C++ Middleware Writer

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Shalom

Can you give me some suggestions to improve the
C++ Middleware Writer? http://webEbenezer.net

Thanks,
Brian

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Perhaps you will say what you find clear or confusing about
the site. Someone mentioned this page

http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html

was like a "foreign language." Maybe if you feel the same
you could make a suggestion. There's also a lot of open-
source code available on that page and from the on line
code generator. Any of that could be discussed.

In the Name of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,
thank you for your help.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

This file,
http://webEbenezer.net/misc/cmwAmbassador.cc

has 338 lines and 11 functions at the moment.
Most of the functions are less than 20 lines
long, but the constructor is 104 lines long.
The ctor has the event loop. Is it too long?

[Victor Bazarov]

The ctor is difficult to read. A bunch of local variables. A bunch of
weird macros (FD_ZERO, FD_SET - can't you do initialization of your
variables without those?). And above all - the infinite loop that after
a minute of looking at it was *unclear how or where it terminates*.

Perhaps I'm going to sound strange, but it always seemed to me that
c-tors should be short and sweet, and all other processing ought to be
given to other functions, split into logical areas (you have three 'try'
blocks in that loop, each could probably be in its own function), and
called from the 'init' kind of function... <shrug> But that's a style
topic, of course, just like the size of a function...

V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Scott Lurndal]

Victor Bazarov <v.ba...@comcast.invalid> writes:
>On 8/17/2012 1:03 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> This file,
>> http://webEbenezer.net/misc/cmwAmbassador.cc
>>
>> has 338 lines and 11 functions at the moment.
>> Most of the functions are less than 20 lines
>> long, but the constructor is 104 lines long.
>> The ctor has the event loop. Is it too long?
>
>The ctor is difficult to read. A bunch of local variables. A bunch of
>weird macros (FD_ZERO, FD_SET - can't you do initialization of your
>variables without those?).

FD* macros are part of the defined API for the select system call.

that said, the op should probably use poll(2) instead of select(2).

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, Victor Bazarov wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:03 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This file,
>
> > http://webEbenezer.net/misc/cmwAmbassador.cc
>
> >
>
> > has 338 lines and 11 functions at the moment.
>
> > Most of the functions are less than 20 lines
>
> > long, but the constructor is 104 lines long.
>
> > The ctor has the event loop. Is it too long?
>
>
>
> The ctor is difficult to read. A bunch of local variables. A bunch of
>
> weird macros (FD_ZERO, FD_SET - can't you do initialization of your
>
> variables without those?). And above all - the infinite loop that after
>
> a minute of looking at it was *unclear how or where it terminates*.
>

That's the event loop of a server. It doesn't terminate
unless there's an exception at a high level.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 2:03:27 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> FD* macros are part of the defined API for the select system call.
>
>
>
> that said, the op should probably use poll(2) instead of select(2).

It has been several years since I considered using poll
and I don't remember why I didn't use it. It may have
been it wasn't as portable as select.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 1:03:27 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
FD* macros are part of the defined API for the select system call. that said, the op should probably use poll(2) instead of select(2).

I switched to using poll now. Doing so shaved 15 lines
from the program and about 500 bytes off the size of the
executable on Linux. It would have been 16 lines but I
needed this
#define poll WSAPoll
on Windows.

It looked like I would also need
#define pollfd WSAPOLLFD
but at least here on Windows 7 that isn't needed.

I haven't checked any run time performance results, but
it is working on Linux and Windows. The constructor is
now 96 lines.

[Scott Lurndal]

Should be portable to any POSIX compliant system. Older BSD's may not
support it.

One of the advantages of poll is no file descriptor bitmasks, so it works
more efficiently in applications with very large getrlimit(RLIM_NOFILE)
values.

scott

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 2:06:25 AM UTC+3, (unknown) wrote:
> Shalom
>
>
>
> Can you give me some suggestions to improve the
>
> C++ Middleware Writer? http://webEbenezer.net
>

Looking at your site it seems that your software generates serialization code automatically ... but what code? IOW i miss some easy explanation what serialization problems exactly that generated stuff addresses and how and in what "tier" of yours. Also ... what problems it ignores or fails to address and leaves up to users? Our FAQ is good source of inspiration how to discuss it in depth (http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/serialization.html). If boost::serialization is 1.5 times slower or quicker does not really matter much, since i don't use that either.

For me the key problem of serialization (that is often unsolved) is that software evolves. At least successful software. With it evolves the data that it has to say (or serialize).

On the other hand the users of software do not usually evolve as quick as the software. Some tend to keep old version for decades. More so when the data is serialized into some file to be archived by user for a case. Rather old version gems may turn out of user's archives and become suddenly actual such way. Software developers who might make software that exchanges data (serializes/deserializes) with your software are no different from other users. Here will always be someone posting that he uses past millennium compiler Visual C 6.0 and has some trouble.

Therefore there is huge desire to keep newer versions compatible with older versions (and third party auxiliaries). That is quite complex problem. For example XML-based serialization may solve it partially so that older software just ignores unknown tags and attributes that it does not know of and newer version assumes some defaults if the tags and attributes are missing.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 9:12:41 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:

>
> Looking at your site it seems that your software generates serialization code automatically ... but what code? IOW i miss some easy explanation what serialization problems exactly that generated stuff addresses and how and in what "tier" of yours. Also ... what problems it ignores or fails to address and leaves up to users? Our FAQ is good source of inspiration how to discuss it in depth (http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/serialization.html). If boost::serialization is 1.5 times slower or quicker does not really matter much, since i don't use that either.
>

The documentation needs work.

The generated code is based on user input. This input:

http://webEbenezer.net/misc/cmw.req
http://webEbenezer.net/misc/remote.mdl

results in this output:

http://webEbenezer.net/misc/remote_messages_middle.cg.hh
http://webEbenezer.net/misc/remote_messages_middle.cg.cc


I've discussed support for multiple versions here and
in other forums and agree that it's a difficult problem.


To the best of my knowledge the C++ Middleware Writer
was the first on line code generator. For years there's
also been an on line PHP code generator. Lately I
noticed an on line Java code generator --
http://www.springfuse.com

[Werner]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 7:03:59 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:

> The ctor has the event loop. Is it too long?

Personally, I don't think it's intuitive (and its
contra-convention) to put the event loop in the
constructor. I would rather perform all
initialization in the constructor, and have the
user call a member function to commence the service.

try
{
CmwAmbassador cmwAmbassador;
cmwAmbassador.run();
}
catch( std::exception const &ex )
{
//...
}

[88888 Dihedral]

Polling is used for those low cost processors in low cost systems
which do not have a complete set of bios services to support fast
interrupt handlings.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:49:35 AM UTC-5, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
Polling is used for those low cost processors in low cost systems which do not have a complete set of bios services to support fast interrupt handlings.

I've read that poll is slower than some of the
atlernatives. It may be fast enough though and
I'd rather minimize the dependencies. Currently
everything needed is in the archive. This server
(the middle tier) is expected to run on a lan.
A large company might have to maintain several
instances of it. The back tier uses epoll, but
portability isn't as important for that tier.

If the middle tier isn't fast enough, the next
step I'd probably take would be to make it
multithreaded. I've thought about how to do that
and don't think it would be difficult.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:11:48 AM UTC-4, Werner wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I don't think it's intuitive (and its
>
> contra-convention) to put the event loop in the
>
> constructor. I would rather perform all
>
> initialization in the constructor, and have the
>
> user call a member function to commence the service.
>
>
>
> try
>
> {
>
> CmwAmbassador cmwAmbassador;
>
> cmwAmbassador.run();
>
> }
>
> catch( std::exception const &ex )
>
> {
>
> //...
>
> }

Thanks. I'll think about that. I've gotten the
ctor down to 91 lines now with some refactoring.

5 of those lines are:
#ifdef CMW_ENDIAN_BIG
, byteOrder(most_significant_first)
#else
, byteOrder(least_significant_first)
#endif

There's an ifdef in the .hh file also on CMW_ENDIAN_BIG.
If Microsoft were to support initializing non static
data members in the class declaration, I could merge
those two ifdefs and get rid of 5 more lines from the ctor.

I'm still wondering if I should drop Windows support
for the middle tier. There's no encryption between
the middle and back tiers yet and in part that's because
of the effort to maintain portability. The front tier
would still be available on Windows. I don't want to
burden small companies/individuals though. Not sure how
many developers only use Windows and would not use the
software if they had to use Linux also.

Dropping Windows support would allow me to clean up
the ctor as mentioned and make it easier to add
encryption between the middle and back tiers.

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:49:35 AM UTC-5, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
>> Polling is used for those low cost processors in low cost systems which do not have a complete
>> set of bios services to support fast interrupt handlings.
>
>I've read that poll is slower than some of the
>atlernatives.

If you are talking about poll(2) (the system call) vs. select(2) (the system call), they
are roughly equivalent in that they perform the same operations in the kernel. poll(2) may
copyin() more bytes because the pollfd array may be larger (for some value of nfd) than the
bitmasks copied in by the select(2) system call, but once in the kernel they're roughly
the same. epoll(2) on linux has additional capabilities that can be useful, but it is non-portable.

Wrapper implementations on the windows side, well, need one say more?

I don't know what Dihedral is talking about with respect to BIOS services. Once the BIOS loads
the boot loader (grub/NTLOADER), the BIOS is never involved in I/O or the poll(2) system call[*].

scott

[*] except for SMM calls to handle errors or workaround chipset errata via the System Management
Interrupt (SMI).

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:08:42 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:49:35 AM UTC-5, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
>
> >> Polling is used for those low cost processors in low cost systems which do not have a complete
>
> >> set of bios services to support fast interrupt handlings.
>
> >
>
> >I've read that poll is slower than some of the
>
> >atlernatives.
>
>
>
> If you are talking about poll(2) (the system call) vs. select(2) (the system call), they
>
> are roughly equivalent in that they perform the same operations in the kernel. poll(2) may
>
> copyin() more bytes because the pollfd array may be larger (for some value of nfd) than the
>
> bitmasks copied in by the select(2) system call, but once in the kernel they're roughly
>
> the same. epoll(2) on linux has additional capabilities that can be useful, but it is non-portable.
>
>

Yes, I was talking about poll(2). I use UDP between the
front and middle tier and TCP between the middle and back
tier. There's only one TCP connection so the poll call is:

int prc = poll(fds, 2, configData.keepalive_interval);


I figured Dihedral was suggesting using an event library
rather than poll. I'm not keen on that though.

[Scott Lurndal]

Dihedral was talking about basic device driver I/O where one polls (spins on) a busy bit
(e.g. on a serial port) waiting for an event to happen instead of using interrupts.

A complete non-sequitor.

scott

[Werner]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:48:40 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:

> Dropping Windows support would allow me to clean up
>
> the ctor as mentioned and make it easier to add
>
> encryption between the middle and back tiers.

How about a drastic change (when you have time):

CW_Ambassador
- Implemented in terms of CW_AmbassadorImpl...

CW_AmbassadorImpl
- Is abstract.
- Is created by AbstractPlatformFactory as CW_Ambassador(OS)_Impl.
- Where OS can be any of the OS's in question.
- (Bridge Pattern).
- CW_Ambassador has function run, implemented in terms of CW_AmbassadorImpl.
- Run dictates (via template method pattern) everything required in terms of
virtual functions, implemented by CW_AmbassadorImpl derivative.

The user always instantiates CW_Ambassador, and is oblivious of
the factory in the back instantiating a different instance...

I've implemented sockets using IOCP (for windows) and select (VxWorks
and Linux) using this pattern. The indirection does not matter much,
because most of the functions in question are called rarely.

Also, isolate responsibilies in the long function. Give them names,
make them (virtual functions), implemented in terms of an abstract
Impl, who's true implementation is provided by the opaque factory...

Kind regards,

Werner

Kind regards,

Werner

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Check it out --
http://webEbenezer.net/about.html

The C++ Middleware Writer has been on line now for
ten years.

Originally the front end was a web interface --
http://webEbenezer.net/cgi-bin/samb.cgi .

That interface is no longer supported. Close to
five years ago we replaced the web interface with
a command line interface which is easy to use from
a build environment --
http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html .

We've received a lot of help from people here and on
some other forums including the Boost lists. Iirc,
someone on a Boost list first suggested using a
command line interface. I also had the opportunity
to meet Bjarne Stroustrup at Texas A&M and give him
a demo of the software.

It's been fun working on the software and there's still
a lot to do. One thing I raised earlier in this thread
has to do with encryption. I've not decided yet on an
encryption library. It's been a few years since I
researched C, C++ encryption libraries. Have any of
the competitors either fallen behind or improved a lot
over the past few years? A year or so ago a company
told me they use different encryption libraries on
different platforms because they couldn't find one
library that met their needs. As I mentioned earlier
I'm thinking about dropping support for Windows in the
middle tier. The front tier would still work on Windows.
Rackspace (iirc) charges about 4 times more to buy time
on a Windows server than on a Linux server. I don't want
to buy trouble and that's kind of how it seems at the
moment with servers on Windows.

If you have a comment on a matter touched on earlier
in the thread, please chime in.

The first decade has been good, and I expect the future
will be even better!


Sincerely yours,
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises -- making programming fun again.
http://webEbenezer.net

O n e
B i g -
A s s
M i s t a k e ,
A m e r i c a

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I made a change to a file and am uncertain why the change
leads to a 492 byte increase in an executable.

The previous version of the file --
http://webEbenezer.net/misc/oldFormatting.hh

and the new version --
http://webEbenezer.net/misc/Formatting.hh
.

I think the only difference is the old version had
prototypes for the functions. I decided to try
removing those prototypes and giving the function
definitions within the class declaration. This is
with g++ 4.7.

I'm surprised by this result. I thought this change
wouldn't have an affect on the size of executables.
What do you recommend?

More feedback on older parts of this thread is
encouraged.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises -- Making programming fun again.


http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_21843208/imation-3q-revenue-off-20-percent-layoffs-coming

[Paavo Helde]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote in
news:0da1e10b-c736-41f8...@googlegroups.com:

>
> I made a change to a file and am uncertain why the change
> leads to a 492 byte increase in an executable.
>

> I think the only difference is the old version had
> prototypes for the functions. I decided to try
> removing those prototypes and giving the function
> definitions within the class declaration.

Apparently this enabled the compiler to inline some functions which it did
not do previously. This ought to enhance performance, at some expense of
memory usage (and 492 bytes rounds to zero nowadays, to be honest). If you
are indeed wanting to optimize for size, there are other compiler options
for that (at expence of speed, of course).

Cheers
Paavo

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:01:55 PM UTC-4, Paavo Helde wrote:
>
>
> Apparently this enabled the compiler to inline some functions which it did
>
> not do previously. This ought to enhance performance, at some expense of
>
> memory usage (and 492 bytes rounds to zero nowadays, to be honest). If you
>
> are indeed wanting to optimize for size, there are other compiler options
>
> for that (at expence of speed, of course).
>
>

I tried a test comparing O3 and Os in the executable in
question. The version built with O3 took 64 seconds and the
Os version took 63 seconds. The O3 version is 72,472 bytes
and the Os version is 44,836 bytes. Also the variation in
executable size that I mentioned above didn't show up when
using Os. I'm going to start using Os and see how that goes.

I recall someone advising me to optimize for size years ago,
but I needed more proof.

[Paavo Helde]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote in
news:df5d7865-ba5d-4bc2...@googlegroups.com:

That's cool, but I'm curious why are you wanting to go smaller? We have
DLL-s of size around 200 MB and nobody is complaining.

Cheers
Paavo

[Ian Collins]

Well what else did you expect? You told the compiler to back off on
inlining and it did.

> I recall someone advising me to optimize for size years ago,
> but I needed more proof.

Any blanket advice like that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Every application+target environment combination is unique, so to get
the best results, test and measure. Then use profile feedback if your
tools support it to squeeze out the last few percent.

--
Ian Collins

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:00:26 PM UTC-4, Paavo Helde wrote:
>
> That's cool, but I'm curious why are you wanting to go smaller? We have
>
> DLL-s of size around 200 MB and nobody is complaining.
>
>
>

No big reason, but the compile time also improved by about
20%. If simpler optimization produces equal run-time and
better build results, I'm inclined to use it.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>
> Any blanket advice like that should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> Every application+target environment combination is unique, so to get
>
> the best results, test and measure.

I have to put something in the makefile. I switched
it to Os from O3 based on my observations here. I also
tested switching from O3 to Os on another program and
found the same results -- equal run time results and
better build times. So I decided to make Os the default
for now. From reading about Os, it uses most of the
O2 optimizations.

[tro...@gmail.com]

<woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried a test comparing O3 and Os in the executable in
> question. The version built with O3 took 64 seconds and the
> Os version took 63 seconds. The O3 version is 72,472 bytes
> and the Os version is 44,836 bytes. Also the variation in
> executable size that I mentioned above didn't show up when
> using Os. I'm going to start using Os and see how that goes.
>
> I recall someone advising me to optimize for size years ago,
> but I needed more proof.

O3 often contains optimizations that will increase binary size a lot and may even have negative impact on performance.
O2 may be a good compromise between Os and O3.

Tobi

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:33:43 AM UTC-5, tro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> O3 often contains optimizations that will increase binary size a lot and may even have negative impact on performance.
>
> O2 may be a good compromise between Os and O3.
>
>

I found this to be an interesting perspective:

"-O3 is the highest optimization level and could
possibly make faster code but the applications that
benefit from it are very few, usually image and
video decoders and such. However the side effects,
like larger binary size, affects everything.
Larger binaries use more memory, load slower,
cause more disc I/O, etc. So compiling a system
with -O3 will have the effect that a few
applications run slightly faster at the expense
of the rest of the system running slightly slower
and becoming less responsive."

The program I noticed the increase in size is a
server that users run. It isn't expected to be
the primary application running on a machine.
It is likely to be one of a number of servers
on a machine.
It does seem that O2 or Os is a better default
for this particular server.

[Tobias Müller]

[Changed my newsserver, this one seems to accept my posts. Now I don't have
to resort to Google Groups anymore.]

Probably O2 is a better default than O3 for almost everything, not only for
your server.
I think it's also what most people use.

Tobi

[Jorgen Grahn]

And as far as I can tell, that's as close to the truth you get. g++
-O2 is almost always beneficial; -Os or -O3 is *probably* worth it,
but it depends heavily on the application, and at least some on the
exact cache sizes etc of the CPU it's executing on.

/Jorgen

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

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Check it out --
>
> http://webEbenezer.net/about.html
>
>
>
> The C++ Middleware Writer has been on line now for
>
> ten years.
>
>

...

> As I mentioned earlier
>
> I'm thinking about dropping support for Windows in the
>
> middle tier. The front tier would still work on Windows.
>
>

I removed the Windows support for the middle tier.
The middle tier runs on Linux and Mac OSX and it
should work on other UNIX flavors. The new version
of the code --

http://webEbenezer.net/misc/cmwAmbassador.cc

is about 40 lines smaller without the Windows related
code/junk. To reiterate, the front tier still works
on Windows, but have for the time being decided to

drop Windows support for the middle tier.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[88888 Dihedral]

woodb...@gmail.com於 2013年1月10日星期四UTC+8上午12時49分05秒寫道：

In the user interface part, I think the O2 and Os
switches help a lot.

But in the heavy work horse part the O3 mode
is required.

Anyway it acctually depends upon the ratio of the
interfaces and the work horses involved in the system.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I'm reviving a classic thread rather than starting a new
thread. If you can provide some ideas on how to improve
the code or documentation of C++ Middleware Writer,
please let me know.

I was looking at Springfuse

http://springfuse.com

and they say:

"Configure Springfuse and generate your project foundation"

I don't know their service that well, but the use of
the word foundation seems questionable. At least for
CMW I wouldn't describe it as providing the foundation
of your project. I want it to be a helpful tool.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:51:42 PM UTC, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://springfuse.com
>
> and they say:
>
> "Configure Springfuse and generate your project foundation"
>
> I don't know their service that well, but the use of
> the word foundation seems questionable.

They also say "Generate an application now."

I wouldn't be comfortable with that on my site. The CMW
doesn't generate applications. You have to generate your
own application. The CMW can help you build an application,
but that's as far as I would go.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

This is a function written by the C++ Middleware Writer:

inline void Marshal (::cmw::SendBuffer& buf
,uint8_t az1
,::cmw::marshalling_integer const& az2
,cui_generator const& az3
,int32_t msg_length_max=10000){
try{
buf.ReserveBytes(4);
buf.Receive(az1);
az2.Marshal(buf);
az3.Marshal(buf);
buf.FillInSize(msg_length_max);
}catch(...){buf.PartialReset();throw;}
}

I'm thinking about changing the name of the function
PartialReset to Rollback. The function resets the
state of the buffer to what it was when the function
started. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use
Rollback outside of database context.?

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises "If the foundations are destroyed,
what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:05:55 PM UTC, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about changing the name of the function
> PartialReset to Rollback. The function resets the
> state of the buffer to what it was when the function
> started. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use
> Rollback outside of database context.?
>

There are a number of older topics here that were only
discussed a little or not at all.

Also my middle tier, the CMW Ambassador, does synchronous
writes to files. It is async as far as the networking
stuff goes. I'm not sure how big of a deal that is. I
believe the average request will amount to output (files)
less than 20k in size. I hope that will help in terms of
minimizing the impact of synchronous writes.?

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "Do not rejoice when your enemy
falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles;
Or the L-rd will see it and be displeased, and turn His
anger away from him." Proverbs 24:17,18

http://webEbenezer.net

[Ike Naar]

On 2014-06-09, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ebenezer Enterprises "If the foundations are destroyed,
> what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3

You can't trust people who call themselves "righteous". Grandma 1:01

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I beleive there are some who are counted by G-d as righteous.
But I admit this:

"Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but who can find a
trustworthy man?" Proverbs 20:6

Some translations say goodness rather than loyalty.

[Ike Naar]

On 2014-06-10, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:57:10 PM UTC, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2014-06-09, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ebenezer Enterprises "If the foundations are destroyed,
>> > what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3
>>
>> You can't trust people who call themselves "righteous". Grandma 1:01
>
> I beleive there are some who are counted by G-d as righteous.

Exactly. Don't trust them.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

"So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith." Galatians 6:10

Why?

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:51:42 PM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm reviving a classic thread rather than starting a new
> thread. If you can provide some ideas on how to improve
> the code or documentation of C++ Middleware Writer,
> please let me know.
>

My sense is that interest in this classic thread has waned. I also think you've already gotten a lot of good advise: one, fix up the web page, tell people what your product is, how it compares to the competition, and why anyone would want to use it; two, support standard serialization formats rather than proprietary formats, nobody wants to be locked into an unknown vendor; three, prefer alternatives to code generation. But you already have this feedback.

Best of luck,
Daniel
https://github.com/danielaparker/jsoncons

"Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my code?
It took me years to write, will you take a look?
It's a million lines, give or take a few
I'll be writing more in a week or two
But I need a break and I want to be a middleware writer
Middleware writer

Middleware writer"

- The Beatles

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:27:09 AM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:51:42 PM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm reviving a classic thread rather than starting a new
>
> > thread. If you can provide some ideas on how to improve
>
> > the code or documentation of C++ Middleware Writer,
>
> > please let me know.
>
> >
>
>
>
> My sense is that interest in this classic thread has waned. I also think you've already gotten a lot of good advise: one, fix up the web page, tell people what your product is, how it compares to the competition, and why anyone would want to use it;

A month or two ago I did update a number of things on the
website. I compare it to the serialization library in
Boost.

> two, support standard serialization formats rather than proprietary formats, nobody wants to be locked into an unknown vendor;

I haven't found a format that encodes string lengths as variable-
length integers. I'm not sure if there are any major
differences between other binary protocols and mine besides
the string lengths... for regular container sizes and message
lengths I use 4-byte integers.

I haven't updated this change on my website yet, but I
plan to soon. The old figure was $500 and now it's $999.

I'm willing to donate 15 hours/week for six months to a project
that uses the C++ Middleware Writer.

Also I'll pay $999 and give a $1,000 investment in my company
to someone who helps me find someone interested in this.

I'll pay the $999 after working for four months on the project.
Ebenezer Enteprises works to reward investments to 3 times the
original amount. So the investment would result in between $0 and
$3,000, depending on how things go for the company.


Thanks for your comments.

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:27:09 AM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:51:42 PM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > I'm reviving a classic thread rather than starting a new
>>
>> > thread. If you can provide some ideas on how to improve
>>
>> > the code or documentation of C++ Middleware Writer,
>>
>> > please let me know.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> My sense is that interest in this classic thread has waned. I also think you've already gotten a lot of good advise: one, fix up the web page, tell people what your product is, how it compares to the competition, and why anyone would want to use it;
>
>A month or two ago I did update a number of things on the
>website. I compare it to the serialization library in
>Boost.
>
>
>> two, support standard serialization formats rather than proprietary formats, nobody wants to be locked into an unknown vendor;
>
>I haven't found a format that encodes string lengths as variable-
>length integers. I'm not sure if there are any major
>differences between other binary protocols and mine besides
>the string lengths... for regular container sizes and message
>lengths I use 4-byte integers.

Is your protocol:

1) Robust (can you recover from corrupt data?)
2) Secure (can you ensure that the data hasn't been corrupted)
3) host-endianness transparent?
4) compatible with existing network monitoring and data analysis tools?

Why would one care about the extra few dozen bytes required
to encode string lengths as 32-bit quantities vs. 16/8-bit?

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:56:04 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> Is your protocol:
> 1) Robust (can you recover from corrupt data?)

No.

> 2) Secure (can you ensure that the data hasn't been corrupted)

No. I guess this refers to checksums? I'm open to adding that.

> 3) host-endianness transparent?

I use receiver-makes-right.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3615393_Receiver_makes_right_data_conversion_in_PVM

> 4) compatible with existing network monitoring and data analysis tools?
>

No. Do you have some links on these items?

>
> Why would one care about the extra few dozen bytes required
> to encode string lengths as 32-bit quantities vs. 16/8-bit?

I think it makes sense since a lot of strings aren't very long.
It may be a dozen bytes every time a message is sent.

I can use the internet as much as I like, but I looked at
a plan recently that had a 3G/month limit. That's about
100M/day. The archive I have to download is now 20,801 bytes.
I've worked to keep its size down and am glad to have done so
if more limited plans are coming.?

[Ike Naar]

On 2014-06-11, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can use the internet as much as I like, but I looked at
> a plan recently that had a 3G/month limit. That's about
> 100M/day. The archive I have to download is now 20,801 bytes.
> I've worked to keep its size down and am glad to have done so
> if more limited plans are coming.?

Under those conditions you can download your archive 200 times per hour,
which seems plenty.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

There's also the rest of the web site, my own web searching
and some other traffic, including VOIP traffic. I don't know
what it adds up to, but it would reduce the 200 number a lot.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5251403/binary-serialization-of-stdbitset

The answer that is chosen there, talks about a bitset
implementation that allows users to have access to
the internal representation. It would be like
std::array in that respect. Does anyone have such
an implementation? I'd like to add marshalling
support for bitset to the CMW.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:22:59 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5251403/binary-serialization-of-stdbitset
>
> The answer that is chosen there, talks about a bitset
> implementation that allows users to have access to
> the internal representation. It would be like
> std::array in that respect. Does anyone have such
> an implementation? I'd like to add marshalling
> support for bitset to the CMW.
>

According to this

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/bitset

a function called "to_ullong" was added for C++ 2011.

That looks like more ::std::lameness. I think there
should be a function that works regardless of the
number of bits in the bitset.

There are older topics in this thread that I'd like
more help with.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us.
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I'm in the process of deciding whether to keep
or scrap a change I made recently to my back
tier -- code generator. On the negative side,
the change increases the size of the executable
by about 3%. On the positive side, comparing
the two versions in isolation shows the old
version is over 4% slower than the new version.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to test the
change though in the executable rather than in
isolation. I've run the back tier using the time
command. After running a lot of tests, I kill the
time command/back tier using Control-C. And it
spits out some data in milliseconds. So far that
hasn't been enough accuracy to differentiate
between the two versions. How do you suggest I
proceed? Thanks.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Heavenly code.
http://webEbenezer.net

[Ike Naar]

On 2014-06-24, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm in the process of deciding whether to keep
> or scrap a change I made recently to my back
> tier -- code generator. On the negative side,
> the change increases the size of the executable
> by about 3%. On the positive side, comparing
> the two versions in isolation shows the old
> version is over 4% slower than the new version.

> [...]

> Ebenezer Enterprises - Heavenly code.

Heavenly code is code that is either 3% too big or 4% too slow?

[Jorgen Grahn]

I wouldn't know -- I'm more familiar with Hellish code.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:26:48 PM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-24, Ike Naar wrote:
> >
> > Heavenly code is code that is either 3% too big or 4% too slow?
>

It's robust, flexible and efficient. I don't have a lot
to spend on hardware. I compensate for that by working on
making the software efficient.

> I wouldn't know -- I'm more familiar with Hellish code.
>

Sorry if you have to deal with a lot of rotten code.
Feel free to download my software and judge for yourself.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I've added support for type aliases via the using keyword.
For example, the CMW is able to handle this header:

#pragma once

#include <stdint.h>

using messageid_t = uint8_t;

messageid_t const Login = 1;
messageid_t const Generate = 2;
messageid_t const Keepalive = 3;

----- end of header --------

And then this Middle code:

// Messages the middle tier sends to the back tier.

middle_messages_back
@out (messageid_t, ::std::vector<cmw_account_info>)
@out (messageid_t, ::cmw::marshalling_integer, cui_generator)
@out (messageid_t)
}

------- end of middle code --------

The CMW can handle more complicated statements like:

using abc = ::std::vector<std::string>;

It doesn't have support for alias templates though.
It also doesn't support the older typedef syntax.
We plan to support the using syntax but not the
typedef syntax.


There's a slew of older topics in this thread that
I hope will be discussed eventually.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "For whoever wishes to save his
life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My
sake will find it." Matthew 16:25

http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Is anyone using string_view?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20803826/what-is-string-view

If so what compiler are you using? Thanks.


Brian

[woodb...@gmail.com]

union U
{
int a;
int b;
string v;
U();
~U();
};

In such cases, one must call placement new, and subsequently invoke the member's destructor explicitly to change the active member of a union:

U u;
U.a=5;
new ( &u.v) string("hello"); //switch the active member to std::string
u.v.~string(); //destroy the string before switching to another active member
u.a=6;


----------------------------------------------------------

The above is adapted from this page:
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=cplusplus&seqNum=556

My comment has to do with this line:
u.v.~string();

Would it be possible to change the language so instead
it was:

u.v.~();

or

u.v.~;

? That seems like a change similar to using auto.


There are a number of topics and questions in this thread
that haven't been discussed much.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

"The world is a mess." Madeleine Albright

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/27/Albright-The-world-is-a-mess

I've noticed that also. C++ is a mess too, but other langs
are even worse.

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>"The world is a mess." Madeleine Albright
>
>http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/27/Albright-The-world-is-a-mess
>
>I've noticed that also. C++ is a mess too, but other langs
>are even worse.
>

Please help to clean up the world, and keep your political and
religious rantings to yourself and out of the C++ newsgroup.

Your compliance is appreciated.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

There are a number of C++ related topics up thread that
I would like to discuss.

[Tobias Müller]

Just that noone will notice because of:
- the highly uninformative topic
- the age of that thread
- the number of spam messages in this thread.

So if you really have questions about C++ and not just searching for
attention or advertising of your product then I suggest that you open a new
thread for each topic.

Tobi

[Chris Vine]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> There are a number of C++ related topics up thread that
> I would like to discuss.

Then discuss that and not your political and religious rantings. Also,
if you want to discuss C++ related topics, try picking a relevant title;
or if you want to use the title to advertise your product, do it less
obliquely and we can choose to ignore it (or not) more easily.

Chris

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> It's been fun working on the software and there's still
> a lot to do.

I read Tobi's last reply and also reread some of the
thread. Tobi's early replies about Os, O2 and O3 were
helpful. I settled on O2 after some uncertainty about
that. And I reply here rather than to Tobi's last post
because this precedes that post and I think correctly
says there's still work to do. I haven't seen anything
like the C++ Middleware Writer coming along. (There's
Springfuse.com ,but that's Java and a different domain.)
It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
not easily duplicated.


> As I mentioned earlier
> I'm thinking about dropping support for Windows in the
> middle tier.

Improved support for newer C++ features in the latest
version of Visual Studio encouraged me to get my middle
tier running on Windows again. There's still some crud
involved with Windows support:

#ifdef CMW_WINDOWS
WSADATA wsa;
int result=WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,2),&wsa);
if(0!=result)throw failure("WSAStartup: ")<<result;
#endif

It would be nice if that could be removed. That's the
worst of it as far as I can tell. So after a year or
two of not supporting Windows for the middle tier, we
revived Windows support for the middle tier.

Another recent development is that I ported the back
tier (code generator) from Linux to BSD (FreeBSD/PC-BSD).
Haven't completely adjusted to BSD yet, but we're getting
there.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's been fun working on the software and there's still
> > a lot to do.
>

[ snip ]

> It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
> not easily duplicated.
>

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/28/dutch-dreamer-hopes-to-bring-noahs-ark-replica-to-americas.html?intcmp=hplnws

I want to give these guys a shout out for their work so far.
I'm impressed with what they have accomplished.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/04/2016 22:58, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been fun working on the software and there's still
>>> a lot to do.
>>
> [ snip ]
>
>> It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
>> not easily duplicated.
>>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/28/dutch-dreamer-hopes-to-bring-noahs-ark-replica-to-americas.html?intcmp=hplnws
>
> I want to give these guys a shout out for their work so far.
> I'm impressed with what they have accomplished.

Looks like a self indulgent vanity project to me.

/Flibble

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 28-Apr-16 om 11:58 PM schreef woodb...@gmail.com:

> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been fun working on the software and there's still
>>> a lot to do.
>>
> [ snip ]
>
>> It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
>> not easily duplicated.
>>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/28/dutch-dreamer-hopes-to-bring-noahs-ark-replica-to-americas.html?intcmp=hplnws
>
> I want to give these guys a shout out for their work so far.
> I'm impressed with what they have accomplished.

note (from their website) "At 410 feet long, 95 feet wide and 75 feet
high, the ark is half the size of the specifications described in the
Bible. It is made of cedar and pine and was built atop a steel barge ..."

So even at half the size and with modern woodcraft, they didn't try to
built it from wood. It is essentially a big cabin on top of a steel ship.

Note that I live in the Netherlands and I had never heared of this
project. We Dutch don't take religious controversies very serious any
more, otherwise the Dutch would have killed each other centuries ago.
(We did try, but in the end maintaining the Dykes was deemed more
important. Living next to a (different-)religious neighbour is to be
preferred over being dead on the bottom of a sea.)

Wouter "objects? No thanks!" van Ooijen

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:35:38 AM UTC-5, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Op 28-Apr-16 om 11:58 PM schreef woodb...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's been fun working on the software and there's still
> >>> a lot to do.
> >>
> > [ snip ]
> >
> >> It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
> >> not easily duplicated.
> >>
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/28/dutch-dreamer-hopes-to-bring-noahs-ark-replica-to-americas.html?intcmp=hplnws
> >
> > I want to give these guys a shout out for their work so far.
> > I'm impressed with what they have accomplished.
>
> note (from their website) "At 410 feet long, 95 feet wide and 75 feet
> high, the ark is half the size of the specifications described in the
> Bible. It is made of cedar and pine and was built atop a steel barge ..."
>
> So even at half the size and with modern woodcraft, they didn't try to
> built it from wood. It is essentially a big cabin on top of a steel ship.

Noah built a quality vessel/ark with G-d's help. I'm not
surprised it is difficult to duplicate it today even with
modern woodcraft.

>
> Note that I live in the Netherlands and I had never heared of this
> project. We Dutch don't take religious controversies very serious any
> more, otherwise the Dutch would have killed each other centuries ago.
> (We did try, but in the end maintaining the Dykes was deemed more
> important. Living next to a (different-)religious neighbour is to be
> preferred over being dead on the bottom of a sea.)
>

I'm okay with having neighbors that don't believe the same as me.

> Wouter "objects? No thanks!" van Ooijen

What does that mean?

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "Trust in the L-rd with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5

[Juha Nieminen]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Noah built a quality vessel/ark with G-d's help. I'm not
> surprised it is difficult to duplicate it today even with
> modern woodcraft.

Isn't it curious how your god is so impotent that he needed the aid of
a human being to save the animals. He couldn't just snap his fingers
and make it happen. He could break the laws of physics and build a ship
that's a physical impossibility, but saving the animals himself was too
much. Because reasons.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 09-May-16 om 12:18 AM schreef woodb...@gmail.com:

Google is your friend.

Wouter

[Fred.Zwarts]

"Wouter van Ooijen" schreef in bericht
news:57230ec9$0$4287$e4fe...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...

>
>Op 28-Apr-16 om 11:58 PM schreef woodb...@gmail.com:
>> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's been fun working on the software and there's still
>>>> a lot to do.
>>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> It's a little like Noah's ark. A large project that's
>>> not easily duplicated.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/28/dutch-dreamer-hopes-to-bring-noahs-ark-replica-to-americas.html?intcmp=hplnws
>>
>> I want to give these guys a shout out for their work so far.
>> I'm impressed with what they have accomplished.
>
>note (from their website) "At 410 feet long, 95 feet wide and 75 feet high,
>the ark is half the size of the specifications described in the Bible. It
>is made of cedar and pine and was built atop a steel barge ..."
>
>So even at half the size and with modern woodcraft, they didn't try to
>built it from wood. It is essentially a big cabin on top of a steel ship.

As I understood it, the main reason to build it on top of a steel barge,
were the safety regulations of the government. Maybe Noah worked under a
government with different safety regulations. :)

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:35:38 AM UTC-5, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> Op 28-Apr-16 om 11:58 PM schreef woodb...@gmail.com:
>> > On Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:47:10 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:

>> So even at half the size and with modern woodcraft, they didn't try to
>> built it from wood. It is essentially a big cabin on top of a steel ship.
>
>
>Noah built a quality vessel/ark with G-d's help.

But, you have no proof nor evidence that such as
vessel was ever actually built.

> I'm not
>surprised it is difficult to duplicate it today even with
>modern woodcraft.

Physics precludes it. It also precludes the noted effects
of 40 days of rain (unless the icecaps completely melted, which
physics says would take millenia).

>
>
>>
>> Note that I live in the Netherlands and I had never heared of this
>> project. We Dutch don't take religious controversies very serious any
>> more, otherwise the Dutch would have killed each other centuries ago.
>> (We did try, but in the end maintaining the Dykes was deemed more
>> important. Living next to a (different-)religious neighbour is to be
>> preferred over being dead on the bottom of a sea.)
>>
>
>I'm okay with having neighbors that don't believe the same as me.

So why do you want to leave minnesota?

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 1:16:51 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Noah built a quality vessel/ark with G-d's help. I'm not
> > surprised it is difficult to duplicate it today even with
> > modern woodcraft.
>
> Isn't it curious how your god is so impotent that he needed the aid of
> a human being to save the animals. He couldn't just snap his fingers
> and make it happen.

This may be related to the question of why G-d created man.
I agree with those who think the answer is in order to love people.

"The L-rd G-d placed the man in the Garden of Eden as its gardener,
to tend and care for it." Genesis 2:15

That is similar it seems to me to Noah's assignment.
G-d wanted to save Noah and the animals so having
Noah build something for both people and animals
accomplishes that. I think G-d could have done it in
other ways, but the way He did it allows Him to reveal
Himself to Noah in ways that strengthen their
relationship.

> He could break the laws of physics and build a ship
> that's a physical impossibility,

How big do you think the ark was? This site

http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

mentions it may have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide,
and 45 feet high.

[Juha Nieminen]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> He could break the laws of physics and build a ship
>> that's a physical impossibility,
>
> How big do you think the ark was? This site
>
> http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html
>
> mentions it may have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide,
> and 45 feet high.

Out of wood. With stone age technology. We can't build a seaworthy ship
out of wood even with modern technology and modern materials because
it's just not physically feasible.

And that's just one of the dozens of impossibilities and fallacies
in the entire story.

The story reads like a myth, is completely consistent with a myth,
contains physical impossibilities, and makes absolutely no logical
sense, and the entire event was completely unnecessary. Why is it
so hard to accept that it's just a myth. If you want to think the
story is metaphorical, then so be it, but it's not literal because
it can't be literal. It reads exactly like any other myth of any
other culture or religion. You give this particular myth special
treatment because of your own religion and your own biases, and
you are incapable of seeing it in a more level-headed context.

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:17:36 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
.>
> The story reads like a myth, .

The flood stories are very hold, and predate the Judaic traditions. In the
ancient Babylon traditions, the reason for the flood was because one of the
divine assembly, Enlil, was disturbed by the growing number of human workers, he couldn't stand their uproar, he couldn't sleep, he first tried to control
them with a plague, then drought, then famine, but in each case was thwarted
by the divine patron of the workers, Ea-Enki. Eventually the divine assembly
decided to control the workers with a flood. Ea-Enki tipped off a human
worker, Atrahasis, who then built a barge and filled it with animals.

I believe Brian likes the Judaic version of the story, set when Judaism had
moved from polytheism to monotheism. But with monotheism, the focus changed
from conflict between the different divine figures, to the inner turmoil of
Yahweh, and his somewhat obsessive fixation on humans, now that he had no
other gods to interact with. I prefer the older ones.

Daniel

[Scott Lurndal]

Daniel <daniel...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:17:36 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>.>
>> The story reads like a myth, .
>
>The flood stories are very hold, and predate the Judaic traditions. In the
>ancient Babylon traditions, the reason for the flood was because one of the
>divine assembly, Enlil, was disturbed by the growing number of human workers, he couldn't stand their uproar, he couldn't sleep, he first tried to control
>them with a plague, then drought, then famine, but in each case was thwarted
>by the divine patron of the workers, Ea-Enki. Eventually the divine assembly
>decided to control the workers with a flood. Ea-Enki tipped off a human
>worker, Atrahasis, who then built a barge and filled it with animals.

Whereas in reality, the flood myths are likely based in the
relatively rapid rise of sea level following the last glaciation
period. Both the med basin and the red sea (iirc) had sudden
influxes of water during that timeframe.

But I'm sure Brian doesn't believe that glaciers existed, since
his world started six thousand years ago.

[Juha Nieminen]

Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Whereas in reality, the flood myths are likely based in the
> relatively rapid rise of sea level following the last glaciation
> period. Both the med basin and the red sea (iirc) had sudden
> influxes of water during that timeframe.

Ultimately, such myths arise because humans are instinctively animists
(an instinct that probably goes *way* back in our evolutionary history).
We tend to assume consciousness and intent in unknown things. If there's
a sound in a bush, we tend to assume it's an animal (a potentially
dangerous one) rather than a non-living being like the wind.

Floods are relatively common and highly destructive. It would be quite a
surprise if ancient cultures did *not* attribute them to some conscious
being, with some kind of intent or purpose behind it.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:17:36 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>
> Out of wood. With stone age technology. We can't build a seaworthy ship
> out of wood even with modern technology and modern materials because
> it's just not physically feasible.

What about the ships the Pilgrims used to escape from
Europe? They were made out of wood and seaworthy
enough to get them across the Atlantic. The ark
didn't have to last for a long time, but it had to
be strong enough to endure a lot for a few months.
Maybe Noah and company had to patch up a few spots
on a daily basis. Bug fixes to the ark.

>
> And that's just one of the dozens of impossibilities and fallacies
> in the entire story.
>
> The story reads like a myth, is completely consistent with a myth,
> contains physical impossibilities, and makes absolutely no logical
> sense, and the entire event was completely unnecessary. Why is it
> so hard to accept that it's just a myth. If you want to think the
> story is metaphorical, then so be it, but it's not literal because
> it can't be literal. It reads exactly like any other myth of any
> other culture or religion. You give this particular myth special
> treatment because of your own religion and your own biases, and
> you are incapable of seeing it in a more level-headed context.
>

I'm following in the footsteps of people like William Bragg

http://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Bragg

He said, "Religion and science are opposed, but only in the
same way that my thumb and forefinger are opposed, and between
them, I can grasp everything."

[Gareth Owen]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:

> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:17:36 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Out of wood. With stone age technology. We can't build a seaworthy ship
>> out of wood even with modern technology and modern materials because
>> it's just not physically feasible.
>
> What about the ships the Pilgrims used to escape from Europe?

If you're going to elide 4000 years of developments in vehicle
technology[0], why not go the whole hog just have Noah build a
gopher-wood space shuttle.

[0] assuming that the flood was in 2304BCE, as I dutifully and
unquestioningly believe, having just read it on creation.com

[Juha Nieminen]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:17:36 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Out of wood. With stone age technology. We can't build a seaworthy ship
>> out of wood even with modern technology and modern materials because
>> it's just not physically feasible.
>
> What about the ships the Pilgrims used to escape from
> Europe?

Not even nearly the same size.

Try to google up the largest wooden ship ever made. There just is a
physical limit to how large a wooden ship can be.

>> The story reads like a myth, is completely consistent with a myth,
>> contains physical impossibilities, and makes absolutely no logical
>> sense, and the entire event was completely unnecessary. Why is it
>> so hard to accept that it's just a myth. If you want to think the
>> story is metaphorical, then so be it, but it's not literal because
>> it can't be literal. It reads exactly like any other myth of any
>> other culture or religion. You give this particular myth special
>> treatment because of your own religion and your own biases, and
>> you are incapable of seeing it in a more level-headed context.
>>
>
> I'm following in the footsteps of people like William Bragg

No. You believe the myth because you want to believe the myth.
You are highly biased and refuse to even accept the idea that the
myth is just that, a story. A fable. Mythology. Made up.

The world is stock full of similar myths, both ancient and modern.
There are, in fact, many myths that are significantly more belivable
and physically possible than the ark one. Yet you don't accept any
of them, and see them for what they are. Except for this one.

[Jerry Stuckle]

OTOH, you think it's a myth because you don't want to believe the story
can be real. And yes, there are many stories floating around, both
ancient and modern. And some of them have even been discovered to be
based on truth.

Your mind is just as closed as his is.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Mr Flibble]

On 19/05/2016 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Your mind is just as closed as his is.

Don't be a twit. Noah's Ark is in the Book Of Genesis and we know
Genesis is fictional because we know, among other things, that evolution
is a fact. If anyone has a closed mind it is you mate. Try opening
YOUR mind to SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I wouldn't use the word "discovered" there. The following
quotes are from this page:

http://truemyths.org/2015/02/12/tolkien-c-s-lewis-and-true-myths/

” A young C.S. Lewis was no different. In fact, he once told Tolkien that myths were lies, though “lies breathed through silver.” Tolkien took issue with this, so much so that he wrote a poetic response to Lewis’ assertion and started a long dialogue with him that resulted in Lewis’ eventual conversion."

"Coming back to Lewis, Tolkien’s poetic response to him (“Mythopoeia”) was about much more than the truth of Christianity. In fact, it’s not really
about Christianity at all, at least not explicitly, but instead argues
that mankind is by his nature a little maker, and furthermore that the inspirations he receives to make are not just random sputterings of his
brain but are instead “monitions,” movements from an external and
supernatural source. In this sense, our inspirations are not ultimately meaningless, but promptings to fulfill our nature as subcreators."

I hope that sounds familiar. That's basically what I've been saying
for years. I claim the C++ Middleware Writer is G-d's gift to me
to save me. G-d used the ark to save Noah and I have a similar
tale to tell.

[Jerry Stuckle]

You claim that the Book of Genesis is fictional without any proof - and
then have the nerve to claim I have a closed mind? ROFLMAO!

You obviously haven't read Genesis. That's for sure. But that's
typical of closed-minded idiots.

[David Brown]

On 19/05/16 21:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 19/05/2016 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> Your mind is just as closed as his is.
>>
>> Don't be a twit. Noah's Ark is in the Book Of Genesis and we know
>> Genesis is fictional because we know, among other things, that evolution
>> is a fact. If anyone has a closed mind it is you mate. Try opening
>> YOUR mind to SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> You claim that the Book of Genesis is fictional without any proof - and
> then have the nerve to claim I have a closed mind? ROFLMAO!
>

It is not up to anyone to prove that a particular book is fictional -
the book is fictional until proved to be fact (or at the very least,
until there is some independent corroborating evidence for at least some
of the stories in the book).

The claims in the Book of Genesis are extraordinary, to say the least.
And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. For Genesis, there
is - to my knowledge - no independent proof in any written documents or
archaeology. I don't think there is even any evidence for significant
Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise.

Of course, a complete lack of any evidence does not prove that Genesis
is fictional - merely that if you want to believe it to be "true" in any
sense, then you do so on faith and not due to rational thought or reasoning.

And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/
that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void.
So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional -
but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.

> You obviously haven't read Genesis. That's for sure. But that's
> typical of closed-minded idiots.
>

It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains
dribble out.

[Mr Flibble]

On 19/05/2016 22:43, David Brown wrote:
>
> And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
> theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
> not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
> sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/
> that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
> always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void.
> So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional -
> but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
> provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.

Utter bullshit mate. Evolution is BOTH fact and theory. As evolution is
a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no
parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a fiction.

/Flibble

[Alf P. Steinbach]

Both the evolution hypothesis and Genesis are utterly wrong.

Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the
gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness
lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland
of elemental ice, Niflheim.

Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward
each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and
sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves
into Ymir, the first of the godlike giants. Ymir was a hermaphrodite and
could reproduce asexually; when he sweated, more giants were born.

As the frost continued to melt, a cow, Audhumbla, emerged from it. She
nourished Ymir with her milk, and she, in turn, was nourished by
salt-licks in the ice. Her licks slowly uncovered Buri, the first of the
Aesir tribe of gods. Buri had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, the
daughter of the giant Bolthorn. The half-god, half-giant children of Bor
and Bestla were Odin, who became the chief of the Aesir gods, and his
two brothers, Vili and Ve.

Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world
from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from
his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains,
and the sky from his skull. Four dwarves, corresponding to the four
cardinal points, held Ymir’s skull aloft above the earth.

In one version of reality the gods eventually formed the first man and
woman, Ask and Embla, from two tree trunks, and built a fence around
their dwelling-place, Midgard, to protect them from the giants.

And incidentally, one woman I know has a son named Ask, and she
correspondingly named her café-to-be, Embla.

Unfortunately, the economics didn't work out for the café.


Cheers!,

- Alf

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/19/2016 5:43 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 19/05/16 21:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/19/2016 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2016 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your mind is just as closed as his is.
>>>
>>> Don't be a twit. Noah's Ark is in the Book Of Genesis and we know
>>> Genesis is fictional because we know, among other things, that evolution
>>> is a fact. If anyone has a closed mind it is you mate. Try opening
>>> YOUR mind to SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> You claim that the Book of Genesis is fictional without any proof - and
>> then have the nerve to claim I have a closed mind? ROFLMAO!
>>
>
> It is not up to anyone to prove that a particular book is fictional -
> the book is fictional until proved to be fact (or at the very least,
> until there is some independent corroborating evidence for at least some
> of the stories in the book).
>

Your claim, not mine. There is corroborating evidence of many of the
stories in the book. But you're too close minded to look at them.

> The claims in the Book of Genesis are extraordinary, to say the least.
> And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. For Genesis, there
> is - to my knowledge - no independent proof in any written documents or
> archaeology. I don't think there is even any evidence for significant
> Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise.
>

Your knowledge is sadly lacking. For instance, there is archaelogical
evidence of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well as many other stories.

> Of course, a complete lack of any evidence does not prove that Genesis
> is fictional - merely that if you want to believe it to be "true" in any
> sense, then you do so on faith and not due to rational thought or
> reasoning.
>

And the insistence that is fiction despite evidence to the contrary is a
sure sign of a closed mind.

> And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
> theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
> not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
> sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/
> that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
> always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void.
> So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional -
> but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
> provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.
>
>
>> You obviously haven't read Genesis. That's for sure. But that's
>> typical of closed-minded idiots.
>>
>
> It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains
> dribble out.
>

Then you should open your mind.

[Jerry Stuckle]

No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist.
Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less.

And if Adam never had parents is false, then the human race must have
existed since before the beginning of the universe.

[Mr Flibble]

On 20/05/2016 01:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 19/05/2016 22:43, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
>>> theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
>>> not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
>>> sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/
>>> that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
>>> always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void.
>>> So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional -
>>> but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
>>> provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.
>>
>> Utter bullshit mate. Evolution is BOTH fact and theory. As evolution is
>> a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no
>> parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a fiction.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>>
>
> No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist.
> Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less.

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

>
> And if Adam never had parents is false, then the human race must have
> existed since before the beginning of the universe.

Nonsense; the problem here is your fractal wrongness.

/Flibble

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/19/2016 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 20/05/2016 01:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/19/2016 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2016 22:43, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
>>>> theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
>>>> not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
>>>> sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot
>>>> /prove/
>>>> that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
>>>> always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is
>>>> void.
>>>> So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is
>>>> fictional -
>>>> but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
>>>> provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.
>>>
>>> Utter bullshit mate. Evolution is BOTH fact and theory. As evolution is
>>> a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no
>>> parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a
>>> fiction.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist.
>> Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
>

There is truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes they are the same.
But not often.

Show me a claim by a respected publication.

>>
>> And if Adam never had parents is false, then the human race must have
>> existed since before the beginning of the universe.
>
> Nonsense; the problem here is your fractal wrongness.
>
> /Flibble
>
>

Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?

[Mr Flibble]

Do your own research (which doesn't mean going to fucktarded American
Christian creationist websites).

> Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
> parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?

Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans
EVOLVED.

/Flibble

[Jerry Stuckle]

You made the claim. It's up to you to prove it. But you can't, so you
start with the ad hominem attacks. How like the troll you are.

>> Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
>> parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?
>
> Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans
> EVOLVED.
>
> /Flibble
>

So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans
existed from before the beginning of the universe.

Which one was it?

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:55:41 PM UTC-5,

Leigh, please don't swear here.

Brian

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's just the way idiots and trolls are. They're too stupid to carry
on an intelligent conversation, so they have to resort to gratuitous
swearing and ad hominem attacks.

The funny thing is - they think it makes them look smart or important.
But it has just the opposite effect. You're much better off just
ignoring it.

[David Brown]

I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means - at least not
in the sense of "scientific theory".

In science, one does not prove "facts". One forms a /theory/. That
means the idea needs very strong evidence, a consistent and logical
rational basis, the ability to form predictions that can be tested, and
criteria by which the theory can be disproved.

Calling evolution a "theory" is an extremely strong statement. It puts
evolution on a par with the "theory of gravity" - scientists are as sure
that evolution works as they are that a dropped brick will fall to the
ground. But gravity is not a "fact", and nor is evolution - they are
both strong theories that will remain our best explanation for their
respective effects unless and until a better theory is developed.


And if you actually read Genesis (or at least its Wikipedia summary),
you will find that the two stories of creation are only very minor parts
at the beginning of the book. Evolution is totally unrelated to all the
other parts of the book - you cannot "prove" that Genesis is all fiction
merely by finding flaws in one part of it.

Evolution, along with archaeological and palaeontological evidence, and
of course astronomy, physics, etc., provides a vastly more rational
explanation of the beginning of the world and its inhabitants. But it
does not /prove/ or /disprove/ anything. If you believe in an
omniscient being sitting in the sky and pulling all the strings, then
there is a consistent (stupid, but consistent) alternative explanation -
God planted all the evidence for evolution and cosmology when he created
the earth.


You cannot use science to disprove God or any other religious beliefs -
you can only use science to disprove or re-enforce other scientific
concepts. Religion is not science - it is fundamentally irrational, and
does not play by the same rules. You can use science to say that you
don't /need/ religion, and you don't need or want any supernatural or
superstitious beliefs to explain the world around us, or in order to
live your life. But logical thinking and rational explanations will not
change the minds of people who think Genesis is "literally true". After
all, there are enough inconsistencies in the text itself to show it
cannot all be "true" - if that doesn't dampen their enthusiasm, why do
you think external evidence would do so?


So repeatedly claiming "evolution disproves God" is as pointless as
repeatedly asking people to "please don't swear here". Both show an
impressive stubbornness and lack of thought.

[David Brown]

They should teach this in KRLE (Norwegian religious education) in
schools. The kids would find it far more exciting than most of the
other creation myths (I know my kids did when I read Norse mythology
bed-time stories. The creation of the world was particularly appealing!)

[David Brown]

On 20/05/16 04:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 10:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 20/05/2016 02:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

<snip>

>>> Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
>>> parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?
>>
>> Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans
>> EVOLVED.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans
> existed from before the beginning of the universe.
>
> Which one was it?
>

What was your first thought? Give me /proof/ of /exactly/ what your
first thought was. If you can't tell me which thought was first, how
can you claim to be having thoughts now. Unless you have existed
forever, and have had thoughts all that time, the only logical
assumption, based on your above "logic", is that you are completely
thoughtless.

Alternatively, you might like to do some reading about the concept of
"emergence". Here's a link to get you started:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence>

[David Brown]

On 20/05/16 02:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 5:43 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 19/05/16 21:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2016 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/2016 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your mind is just as closed as his is.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be a twit. Noah's Ark is in the Book Of Genesis and we know
>>>> Genesis is fictional because we know, among other things, that evolution
>>>> is a fact. If anyone has a closed mind it is you mate. Try opening
>>>> YOUR mind to SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> You claim that the Book of Genesis is fictional without any proof - and
>>> then have the nerve to claim I have a closed mind? ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>
>> It is not up to anyone to prove that a particular book is fictional -
>> the book is fictional until proved to be fact (or at the very least,
>> until there is some independent corroborating evidence for at least some
>> of the stories in the book).
>>
>
> Your claim, not mine.

Check the attributions - /I/ did not claim Genesis was fictional. (I
/do/ think it is basically fictional, but that is because it is
inconsistent with large masses of known evidence and scientific
understanding, and because there is nothing to corroborate the majority
of the stories in the book. I do /not/ claim to be able to "disprove"
the book, however.)

> There is corroborating evidence of many of the
> stories in the book. But you're too close minded to look at them.

No, I am interested. I have never come across any evidence, or reliable
references to evidence, that suggest the stories in Genesis are true. I
am happy to accept that at least some parts have some basis in truth -
it is unlikely to be pure fiction. But the "big" issues, such as
creation, the Ark, the whole Egypt expedition and miraculous escape, the
lifetimes of the patriarchs, etc., have no serious evidence of which I
am aware.

If you have links that show reasonable evidence, I would be curious to
have a look. But I am not interested in something that shows "there was
a big flood here around 4000 BC" - it would have to show "there was a
world-spanning flood with waters covering most of the world's land
masses after extremely heavy rainfall around 4000 BC".

>
>> The claims in the Book of Genesis are extraordinary, to say the least.
>> And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. For Genesis, there
>> is - to my knowledge - no independent proof in any written documents or
>> archaeology. I don't think there is even any evidence for significant
>> Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise.
>>
>
> Your knowledge is sadly lacking. For instance, there is archaelogical
> evidence of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well as many other stories.

No, there is archaeological evidence that there were some ancient cities
that fit reasonably well with the description of these cities in the
Bible. As I have said before, I don't think that just because something
is mentioned in Genesis means that it is definitely fictional - it seems
reasonable that the story refers to real cities. But the point of the
story in Genesis is not that there happened to be a couple of cities
near the Dead Sea - it is that the cities were full of corruption, and
that God destroyed them because of that. There is /no/ evidence for that.

>
>> Of course, a complete lack of any evidence does not prove that Genesis
>> is fictional - merely that if you want to believe it to be "true" in any
>> sense, then you do so on faith and not due to rational thought or
>> reasoning.
>>
>
> And the insistence that is fiction despite evidence to the contrary is a
> sure sign of a closed mind.

Again, show me some evidence. I will judge how much credibility I give
that evidence. And again, I do not think there is a black-and-white
choice between "all fact" and "all fiction". Just as evolution does not
"disprove" that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, so would evidence
of significant Jewish slavery in Egypt be unrelated to the truth or
fiction of the garden of Eden.

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/20/2016 3:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/16 04:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/19/2016 10:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2016 02:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
>>>> parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?
>>>
>>> Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans
>>> EVOLVED.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans
>> existed from before the beginning of the universe.
>>
>> Which one was it?
>>
>
> What was your first thought? Give me /proof/ of /exactly/ what your
> first thought was. If you can't tell me which thought was first, how
> can you claim to be having thoughts now. Unless you have existed
> forever, and have had thoughts all that time, the only logical
> assumption, based on your above "logic", is that you are completely
> thoughtless.
>

I don't need to give "proof" of my first thought. I only have to
acknowledge I had a first thought. Just as I am not asking you to prove
there was a first man. Only to acknowledge there was a first man.

> Alternatively, you might like to do some reading about the concept of
> "emergence". Here's a link to get you started:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence>
>
>
>

Which does not change anything. Not that Wikipedia is at all a reliable
resource, but that's beside the point.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sorry, you did claim the book was fictional, by your attributions.

>> There is corroborating evidence of many of the
>> stories in the book. But you're too close minded to look at them.
>
> No, I am interested. I have never come across any evidence, or reliable
> references to evidence, that suggest the stories in Genesis are true. I
> am happy to accept that at least some parts have some basis in truth -
> it is unlikely to be pure fiction. But the "big" issues, such as
> creation, the Ark, the whole Egypt expedition and miraculous escape, the
> lifetimes of the patriarchs, etc., have no serious evidence of which I
> am aware.
>

Make up your mind. At first you claimed there was no evidence that any
of the stories in Genesis were anything but fiction. Now you're trying
to pick and chose what you want to believe and what you don't.

But you've done that before - trying to change the rules when proven
wrong.

> If you have links that show reasonable evidence, I would be curious to
> have a look. But I am not interested in something that shows "there was
> a big flood here around 4000 BC" - it would have to show "there was a
> world-spanning flood with waters covering most of the world's land
> masses after extremely heavy rainfall around 4000 BC".
>

Yes, there is evidence there was a big flood in that time frame -
covering the world as the ancients knew it at the time.

>>
>>> The claims in the Book of Genesis are extraordinary, to say the least.
>>> And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. For Genesis, there
>>> is - to my knowledge - no independent proof in any written documents or
>>> archaeology. I don't think there is even any evidence for significant
>>> Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Your knowledge is sadly lacking. For instance, there is archaelogical
>> evidence of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well as many other stories.
>
> No, there is archaeological evidence that there were some ancient cities
> that fit reasonably well with the description of these cities in the
> Bible. As I have said before, I don't think that just because something
> is mentioned in Genesis means that it is definitely fictional - it seems
> reasonable that the story refers to real cities. But the point of the
> story in Genesis is not that there happened to be a couple of cities
> near the Dead Sea - it is that the cities were full of corruption, and
> that God destroyed them because of that. There is /no/ evidence for that.
>

Wrong again. You need to be studying up on the archaeology before
making such stupid claims. You only show your ignorance - and closed
mindedness.

>>
>>> Of course, a complete lack of any evidence does not prove that Genesis
>>> is fictional - merely that if you want to believe it to be "true" in any
>>> sense, then you do so on faith and not due to rational thought or
>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>
>> And the insistence that is fiction despite evidence to the contrary is a
>> sure sign of a closed mind.
>
> Again, show me some evidence. I will judge how much credibility I give
> that evidence. And again, I do not think there is a black-and-white
> choice between "all fact" and "all fiction". Just as evolution does not
> "disprove" that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, so would evidence
> of significant Jewish slavery in Egypt be unrelated to the truth or
> fiction of the garden of Eden.
>

I suggest you look into the archaeological studies in that area of the
world - especially in the last 40 years or so.

>>
>>> And no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific
>>> theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does
>>> not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more
>>> sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/
>>> that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can
>>> always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void.
>>> So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional -
>>> but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to
>>> provide evidence that the book is non-fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You obviously haven't read Genesis. That's for sure. But that's
>>>> typical of closed-minded idiots.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains
>>> dribble out.
>>>
>>
>> Then you should open your mind.
>>
>

Yes, you really should. But then that's also like you - rather than
admit you might be wrong, you always try to blame the other person.

I'm the one who admits there are possibilities to the truth in Genesis.
You're the one who claims otherwise. The latter is the sign of a closed
mind.

[David Brown]

On 20/05/16 15:27, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 3:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/05/16 04:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2016 10:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2016 02:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have
>>>>> parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans
>>>> EVOLVED.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans
>>> existed from before the beginning of the universe.
>>>
>>> Which one was it?
>>>
>>
>> What was your first thought? Give me /proof/ of /exactly/ what your
>> first thought was. If you can't tell me which thought was first, how
>> can you claim to be having thoughts now. Unless you have existed
>> forever, and have had thoughts all that time, the only logical
>> assumption, based on your above "logic", is that you are completely
>> thoughtless.
>>
>
> I don't need to give "proof" of my first thought. I only have to
> acknowledge I had a first thought. Just as I am not asking you to prove
> there was a first man. Only to acknowledge there was a first man.
>

Neither you (or anyone else) had a "first" thought. The process is
emergent. The same covers a huge variety of other processes.

So no, I do not acknowledge that there was a "first man". The whole
idea is a common mistake made by people who do not understand emergence,
and try to use black-and-white definitions in an attempt to justify
claiming that a creation myth is realistic.

There was no "first man". You never had a "first thought". There is no
such thing as a "smallest drop of water". You cannot have "the palest
shade of blue". There is no "smallest real number greater than zero".
There was no single point of creation of the earth, nor a single point
when life emerged (and no first lifeform). There is no point at which a
piece of string stops being "short" and becomes "long".

These things are all gradual transitions. Well to one side of the
transitions and changes, one can say "this is definitely water" or "this
is definitely a collection of water molecules that is too small to have
the properties we associate with water". But there are no fixed boundaries.

>> Alternatively, you might like to do some reading about the concept of
>> "emergence". Here's a link to get you started:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Which does not change anything. Not that Wikipedia is at all a reliable
> resource, but that's beside the point.
>

You are fond of dismissing Wikipedia as "unreliable" and
"unauthoritative", yet rarely do you give any specific complaints or
alternative references. There is plenty on Wikipedia that is
questionable, but also plenty that is very good - just like many other
sources.