenders as much as it is the people they would be catering
to in their job, being the "hand" that perpetuated their addiction,
their behavior toward excess.

Once a person is born again, for example, it would be impossible to
continue to contribute to someone engaged in that type of sin, but
rather it would be theirs to witness to that person, leading them
to Jesus Christ, to healing, to salvation, and not to another drink.

And there are legitimate professions which would also be difficult
to persist in.

I have a welding background, for example. I grew up in a town where
my father owned a welding shop. I was involved with welding up until
my late 20s on a regular basis. A certified professional welder for
years even, but I doubt I could be that type of welder any longer
because the people I worked with were vulgar, obscene, using nonstop
profanity, making derogatory jokes that even back in the day I often
found to be over the top, but not all of them.

I actually found a video I had made back in the late 90s the other
day. I popped it in my VHS-C to VHC tape converter, and played it
on our TV, remembering it fondly because it was part of a project a
co-worker of mine was working on in the welding shop after hours.
He had bought a 1970 fastback Mustang and was restoring it, and I
had gone around getting video, talking to people, etc.

On the radio was a local alternative station. The music that station
played was full of worldliness and worldly lyrics which I was shocked
to hear in that way as I used to like that music. Profanity was there,
rude jokes, all kinds of stuff. I couldn't even watch it with the
sound on. I had to turn the sound off and just look around at the
welding shop and remember it that way.

That experience really brought into my mind how much the Lord has
changed me. I still wrestle with things everyday, and am told by a
great many Christians who have been holy-seeking Christians for
decades that it will be that way until He calls us Home. Still, it
was quite a shock to see myself in that video, using profanity,
participating in rude humor and what not, because it's so much not
a thing in my life today.

In 2012 when my mother had died, I had 40 days before I was hired on
at my new job after her death. I went to work with my father for a
couple weeks at the place he works now. He sold his welding shop
back in 2002 I believe, and has worked for one of his major customers
when he had the shop since that time. When I went there I worked
mostly with welding and really enjoyed it. But, there were about
eight other employees there apart from my father, and they used
profanity and were crass and what not. It was quite a thing to see
then also in that light being as I haven't really been around those
folks I used to be around all the time like that on a day-in/day-out
basis for years. The general atmosphere of the work environment was
like that from the VHC-C video I had found.

Holiness is an active pursuit in a Christian's life. It draws us
nearer to God (as He is Holy, Holy, Holy). It has us in pursuit of
His Holy Spirit instead of our flesh, which is the walk we're
supposed to be on. And the process of shedding our natural tendencies
toward those former behaviors in our lives is called sanctification.
It is a long and slow process as conviction is poured out, but it is
one that is ever ongoing, and ever increasing.

In any event, it was very eye-opening to see myself in what would've
been my completely familiar old style of behavior and mannerisms.
It was really something to see how much the Lord has changed me, even
though when I self-examine myself I consistently come up short with
what I desire to do in my heart, also something those holy-seeking
Christians I mentioned said would happen until the day I'm called Home.

-----
A Christian's life is changed from the inside-out by God. It is a
total rewiring from top to bottom, back to front, side to side. The
old passes away, and the new is here. The born again Christian is
never the same again.

This is my testimony, and this is my experience. And there are many
more such testimonies I've seen, and come across regularly. Jesus
Christ really is that powerful in a person's life. He changes
everything.

[Reinhardt Behm]

Probably designed in Israel, manufactured in Taiwan and packaged in
Thailand.

--
Reinhardt

[Malcolm McLean]

Those are probably beef cattle.

Dairy cows, in Britain at least, are very highly bred,
and they make so much milk that the metabolic demand
cannot be satisfied by grass consumption alone.

[Ian Collins]

Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 1:06:08 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>> Modern cows will starve if fed entirely on grass. They
>>> need high density food.
>>
>> Not in this part of the world they don't.
>>
> Those are probably beef cattle.

Most dairy and beef animals are grass fed here, we have plenty of it!
That's what makes NZ dairy production amongst the most cost effective in
the world (and our biggest dairy company the world's biggest milk
product exporter).

Some of the cows are rumoured to program in C in their spare time.

--
Ian Collins

[Osmium]

I can certify that cows of a few years ago, can and do, live on grass, water
and a block of salt.

I would be astonished if the current creatures that look like cows had been
so modified that this was no longer true.

[asetof...@gmail.com]

Sono arrivati al punto di ottenere
delle mucche che devono essere munte
ogni giorno altrimenti scoppiano
...
(tranne che ho capito male)
Si dovrebbe ritornare all'antico.
La cosa + preoccupante e l'industria
delle sementi
come controllano la produzione
alimentare con pericoli di inquinamento
genetico

[Malcolm McLean]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 1:06:26 PM UTC, Osmium wrote:

> "Malcolm McLean" wrote:
>
> > Dairy cows, in Britain at least, are very highly bred,
> > and they make so much milk that the metabolic demand
> > cannot be satisfied by grass consumption alone.
>
> I can certify that cows of a few years ago, can and do, live on grass, water
> and a block of salt.
>
> I would be astonished if the current creatures that look like cows had been
> so modified that this was no longer true.
>

You don't understand the power of genetics and selective
breeding.
Modern British dairy cattle will starve to death if the
farmer tries to feed them on a grass only diet. The
grass simply cannot provide enough nutrients to fulfil
the demands of the udder for milk. They have to be fed
cattle cake.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Using man's knowledge of genetics in this way is wholly evil.
It has no other trait.

[Malcolm McLean]

I always drink milk from Jersey cows, partly for animal
welfare reasons.
But it's a mistake to project human feeling onto animals.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

My comment relates to the greed of the dairy farmers, that they
would purposefully engineer animals that could not live in the
wild on their own, for example. It is a slap in the face at all
of God's creation, and a self-stepping-up by those farmers into
a role that was never theirs.

Wholly evil.

[David Brown]

Very few domesticated animals could live in the wild on their own. If
humans were to suddenly be wiped out by some disease, most domesticated
animal species would follow suit quite quickly. All dairy cows would be
dead within a week or two as a result of not being milked. Sheep would
survive longer, but be eliminated by dogs that have gone feral - which
would then mostly die themselves after easy pray like sheep ran out.
Some species would last many years, or even a few generations, but
almost all would collapse sooner or later.

This applies also to all the domesticated animals held by the Jews in
the approximate timescale of the OT - although the situation is much
more extreme in modern western society.

Domestication is a symbioses - the animals (and plants - this applies to
them too) are as dependent on humans as we are on them.

I don't disagree that extreme breeding and "genetic optimisation" is a
bad thing - I became a vegetarian partly after watching a documentary
about attempts to breed pigs without legs and chickens without feathers.
But is is naïve to think this is a new phenomena, or restricted to
only some animals in some places - only the /degree/ of the selective
breeding, and the specialisation of it, varies. If God created cows and
sheep one day long ago, for the benefit of newly created humans, he made
them unable to survive for long in the wild already at that point. All
we have done since then is reduce that survival time.

It is also completely and utterly ignorant and thoughtless to blame
"greedy dairy farmers". Dairy farmers want more efficient and
productive cows - because they need to make their milk as cheaply as
possible to succeed in mass markets. Blame market economies, not just
one small part of the system.

[Richard Bos]

Johannes Bauer <dfnson...@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 06.11.2015 05:33, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> >> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> >> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.
> >
> > I *really* hope you're being facetious.
>
> Sadly, not really.
>
> I mean there's all sorts of crazy in Usenet. People who claim they can
> predict earthquakes, people who have found the definitive scheme to
> winning Roulette, etc.
>
> But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
> believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
> to humanity. That's a tad bit too much for my taste.

Oh, trust me. If you think it's too much from a programming POV, you
don't half get how Molochian too much Rick is from a religious POV.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?)

If you read the Bible in the actual, original grammar, you'd be
surprised. Rick, of course, would scoff, as he does at everything which
isn't his personal mis-translation.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 1:06:08 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Modern cows will starve if fed entirely on grass. They
> >>> need high density food.
> >>
> >> Not in this part of the world they don't.
> >>
> > Those are probably beef cattle.
>
> Most dairy and beef animals are grass fed here, we have plenty of it!
> That's what makes NZ dairy production amongst the most cost effective in
> the world (and our biggest dairy company the world's biggest milk
> product exporter).

Erm. Only because it's effectively a monopoly, and exports "milk" powder
to China. In the civilised world, that's not called cheese.

Richard

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 5:54:52 AM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 05:33, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> >> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> >> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.
> >
> > I *really* hope you're being facetious.
>
> Sadly, not really.
>
> I mean there's all sorts of crazy in Usenet. People who claim they can
> predict earthquakes, people who have found the definitive scheme to
> winning Roulette, etc.
>
> But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
> believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
> to humanity.

It's not my only gift to humanity. And my gift isn't explicitly to
improve the C language... that's just a side effect. The true nature
of the gift is to build a tool that is founded upon a love for Jesus
Christ, and is an offering of that love, then given to mankind so
people can use it, and to then also have a model for how they can take
their love for Jesus Christ and apply it to the areas in which they
operate as well.

Here's a video which describes that. The description content of
what I am doing as a Christian in this regard begins about 30:00
into the video:

http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2012_12_08__01_vvmmc__and_vfrps_relationship_to_christianity.ogv

If you can't view it, use VLC (www.videolan.org).

> That's a tad bit too much for my taste.

It's an uncommon theme because there is an enemy at work in this world
which teaches people to do otherwise. And that enemy not only teaches
people to do otherwise, he also places up barriers against people like
me who then turn toward Jesus Christ and suggest that there is this
other way to be, a way that gives honor and praise unto God, a way that
is that which God would have us do, and not a way which the enemy would
have us do.

-----
My efforts are not solely of my own ends, but are in teaching others to
also be this way, to use the unique and special skills, talents, and
interests they have to also serve God.

[Richard Bos]

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
> > > dollars such a project would require.
> >
> > Ian, please don't feed the troll (or whatever he is).
>
> Keith, I am a prayerful servant of Jesus Christ.

No, you're not. You're a hateful servant of the Separator.

> I would like to see you in Heaven.

First, try to get there. Preaching isn't the solution; taking thy
neighbour seriously _as a human being_ rather than as a target for
sermons, is.

Richard

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The Bible conveys a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church is the bride
of Christ in eternity, which is why we have the pattern of marriage here
upon the Earth. He is our Bridegroom.

Those who are redeemed from the enemy's lies and clutches, who seek the
truth and are saved by coming to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, will be
married to Him in eternity, in the same way that marriages here on Earth
take place ... namely that all she possesses become his, and all he
possesses become hers, because they are joined together and are one.

The story of Jesus Christ is NOT what the enemy has taught. It is that
which the Holy Spirit has taught through men. And if you will seek
after the truth with your whole heart, then you too will find it.

[Richard Bos]

bartekltg <bart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06.11.2015 17:24, Richard Bos wrote:
> > bartekltg <bart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And, despite popular opinion, c++ wasn't created for the glory
> >> of Cthulhu, as a tribute for his testicles, allegedly
> >> represented by convoluted language structures.
> >
> > Well, of course not! Para-molluscs from the non-Euclidian angles of
> > outer space don't even have testicles, they spawn autosexually...
>
> The madness bothered me and corrupted this post. I wanted to write "tentacles".
> Uncountable number of tangle tentacles. Like c++, according to many people:-)

Well, yes. Although it's not the worst case. That would be Perl.

Richard

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The only way one can take their neighbor seriously, as a human being,
is to recognize that they are no merely flesh, but they are comprised
also of an eternal soul, and a spirit. And then from within that full
realization, the one which is provided to a person only by the guidance
and teaching of God's Holy Spirit, can that person proceed rightly in
knowing how to help his neighbor.

It is from that place I proceed, Richard, which is why you cannot see
any value or help in my offering ... because you are spiritually blind,
and are under the full delusion provide for by the enemy, the one that
would keep the person in a burning building from receiving rescue
ladder reaching up to their third story window. Instead of receiving
that which they need, help and evacuation from the burning building,
they pull out a rifle and start shooting at the firefighters who are
there to save them, believing in their mind they'll be fine, only to
find out at some point soon after that they are going to die, and now
there is no hope for them.

Christians who profess the path of Jesus Christ, of coming to Him in
repentance, and in asking Him for forgiveness for their sin, are those
firefighters. We are reaching out to all people in the burning
buildings. We teach the way of truth, the way of safety. And for all
who will hear the truth in our call, the same will come to the window,
board the ladder, and be saved. The rest will not. They will close
the window, seal up the curtains, go to their favorite couch, and wait
to be burned alive.

I pray you open your eyes, Richard, and seek the truth. You are on a
path right now that will end in your eternal destruction in Hell.
Unless you open your eyes and seek the truth, you will come to perilous
and undesirable ends.

I pray that you do seek the truth, and do come to Jesus Christ repenting
and asking forgiveness, because I would like to see you in Heaven.

[Keith Thompson]

ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> > Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > > Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > You'd better start by asking "him" (why not "her"?) for the billions of
>> > > dollars such a project would require.
>> >
>> > Ian, please don't feed the troll (or whatever he is).
>>
>> Keith, I am a prayerful servant of Jesus Christ.
>
> No, you're not. You're a hateful servant of the Separator.

Richard. Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.

Or perhaps more accurately, stop *being* a troll. If you want to
debate religion with Rick, do it elsewhere.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"