info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: This really made my day, thanks
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
ais523
Apr 28, 2015, 4:40:31 AM4/28/15
to
MotoFox wrote:
> Just came across the INTERCAL C interpreter in my Debian repository and
> that brought a smile to my face seeing it.
>
> Now the obligatiory anti-question: is this newsgroup dead?
No. It's been well recorded that you can ask whether this newsgroup is
dead and rapidly receive a reply that it isn't. Admittedly, this isn't
the most useful form of traffic, and ontopic traffic is somewhat rarer.
Perhaps surprisingly, C-INTERCAL itself isn't dead either. One of the
side projects I've been working on is a new yacc implementation, which
is mostly unrelated to INTERCAL, but I decided to test it with the
C-INTERCAL parser, and found some (very minor) bugs in C-INTERCAL
itself. So I've been fixing those.
--
ais523
C-INTERCAL comaintainer
> Just came across the INTERCAL C interpreter in my Debian repository and
> that brought a smile to my face seeing it.
>
> Now the obligatiory anti-question: is this newsgroup dead?
No. It's been well recorded that you can ask whether this newsgroup is
dead and rapidly receive a reply that it isn't. Admittedly, this isn't
the most useful form of traffic, and ontopic traffic is somewhat rarer.
Perhaps surprisingly, C-INTERCAL itself isn't dead either. One of the
side projects I've been working on is a new yacc implementation, which
is mostly unrelated to INTERCAL, but I decided to test it with the
C-INTERCAL parser, and found some (very minor) bugs in C-INTERCAL
itself. So I've been fixing those.
--
ais523
C-INTERCAL comaintainer
Claudio Calvelli
Apr 28, 2015, 4:40:35 AM4/28/15
to
On 2015-04-28, MotoFox <mot...@footron.bitnet> wrote:
> Now the obligatiory anti-question: is this newsgroup dead?
Of course not.
> Now the obligatiory anti-question: is this newsgroup dead?
C
ais523
Apr 28, 2015, 5:58:55 AM4/28/15
to
it's there (I was expecting it), but that it was sent within six seconds
of mine, and thus our messages crossed. It's not like it's at any
particularly significant timing with regards to the original message.
--
ais523
Claudio Calvelli
Apr 28, 2015, 6:22:40 AM4/28/15
to
On 2015-04-28, ais523 wrote:
> The thing that I find most amazing about this reply is not the fact that
> it's there (I was expecting it), but that it was sent within six seconds
> of mine, and thus our messages crossed. It's not like it's at any
> particularly significant timing with regards to the original message.
I was just thinking the same... of course, it's the time I take my first
> The thing that I find most amazing about this reply is not the fact that
> it's there (I was expecting it), but that it was sent within six seconds
> of mine, and thus our messages crossed. It's not like it's at any
> particularly significant timing with regards to the original message.
coffee break of the day.
While I'm here I should mention that CLC-INTERCAL is not dead either,
despite all appearances, occasionally I add some code and there may be
another escape one of these years. Definitely don't hold your breath
though.
C
Adam Thornton
Apr 28, 2015, 3:32:45 PM4/28/15
to
In article <slrnmjunrg...@z.w42.org>,
Claudio Calvelli <c.n...@w42.org.invalid> wrote:\
Maybe it and the new Nethack can come out the same week.
Adam
Claudio Calvelli <c.n...@w42.org.invalid> wrote:\
>While I'm here I should mention that CLC-INTERCAL is not dead either,
>despite all appearances, occasionally I add some code and there may be
>another escape one of these years. Definitely don't hold your breath
>though.
Well, *now* I'm holding my breath.
>despite all appearances, occasionally I add some code and there may be
>another escape one of these years. Definitely don't hold your breath
>though.
Maybe it and the new Nethack can come out the same week.
Adam
0 new messages