C as a Platonic pathology
spinoza1111
strange loyalty to artifacts, especially abstractions, most notably
programming languages.
The pathology here (not of "trolling", but of male on male bullying)
derives ultimately from folk Platonism.
As most people are aware, Plato believed that Ideas exist in a
timeless realm of Forms, perfectly realized.
In the early days there was the struggle to get sensible answers from
limited machines.
But gradually, and by trial and error, programmers built tools to get
sensible answers and shared them with others.
However, the capitalist system of the 1960s noticed that a new species
of employee was talking back to its employers owing to full employment
in the programming field.
Therefore, the field was "rationalized". Computer languages, which had
originated in praxis, were reified and in many cases frozen, and a
fearsome array of headhunters sprang into existence basically to
control access to the field.
As a result, the struggle became to be "experts" in a "programming
language". This despite the fact that the expertise, unlike
traditional knowledge of the natural world and of culture, was the
knowledge, in many cases, of errors that had to be treated as truths,
such as "strings cannot contain Nuls" in C, and "in a or b, the
evaluation of b may not depend on the truth of a" in Pascal.
Plato (as his student Aristotle pointed out) had never assayed the
ontology of flawed ideas. The Idea of Goodness, the Idea of Justice,
the Idea of the State, are all very grand and noble. But what is the
Platonic Idea of the Fart?
Because a white-collar capitalist system deals in ideas reified to
commodities, it is a natural Platonism. Capitalism has none of
Aristotle's (nor St Thomas Aquinas') respect for the idiomatic, the
indigenous, and of course as a result, capitalism has despoiled the
earth.
While exalting flawed artifacts created by fallible humans for
specific purposes (in C's case, to program the DEC 10 and cock a snook
at Multics) to the status of Ideas, capitalism subordinates the
independent human spirit to that Idea, ignoring its flaws, and
treating discussion of its flaws with a savagery more like
Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic than like Socrates.
Let us now praise famous men, and their children after them. Kernighan
and Ritchie invented C. I met Kernighan. He's a nice guy.
But who realized that in using the preprocessor, there are three types
of macros, a fact extraneous to C as a set of rules? These rules are:
1. Symbols which name types such as structs should be defined on one
line
2. Symbols which define expressions need parentheses around the
definition
3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
brackets around the definition
4. The formal parameters of macro symbols must appear in parentheses
in the macro body
5. When calling a macro the actual parameter should be in parentheses
An uncodified body of knowledge shores up the Platonic idea.
pete
> These rules are:
> 3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
> brackets around the definition
That's wrong.
All external definitions result in executable code.
That includes external object definitions
which do not always require braces.
"External definitions" is a technical term,
defined in the C standard.
--
pete
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > These rules are:
> > 3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
> > brackets around the definition
>
> That's wrong.
> All external definitions result in executable code.
> That includes external object definitions
> which do not always require braces.
If you understood context, you'd figure out that "executable code"
means source executable code and not definitions. English isn't C, but
you should master reading skills.
My point was clear enough to the literate. If your symbol defines
executable statements terminated in semicolons, you MUST wrap the
definition part in curly brackets so that the macro call can be used
anywhere a C statement is valid. A series of n > 1 statements is not a
statement until it is bracketed. If you try to use a macro which
hasn't followed the rule and uses n>1 statements, as the then or else
clause of an if, or the loop body of a for or while, the statements
after the first will be treated differently from the first with no
error indication from the compiler.
The code may even "run" and the user may be all "happy".
This was Herb Schildt's problem. He can write, his enemies can neither
write nor read, therefore with the rage of subhuman Trogdolytes
without language, they attacked Schildt.
>
> "External definitions" is a technical term,
> defined in the C standard.
It is BARBARIC to replace English by some bureaucratic document.
>
> --
> pete
pete
> On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>spinoza1111wrote:
>>
>>> These rules are:
>>>3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
>>>brackets around the definition
>>
>>That's wrong.
>>All external definitions result in executable code.
>>That includes external object definitions
>>which do not always require braces.
>
>
> If you understood context, you'd figure out that "executable code"
> means source executable code and not definitions.
No.
For this c program:
/* BEGIN program.c */
int rc = 1;
int main(void)
{
return rc - 1;
}
/* END program.c */
When the program is run,
the definition of rc results in executable code
which reserves memory for the object
and initializes rc with a value of 1,
prior to main being executed.
--
pete
spinoza1111
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're really confused. Again, I said that "executable code" means
sequences of C statements each terminating in a semicolon. You're
talking about what's usually known as "object code".
The Schildt and Kathy Sierra harassment incidents resulted from the
fact that programmers, ignorant of computer science and "tracked" into
programming (a field that actually requires verbal facility) by
society, tend to think of human language as a calculus like the
programming languages that so stunt their intellect.
These programmers normally have a Scholastic and primitive
understanding of the way in which language works, one linked with
religious fundamentalism and political conservatism.
Believing that words must have fixed referents and ignorant of de
Saussure's thesis, that signifiers aren't fixed and positive but mean
something in relation to other signifiers, they assert a mental
property right in one possible definition, this being the most
favorable to their cause.
It was clear from the start what I meant by "executable code". But if
you prefer:
C macros that define C expressions should place the definition in
parentheses. This guarantees that these expressions will never be
evaluated unexpectedly with respect to operator precedence.
C macros that define n>1 c statements, and arguably C macros that
define one statement, should be enclosed in braces. This guarantees
that these "compound statements" will nest appropriately when in the
scope of for, while, and if statements.
Gee. I know this and can express it clearly: yet I'm not a C expert.
The evidence here, in which our Expert, Heathfield, expresses things
in overly negative way (telling you you're wrong, especially if he
doesn't like you, without giving a solution) and in overspecialised
ways, that part of being an "expert" is keeping secrets.
Richard Heathfield
<most of the nonsense snipped>
> The evidence here, in which our Expert, Heathfield, expresses things
> in overly negative way (telling you you're wrong, especially if he
> doesn't like you, without giving a solution) and in overspecialised
> ways, that part of being an "expert" is keeping secrets.
The secrets you mention are revealed in ISO/IEC 9899:199x (for various
values of x), in "The C Programming Language", 2nd edition, Kernighan
and Ritchie, 1988, and in a number of other good quality tutorial
texts. If you are trying to learn C without the benefit of such a
book, you are putting yourself at a great disadvantage.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank
Malcolm McLean
"spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> But who realized that in using the preprocessor, there are three types
> of macros, a fact extraneous to C as a set of rules? These rules are:
>
> 1. Symbols which name types such as structs should be defined on one
> line
> 2. Symbols which define expressions need parentheses around the
> definition
> 3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
> brackets around the definition
> 4. The formal parameters of macro symbols must appear in parentheses
> in the macro body
> 5. When calling a macro the actual parameter should be in parentheses
>
> An uncodified body of knowledge shores up the Platonic idea.
>
text processing tool rather than a token redefiner. You should place macro
arguments in parentheses in the marco itself to releive the burden on the
caller (this isn't really acceptable, and would be changed if we were
designing the macro preprocessor today).
BGB / cr88192
"pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iaOdndP3HtuXaxrX...@earthlink.com...
not exactly...
it depends on the compiler, granted, but usually an initialized global is
defined in an initialized region of memory (typically referred to as
".data").
there is thus no need for this variable to be explicitly initialized, since
it will already hold its value once the loader is done loading everything
into memory...
> --
> pete
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
> <most of the nonsense snipped>
>
> > The evidence here, in which our Expert, Heathfield, expresses things
> > in overly negative way (telling you you're wrong, especially if he
> > doesn't like you, without giving a solution) and in overspecialised
> > ways, that part of being an "expert" is keeping secrets.
>
> The secrets you mention are revealed in ISO/IEC 9899:199x (for various
> values of x), in "The C Programming Language", 2nd edition, Kernighan
> and Ritchie, 1988, and in a number of other good quality tutorial
> texts. If you are trying to learn C without the benefit of such a
I am not trying to learn C. I am using it again after almost twenty
years. The sources above contradict each other, and what they say
about C can be invalidated at any time on target architectures (such
as IBM mainframes) not designed for C as well as using the
preprocessor.
pete
I think you're right.
Thank you.
--
pete
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> I am not trying to learn C.
Then stop wasting our time.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
> > I am not trying to learn C.
>
> Then stop wasting our time.
If I'm wasting your time, why do you post responses to the "C
Adventure" thread? You've embarassed yourself by making a false charge
that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to continue,
trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to admit later
that usenet adds the line break.
I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
is horseshit.
A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
great: quite the opposite.
And it would have been better for the United Nations to agree on a
runtime type safe virtual machine in 1970, and for this VM to be
extended, and supported in the hardware. It would have been better for
computer scientists, and not techies and their business managers, to
work on this effort.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> You've embarassed yourself by making a false
> charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
> continue,
Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I certainly
did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly extends
single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know whether it
/correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly, but I have
no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested so, by
claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under lcc-win32
without any diagnostic messages being produced.
> trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
> admit later that usenet adds the line break.
No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.
> I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that
> it is horseshit.
You are failing in both.
<snip>
Tom St Denis
> I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
> is horseshit.
To what end? Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?
Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
up with?
> A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
> poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
> independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
> fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
> grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
> great: quite the opposite.
A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
only works in C.
Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C. grep/
awk are command line string tools, C++/Java are different programming
languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.
Tom
Keith Thompson
> spinoza1111 said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I am not trying to learn C.
>
> Then stop wasting our time.
Right, because he's bound to pay attention the 137th time somebody
asks nicely.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
spinoza1111
> On Aug 17, 10:36 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
> > is horseshit.
>
> To what end? Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
> of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?
Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.
>
> Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
> up with?
I don't know. Who's we?
>
> > A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
> > poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
> > independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
> > fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
> > grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
> > great: quite the opposite.
>
> A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.
> your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
> only works in C.
>
> Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C. grep/
> awk are command line string tools, C++/Java are different programming
> languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.
C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
from C.
Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
have used assembler.
Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
was written in C.
Learn some history, boyo.
>
> Tom
Keith Thompson
> spinoza1111 said:
> <snip>
>
>> You've embarassed yourself by making a false
>> charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
>> continue,
>
> Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
> syntax error. This has been explained to you many times.
It's possible, even plausible, that the code did not contain that
syntax error when it left his client (presumably a web browser
if he's posting through Google Groups), and that the additional
newline was added by the server.
This is not a defense of his response to having the error pointed
out.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
> > You've embarassed yourself by making a false
> > charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
> > continue,
>
> Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
> syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I certainly
> did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly extends
> single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know whether it
> /correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly, but I have
> no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested so, by
> claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under lcc-win32
> without any diagnostic messages being produced.
You lied with malice and you were called on your behavior by me and
other posters. The code c compiled, formatting here adds linebreaks at
column 67, and you claimed falsely that I'd added the newline. This
was to be stupid, because you failed to remember this formatting, and
evil, because you're persisting after being told what happened.
Meanwhile, I went through every line of the code and reformatted it
manually last night on the ferry. You are as work-shy as Hitler
(Godwin converging validly in your case) and you prefer to sitting on
your fat butt destroying the reputation of better men.
However, you do have a detailed, if rather clerkish, if rather
Gradgrindish, knowledge of C and you are welcome, I have decided, to
remain. Please behave yourself in the future.
>
> > trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
> > admit later that usenet adds the line break.
>
> No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.
Don't presume to correct me. You are ignorant and dishonest. If I were
your father I'd kick your ass.
spinoza1111
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >spinoza1111said:
> > <snip>
>
> >> You've embarassed yourself by making a false
> >> charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
> >> continue,
>
> > Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
> > syntax error. This has been explained to you many times.
>
> [...]
>
> It's possible, even plausible, that the code did not contain that
> syntax error when it left his client (presumably a web browser
> if he's posting through Google Groups), and that the additional
> newline was added by the server.
Check out the big brain on Brad! You a smart motherfucker, you know
that?
>
> This is not a defense of his response to having the error pointed
> out.
You little weasel.
Tom St Denis
> Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
> inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.
I thought most healthcare systems were written in real languages like
COBOL ... *rolls eyes*...
> > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
> > up with?
>
> I don't know. Who's we?
Anyone reading this thread. As in, what anyones motivation for taking
you the slightest bit serious?
> > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
>
> A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
> metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
> milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
> have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
> skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
> As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
> Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.
First off, I'm Canadian, Richard [iirc] is British. Stop with the
american political metaphors. They don't work.
Second, you earlier said that the problem with C programmers is that
they stick steadfast with C because they're ignorant and indoctrinated
to not think out side the box. Then when I point out that real
developers use multiple tools/languages you chastize that as well.
Maybe the more likely scenario is you have no idea what you're talking
about?
> C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
> successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
> that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
> was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
> the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
> given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
> from C.
C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
lives. I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is. They have similar
looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
they're living different lives.
> Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
> have used assembler.
I have no idea what your point is. grep may be an application written
in C, but it's not a language derived from C. I mean GNU bash is
written in C too. So is the Linux kernel. Are those C derived
languages too?
> Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
> was written in C.
The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
be written in C but that's beside the point.
And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.
Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
> Learn some history, boyo.
Stop inventing history?
Tom
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 18, 12:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
> wrote:
>> spinoza1111said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > You've embarassed yourself by making a false
>> > charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
>> > continue,
>>
>> Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
>> syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I
>> certainly did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly
>> extends single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know
>> whether it /correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly,
>> but I have no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested
>> so, by claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under
>> lcc-win32 without any diagnostic messages being produced.
>
> You lied with malice and you were called on your behavior by me and
> other posters.
No, I didn't lie, with or without malice. As for "behaviour", you show
no sign of conforming to behavioural norms in this group, so it is
hypocritical of you to expect it of others. Note that the "behaviour"
in question was the pointing out of a diagnosable syntax error.
> The code c compiled, formatting here adds linebreaks
> at column 67,
It is your responsibility to know that, and to take it into account
when posting code.
> and you claimed falsely that I'd added the newline.
No, I claimed truly that the code you posted had the newline there.
Keith Thompson has pointed out that it may have been the server that
added the newline, which is of course true, but it doesn't alter the
fact that the code that reached everyone else's servers had the
newline there.
> This was to be stupid, because you failed to remember this
> formatting, and evil, because you're persisting after being told
> what happened.
Just keep on making stuff up. You're good at that.
>
> Meanwhile, I went through every line of the code and reformatted it
> manually last night on the ferry.
Well done. Now look up "indent" and save yourself a lot of future
work.
> You are as work-shy as Hitler
I know you don't give two hoots about Godwin's Law. Nevertheless,
others do.
<snip>
>> > trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
>> > admit later that usenet adds the line break.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.
>
> Don't presume to correct me.
If you don't want to run the risk of being corrected, don't make
mistakes.
James Kuyper
> C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
> lives. I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is. They have similar
> looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
> they're living different lives.
Backwards compatibility with C was a major design goal for C++; read
"Design and Evolution of C++" to get a better appreciation of just how
strongly that goal influenced the design of C++. I don't know enough
about the development of Java to guess whether the designers cared about
compatibility with C, but looking at their product, it seems unlikely
that it was a high-priority goal.
Both the C and C++ standards committees have made a formal commitment to
avoiding gratuitous incompatibilities between the two languages.
>> Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
>> have used assembler.
>
> I have no idea what your point is. grep may be an application written
> in C, but it's not a language derived from C. I mean GNU bash is
> written in C too. So is the Linux kernel. Are those C derived
> languages too?
>
>> Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
>> was written in C.
>
> The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
> be written in C but that's beside the point.
>
> And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
> superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
> switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.
>
> Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
Awk, csh, perl and Java were all significantly influenced by C. Each of
them moved away from C in various directions, all of them moving father
away from C than C++ did, but there's still a clear, traceable influence
in each of those languages.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 12:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> spinoza1111said:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > You've embarassed yourself by making a false
> >> > charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
> >> > continue,
>
> >> Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
> >> syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I
> >> certainly did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly
> >> extends single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know
> >> whether it /correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly,
> >> but I have no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested
> >> so, by claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under
> >> lcc-win32 without any diagnostic messages being produced.
>
> > You lied with malice and you were called on your behavior by me and
> > other posters.
>
> No, I didn't lie, with or without malice. As for "behaviour", you show
> no sign of conforming to behavioural norms in this group, so it is
> hypocritical of you to expect it of others. Note that the "behaviour"
> in question was the pointing out of a diagnosable syntax error.
...and the accusation that I was lying or incompetent, an accusation
that was itself either lying or incompetent. You start this shit and
expect people to take it. Not any more.
>
> > The code c compiled, formatting here adds linebreaks
> > at column 67,
>
> It is your responsibility to know that, and to take it into account
> when posting code.
No, that's not part of C. It was your collegial responsibility,
asshole, to point it out clearly and without malice if you knew it.
Instead, you started an unnecessary flame war because, asshole, I
defend myself.
>
> > and you claimed falsely that I'd added the newline.
>
> No, I claimed truly that the code you posted had the newline there.
> Keith Thompson has pointed out that it may have been the server that
> added the newline, which is of course true, but it doesn't alter the
> fact that the code that reached everyone else's servers had the
> newline there.
It no longer has the newline "there" (learn to write properly) and
you're spamming and trolling because the union set of your
incompetence and malice was on display, and even your butt buddies
were embarassed by your conduct.
>
> > This was to be stupid, because you failed to remember this
> > formatting, and evil, because you're persisting after being told
> > what happened.
>
> Just keep on making stuff up. You're good at that.
No, you make observations on people's competence grounding those
observations on facts that you conceal.
>
>
>
> > Meanwhile, I went through every line of the code and reformatted it
> > manually last night on the ferry.
>
> Well done. Now look up "indent" and save yourself a lot of future
> work.
I happen to have a Visual Basic utility for boxing text. Unfortunately
it doesn't preserve indented formatting as appears in the
documentation header. However, using the Microsoft C++ code editor, it
took me all of three minutes "by Shrewsbury clock" to do the work.
You forgot to point out that I'm stupid for using boxed comments. I
shall have to do it for you. I am stupid for using boxed comments,
because according to the conventional wisdom, they are "hard to
maintain". Correction: they are hard to maintain when maintenance
programmers are work-shy. They are worth the work since they isolate
the English language and make it clear, even on a small screen, that
the user is in language and not code space. But, I'm stupid, by your
dim and faery lights, for using boxed comments.
>
> > You are as work-shy as Hitler
>
> I know you don't give two hoots about Godwin's Law. Nevertheless,
> others do.
Mike Godwin, with whom I bantered on a panel at Princeton University
Press, might think his law might hide the connection between his
jejune "libertarianism" and Fascism, or at least what British marxist
Hobsbaum called the anarchy of the lower middle class. But as I have
observed, the Internet, being predominantly G8 country white male, is
overrun with shitbag little Hitlers like you, and I believe in calling
a spade a spade.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
> >> > admit later that usenet adds the line break.
>
> >> No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.
>
> > Don't presume to correct me.
>
> If you don't want to run the risk of being corrected, don't make
> mistakes.
I didn't make a mistake. You did, and you compounded it with wild
accusations, like Adolf Hitler. Sieg Heil.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> This line unintentionally left unblank- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On Aug 17, 7:37 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
> > inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.
>
> I thought most healthcare systems were written in real languages like
> COBOL ... *rolls eyes*...
Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
their place.
>
> > > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
> > > up with?
>
> > I don't know. Who's we?
>
> Anyone reading this thread. As in, what anyones motivation for taking
> you the slightest bit serious?
They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?
>
> > > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
>
> > A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
> > metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
> > milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
> > have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
> > skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
> > As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
> > Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.
>
> First off, I'm Canadian, Richard [iirc] is British. Stop with the
> american political metaphors. They don't work.
No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
be working on a demilitarized arctic.
>
> Second, you earlier said that the problem with C programmers is that
> they stick steadfast with C because they're ignorant and indoctrinated
> to not think out side the box. Then when I point out that real
> developers use multiple tools/languages you chastize that as well.
Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.
>
> Maybe the more likely scenario is you have no idea what you're talking
> about?
No.
>
> > C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
> > successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
> > that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
> > was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
> > the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
> > given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
> > from C.
>
> C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
> lives. I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is. They have similar
> looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
> they're living different lives.
>
> > Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
> > have used assembler.
>
> I have no idea what your point is. grep may be an application written
> in C, but it's not a language derived from C. I mean GNU bash is
> written in C too. So is the Linux kernel. Are those C derived
> languages too?
No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
sense to develop another language to do the job.
>
> > Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
> > was written in C.
>
> The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
> be written in C but that's beside the point.
I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
compatible with C.
>
> And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
> superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
> switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.
Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality
ideas from PL/I as seen in the Multics project, and PL/I was stolen
from Algol and the Europeans by arrogant American developers. In so
doing, Java and C Sharp preserve one of Kernighan's and Ritchie's
worst errors, a for statement in which the conditional is overgeneral,
and evaluated each time. The Visual Basic for statement is better
since the limit of the loop is read-only after the For starts. As it
is, for in C, Java and C Sharp duplicates the function of a while with
a little extra syntatical sugar.
>
> Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
yuck, I can do better than that.
>
> > Learn some history, boyo.
>
> Stop inventing history?
I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
Diffie.
I nearly got thrown out of the Computer Museum in Mountain View
because I said they were wasting their time rebuilding the IBM 1401
when they could be writing an encyclopedia of simulators and virtual
reality old computers; I observed that the technology of the 1401, on
which I started out, is no longer environmentally safe and one of the
creepy old hardware types that now run the place looked at me funny.
You see, cyberspaces are used by low-dominance men to construct a sort
of laager to keep out sex and race, and preventing sexual and racial
considerations from having to be dealt-with. The Computer Museum,
which started out as a multicultural and non-gendered space, has been
turned into a laager overdedicated to rebuilding a minor and not very
innovative machine that had its share of design flaws ("can't add,
doesn't try": a seven bit word with a dedicated word mark: etc.).
I programmed the 1401 up the ass and had a dream about it last night,
but not for once did I manifest that barbarous loyalty to artifacts
and reified ideas that to me is the mark of the developer, that will
never rise above a plateau of competence, and who will be driving a
cab by the time he's forty.
I've written about software history for the IEEE journal in that
discipline (see the spring/summer issue of 1999), sonny boy, so shove
it.
>
> Tom
Richard Heathfield
<nonsense snipped>
>> > Don't presume to correct me.
>>
>> If you don't want to run the risk of being corrected, don't make
>> mistakes.
>
> I didn't make a mistake.
You posted code that contained at least three errors requiring the
implementation to produce diagnostic output. Are you saying you did
that on purpose?
Nick Keighley
> On Aug 17, 10:36 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
> > is horseshit.
>
> To what end? Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
> of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?
>
> Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
> up with?
>
> > A great programmer by no means loves his tools,
respects then? I appreciate good tools for what they can do for me.
> > despite the saw that a
> > poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
> > independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
> > fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
> > grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
> > great: quite the opposite.
I implies it is great for building tools
> A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
> your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
> only works in C.
>
> Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C. grep/
> awk are command line string tools,
awk is a full blown programming language. You don't have to use it
from
the command line.
> C++/Java are different programming
> languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.
I think he's saying they were implemented in C. Which is rather
a counter argument to his "C is useless" argument.
Nick Keighley
> On Aug 17, 7:37 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
> > inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.
you dangerously underestimate bureaucracies. They bombed Cambodia
whilst the computers all said they wern't. Not a line of C in sight.
<snip>
> C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
> lives.
C++ is based on C and it is silly to pretend otherwise
<snip>
> > Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
> > was written in C.
>
> The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
> be written in C but that's beside the point.
>
> And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
> superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
> switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.
>
> Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
>
> > Learn some history, boyo.
>
> Stop inventing history?
both of you. Perl is heavily influenced by C.
But let's stick to Java.
operators: ++ -- (pre and postfix - why don't I just stop now?)
+ / % (!) + - << >> (!) < > <= >= == (!) != & | ^ && || ?: =
+= -= *= /= %= &= ^= |= <<= >>=
ok a couple of weird ones >>>, >>>=, instanceof
you can look me in the eye and claim a language with &&, >>= and ==
isn't enourmously influenced by C?
It uses curly brackets, /* comments
half the key words are the same as C (and quite a few more
are the same as C++)
Dik T. Winter
> On Aug 17, 7:37=A0pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> > C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
> > successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
> > that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
> > was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
> > the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
> > given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
> > from C.
>
> C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
> lives.
The irony. C++ is based on C, but deviates from it. In the same way
Simula is based on Algol 60, but deviates from it in precisely the same
way. A correct C program is not necessarily a correct C++ program, just
like a correct Algol 60 program is not necessarily a correct Simula program.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Tom St Denis
> Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
> structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
> their place.
I'd say the industry based on C and C++ is a lot larger [by a
ridiculous amount] then COBOL, or even Java.
> They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?
OH MY GOD, I missed a word. Stop the presses.
> No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
> politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
> Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
> zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
> be working on a demilitarized arctic.
This has what to do with clc? I don't listen to Harper for
programming/development ideas either. Stop trying to wedge your "omg
I'm so old I have to rant about everything" arguments into a clc
thread.
Next you're gonna talk about "the good old days" when the black
programmers sat at the back of the lab right?
> Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
> language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.
So you admit to being a flagrant hypocrite? Gotcha. So I'm stupid if
I program in multiple languages AND I'm stupid if I program in only
one language...
> No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
> sense to develop another language to do the job.
Yes, we agree. But the converse is also true. There are things for
which ANY language is not well suited. Only an idiot sticks to one
language all the time through personal preference.
> > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
> > be written in C but that's beside the point.
>
> I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
> how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
> Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
> that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
> C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
> compatible with C.
Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the Java compiler is written
in Java, not C. Java and it's hosted VM platform solve a DIFFERENT
set of problems than C and C++. Mostly because C is rarely hosted
with a VM.
You worked at BNR too? Rock on. Shame how Nortel seemed to torpedo
it eh? Which lab did you work in?
> Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality
Whoa whoa whoa. Wait. Java uses C syntax because K&R stole it from
elsewhere? Or did they choose the C syntax as a basis because it was
so ridiculously widespread and well understood by competent [re: not
you] developers?
> > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
>
> No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
> intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
> yuck, I can do better than that.
Ok, so you're hanging out in clc because.... [complete the sentence
please.]
> I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
> pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
> language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
> in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
> hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
> Diffie.
Oh, now you know Diffie... did you happen to give him the idea for DH
too? Do you just read wikipedia and throw names out?
For the 3rd time, John Nash is NOT a famous developer in any right.
So bringing him up here is irrelevant. I've met Diffie as well [my
first crypto conference actually], I've also met a slew of other
famous cryptographers. Big deal. Their brilliance doesn't rub off on
you just because you met them. It doesn't mean anything.
<snip rest of irrelevant crap>
Tom
spinoza1111
> On Aug 18, 1:17 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
> > structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
> > their place.
>
> I'd say the industry based on C and C++ is a lot larger [by a
> ridiculous amount] then COBOL, or even Java.
>
> > They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?
>
> OH MY GOD, I missed a word. Stop the presses.
You also transformed "than" into "then". Yes, stop the presses.
>
> > No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
> > politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
> > Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
> > zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
> > be working on a demilitarized arctic.
>
> This has what to do with clc? I don't listen to Harper for
> programming/development ideas either. Stop trying to wedge your "omg
> I'm so old I have to rant about everything" arguments into a clc
> thread.
Everything is related, sonny boy.
>
> Next you're gonna talk about "the good old days" when the black
> programmers sat at the back of the lab right?
Fuck you, asshole. The real racists are white programmers who use
technology as a white laager to avoid confronting their white skin
privilege and their gender issues.
>
> > Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
> > language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.
>
> So you admit to being a flagrant hypocrite? Gotcha. So I'm stupid if
> I program in multiple languages AND I'm stupid if I program in only
> one language...
>
> > No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
> > sense to develop another language to do the job.
>
> Yes, we agree. But the converse is also true. There are things for
> which ANY language is not well suited. Only an idiot sticks to one
> language all the time through personal preference.
>
> > > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
> > > be written in C but that's beside the point.
>
> > I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
> > how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
> > Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
> > that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
> > C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
> > compatible with C.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the Java compiler is written
> in Java, not C. Java and it's hosted VM platform solve a DIFFERENT
> set of problems than C and C++. Mostly because C is rarely hosted
> with a VM.
>
> You worked at BNR too? Rock on. Shame how Nortel seemed to torpedo
> it eh? Which lab did you work in?
Mountain View.
>
> > Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality
>
> Whoa whoa whoa. Wait. Java uses C syntax because K&R stole it from
> elsewhere? Or did they choose the C syntax as a basis because it was
> so ridiculously widespread and well understood by competent [re: not
> you] developers?
Read: Americans.
>
> > > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
>
> > No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
> > intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
> > yuck, I can do better than that.
>
> Ok, so you're hanging out in clc because.... [complete the sentence
> please.]
In order to relearn enough about C to destroy the illusion that it is
still viable for new development.
>
> > I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
> > pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
> > language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
> > in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
> > hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
> > Diffie.
>
> Oh, now you know Diffie... did you happen to give him the idea for DH
> too? Do you just read wikipedia and throw names out?
He was a coworker at Bell Northern Research.
>
> For the 3rd time, John Nash is NOT a famous developer in any right.
> So bringing him up here is irrelevant. I've met Diffie as well [my
> first crypto conference actually], I've also met a slew of other
> famous cryptographers. Big deal. Their brilliance doesn't rub off on
> you just because you met them. It doesn't mean anything.
No, it doesn't. However, they were all characterised by a lack of
willingness to shore up their own shaky self-image by tearing down
other people.
Tom St Denis
<snip everything that doesn't have anything to do with clc>
Whoa. Empty post now... hmm.
Can you rephrase your comments, questions, and ideas in terms of
elements of the C language?
Tom
spinoza1111
> On Aug 18, 10:09 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip everything that doesn't have anything to do with clc>
>
> Whoa. Empty post now... hmm.
>
> Can you rephrase your comments, questions, and ideas in terms of
> elements of the C language?
Everything has everything to do with everything else: only Platonic
Ideas are isolated from each other. C is a dysfunctional way for
groups of people to agree how to use a computer, following Knuth's
definition of a programming language as a way for humans to agree how
to use a computer, because C is easily turned into a private language.
>
> Tom
Tom St Denis
<snip everything not substantiated with fact or on topic with clc>
Tom
Keith Thompson
So why did you post a followup?
If everyone would stop feeding this particular troll, the S/N ratio of
this newsgroup would increase dramatically, especially for those of us
with working killfiles.
spinoza1111 isn't going to stop insulting people, and he's not going
to become a productive participant.
Tom St Denis
> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>
> > On Aug 18, 7:30 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip everything not substantiated with fact or on topic with clc>
>
> > Tom
>
> So why did you post a followup?
>
> If everyone would stop feeding this particular troll, the S/N ratio of
> this newsgroup would increase dramatically, especially for those of us
> with working killfiles.
>
> spinoza1111 isn't going to stop insulting people, and he's not going
> to become a productive participant.
As someone who has seen a fair share of ignored trolls not go away I
have a hypothesis we have to actively ignore him to get the point
across. So replying while snipping his entire posts lets him know
that not only did I see it, and have the time to reply, but I chose
not to, and more so re-iterate the off-topic/trollness of his post.
Tom
spinoza1111
> On Aug 18, 9:34 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>
> > > <snip everything not substantiated with fact or on topic with clc>
>
> > > Tom
>
> > So why did you post a followup?
>
> > If everyone would stop feeding this particular troll, the S/N ratio of
> > this newsgroup would increase dramatically, especially for those of us
> > with working killfiles.
>
> > to become a productive participant.
>
> As someone who has seen a fair share of ignored trolls not go away I
> have a hypothesis we have to actively ignore him to get the point
> across. So replying while snipping his entire posts lets him know
> that not only did I see it, and have the time to reply, but I chose
> not to, and more so re-iterate the off-topic/trollness of his post.
>
> Tom
If you were sincere about this, you would communicate using email.
However, being yourselves oversensitive to criticism, you choose to
let me see your communication, because your purpose is to maliciously
label me with a misused word (see the definition) whose grammar is
isomorphic to anti-semitic texts.
You're in fact off-topic. I believe that C is a Platonism because I
learned and taught C twenty years ago, and have read Plato and taught
philosophy, therefore, I am illuminating your pathetic loyalty to bad
ideas.
You're in fact trolling according to the real definition of trolling.
This is posting to "get a rise" out of others. You want me to "lose
it" and be a "drama queen", so you can label me as Heathfield's butt
buddies labeled Navia. In your subconscious, which replicates barbaric
practise, the labeled one is "the chosen one" who dances "her" self to
death, a legend to which Stravinsky refers to in Le Sacre du
Printemps.
When she dances "her" self to death, this means to the primitive mind
that "he" is NOT the Chosen One despite his deepest fears.
Your goal is that of the member of the lynch mob. Instead of actually
being on-topic, and instead of coding C as I am, you prefer to exhibit
what "real men" you faggots wish you were by scapegoating "drama
queens" and "trolls". The lynch mob member likewise was primarily
interested in showing his community membership by watching a Black
person being murdered, or assisting in the murder.
Many of you creeps are too scared to use this ng properly and answer
newbies or submit code for comment, because this might expose you to
sarcasm and feminize you thereby, transforming you to The Chosen One.
I'm very serious about this. In situations of stress, you become the
sort of people who carry guns to town meetings in the USA. Were I to
give a talk at a professional conference, I'd need armed guards
because I have seen the dull hostility of incompetent programmers
explode into rage.
Tom St Denis
<snip off topic material>
If you want to discuss things in clc, please remain on topic. If
you're unaware of the CLC charter google for it.
Thanks,
Tom
Richard Heathfield
What CLC charter?
Keith Thompson
> On Aug 18, 9:34�pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>> > On Aug 18, 7:30�pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > <snip everything not substantiated with fact or on topic with clc>
>>
>>
>> If everyone would stop feeding this particular troll, the S/N ratio of
>> this newsgroup would increase dramatically, especially for those of us
>> with working killfiles.
>>
>> spinoza1111 isn't going to stop insulting people, and he's not going
>> to become a productive participant.
>
> As someone who has seen a fair share of ignored trolls not go away I
> have a hypothesis we have to actively ignore him to get the point
> across. So replying while snipping his entire posts lets him know
> that not only did I see it, and have the time to reply, but I chose
> not to, and more so re-iterate the off-topic/trollness of his post.
Really? I've seen no evidence that that works any better than
silently ignoring them.
For anyone with a killfile, it *doesn't matter* whether spinoza1111
goes away or not. It's unfortunate that several people I'm not
willing to killfile insist on responding to him (and I'm unwilling, at
least for now, to learn how to create a more sophisticated killfile).
Keith Thompson
Tom, CLC has no charter; it was created before newsgroups had
charters.
Do you seriously think that spinoza1111 will suddenly decide,
on the 217th repetition, that he really *shouldn't* be posting
off-topic material here? He'll continue as long as he gets
a response, positive or negative.
spinoza1111
> On Aug 19, 9:09 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip off topic material>
>
> If you want to discuss things in clc, please remain on topic. If
> you're unaware of the CLC charter google for it.
Being well-informed about something beyond programming, and being able
to construct a proper sentence of length > n, isn't being "off-topic",
although I am well aware that aliteracy is used in organizations as a
reason for ignoring issues.
This newsgroup is dominated by thugs who have access to no other
forums, and their conduct resembles that of a lynch mob.
In the "C Code Adventure", Heathfield is now maintaining the absurd
proposition that a compiler may not generate interpreted code, while
documenting this with a reference that doesn't support his conclusion.
He's doing this because his goal is to destroy the reputation of
Herbert Schildt.
Meanwhile, I'm submitting C code for comment by the occasional decent
person who wanders in here.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
spinoza1111
> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 9:34 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
> >> > <snip everything not substantiated with fact or on topic with clc>
>
> >> So why did you post a followup?
>
> >> If everyone would stop feeding this particular troll, the S/N ratio of
> >> this newsgroup would increase dramatically, especially for those of us
> >> with working killfiles.
>
> >> to become a productive participant.
>
> > As someone who has seen a fair share of ignored trolls not go away I
> > have a hypothesis we have to actively ignore him to get the point
> > across. So replying while snipping his entire posts lets him know
> > that not only did I see it, and have the time to reply, but I chose
> > not to, and more so re-iterate the off-topic/trollness of his post.
>
> Really? I've seen no evidence that that works any better than
> silently ignoring them.
>
> For anyone with a killfile, it *doesn't matter* whetherspinoza1111
> goes away or not. It's unfortunate that several people I'm not
> willing to killfile insist on responding to him (and I'm unwilling, at
> least for now, to learn how to create a more sophisticated killfile).
You keep on yapping about this. Why? Kill my submissions, and shut the
fuck up. As it is, your constant posts constitute trolling, since you
make them insincerely and in order to elicit an off-topic reaction.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
> -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"- Hide quoted text -
Richard Heathfield
<nonsense snipped>
> In the "C Code Adventure", Heathfield is now maintaining the absurd
> proposition that a compiler may not generate interpreted code,
As I said yesterday, ultimately *all* executed code is interpreted,
because the machine is basically a machine code interpreter. The
position I'm maintaining is that compilation is a translation from
one language to another (deferred execution), whereas interpretation
consists of *interpreting* the source program's intent so that it can
be executed immediately.
> He's doing this because his goal is to destroy the reputation of
> Herbert Schildt.
I got onto Usenet pretty late - 1999ish - when Herbert Schildt's
reputation was already mud in C circles. He didn't then, and doesn't
now, have a reputation for me to destroy even if I wanted to. No,
what I want Schildt to do is publish full errata lists for his books
(electronically will do - I'm not suggesting expensive paper
publication), explaining each known bug carefully so that readers of
his works can learn from his mistakes.
> Meanwhile, I'm submitting C code for comment by the occasional
> decent person who wanders in here.
And yet you ignore the comments. You were told about malloc.h days
ago, for example.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
> > In the "C Code Adventure", Heathfield is now maintaining the absurd
> > proposition that a compiler may not generate interpreted code,
>
> As I said yesterday, ultimately *all* executed code is interpreted,
> because the machine is basically a machine code interpreter. The
> position I'm maintaining is that compilation is a translation from
> one language to another (deferred execution), whereas interpretation
> consists of *interpreting* the source program's intent so that it can
> be executed immediately.
Go ahead and maintain it. The fact is that several different meanings
co-exist and work very well within different communities when used
honestly to communicate. For example, a programming team may decide to
write an "interpreter" which of necessity for any language with
lexical syntax beyond single characters, and grammar beyond reverse
Polish notation, does "compilation". They then may write a "compiler"
which does the lexical and syntactical work of the first product but
also generates object code.
They will naturally call product A an "interpreter" and product B a
"compiler" although by Aho/Sethi, both products could also, in a
different context, be called "compilers" since both transform source
code to something else.
These networks of what are essentially differences (in the sense of
the linguist de Saussure) are used all the time. The problem is when
some thug insists on one definition for the sake of convenience or
exclusion.
>
> > He's doing this because his goal is to destroy the reputation of
> > Herbert Schildt.
>
> I got onto Usenet pretty late - 1999ish - when Herbert Schildt's
> reputation was already mud in C circles. He didn't then, and doesn't
> now, have a reputation for me to destroy even if I wanted to. No,
> what I want Schildt to do is publish full errata lists for his books
> (electronically will do - I'm not suggesting expensive paper
> publication), explaining each known bug carefully so that readers of
> his works can learn from his mistakes.
Most of his "mistakes" are matters of interpretation and of style, and
as such McGraw Hill's editors decided that they didn't rise to the
level of errata.
>
> > Meanwhile, I'm submitting C code for comment by the occasional
> > decent person who wanders in here.
>
> And yet you ignore the comments. You were told about malloc.h days
> ago, for example.
...I'm sorry, I tune out when incompetent thugs expect me to "listen"
to them. The comment was one of those snarky "everybody knows this"
comments, the writer of which is himself either incompetent or afraid
to explain for fear of some other incompetent thug telling him he's
wrong.
You need to stick strictly to the details of C which you have
apparently swotted and memorized. Please don't lecture me on broader
issues of programming, about which I know far more than you.
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 20, 1:35 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111said:
>>
<nonsense snipped>
>
> Most of [Schildt's] "mistakes" are matters of interpretation and of
> style, and as such McGraw Hill's editors decided that they didn't
> rise to the level of errata.
For that claim ("most") to be correct, Schildt would have had to have
made a very large number of "mistakes" that can sensibly be described
as matters of interpretation and style, because otherwise there is no
way for them to outnumber the technical errors. Please post some
examples of the mistakes to which you refer, taken directly from a
Schildt text.
For each different one you post, I will post at least one technical
error from a Schildt text, thus disproving your claim.
If you don't post any, it is reasonable to assume you know of none and
you're just making it up as you go along.
I predict (for you are very predictable) that you will post no
evidence whatsoever to support your (insupportable) assertion.
To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
"C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
(If a report of this bug can be found in any Schildt-authored online
erratum, I will retract it.)
You're 1 down, so for your "most" claim to be true you're going to
need to find at least two Schildt "mistakes" that are matters of
interpretation and style.
>> > Meanwhile, I'm submitting C code for comment by the occasional
>> > decent person who wanders in here.
>>
>> And yet you ignore the comments. You were told about malloc.h days
>> ago, for example.
>
> ...I'm sorry, I tune out when incompetent thugs expect me to
> "listen" to them.
Calling me an incompetent thug doesn't make your code correct.
> The comment was one of those snarky "everybody
> knows this" comments,
No, it wasn't. It couldn't be, because everyone /doesn't/ know this.
For example, you clearly didn't.
> the writer of which is himself either
> incompetent or afraid to explain for fear of some other incompetent
> thug telling him he's wrong.
>
> You need to stick strictly to the details of C which you have
> apparently swotted and memorized. Please don't lecture me on broader
> issues of programming, about which I know far more than you.
It is one thing to assert this, but quite another to demonstrate it.
spinoza1111
You are treating a mass of trivial details about fuckups as knowledge,
and you want to be respected for a knowledge of unconnected details.
>
> > the writer of which is himself either
> > incompetent or afraid to explain for fear of some other incompetent
> > thug telling him he's wrong.
>
> > You need to stick strictly to the details of C which you have
> > apparently swotted and memorized. Please don't lecture me on broader
> > issues of programming, about which I know far more than you.
>
> It is one thing to assert this, but quite another to demonstrate it.
I think the demonstration is lost on you. You see, Dijkstra felt that
use of natural language and mastery of its syntax indicated
programming ability, but most programmers believe the reverse: that
great programmers are inarticulate or terse.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 1:35 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> spinoza1111said:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> > Most of [Schildt's] "mistakes" are matters of interpretation and of
> > style, and as such McGraw Hill's editors decided that they didn't
> > rise to the level of errata.
>
> For that claim ("most") to be correct, Schildt would have had to have
> made a very large number of "mistakes" that can sensibly be described
> as matters of interpretation and style, because otherwise there is no
> way for them to outnumber the technical errors. Please post some
> examples of the mistakes to which you refer, taken directly from a
> Schildt text.
>
> For each different one you post, I will post at least one technical
> error from a Schildt text, thus disproving your claim.
>
> If you don't post any, it is reasonable to assume you know of none and
> you're just making it up as you go along.
>
> I predict (for you are very predictable) that you will post no
> evidence whatsoever to support your (insupportable) assertion.
>
> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
> "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>
> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
Looks like a typo to me. Typographical errors appear in most computer
and other books. Your purpose is to destroy Schildt's sales to promote
your book.
Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
book.
An "error" would be a mistake that affects the entire book. Your
"errors" are typographical errors and artifacts, not of Schildt's
incompetence, but of the exagerrated status of C, itself an infantile
disorder imposed on competent people that destroys their
competence...as is so evident, here.
The point is that in a variety of fields, as diverse as religion and
programming, incompetent thugs turn Fundamentalist, and lose all
ability to make distinctions of importance, so as to destroy better
people than they.
Dennis (Icarus)
>news:cf8077bf-6dbb-4a5a-9b3f->2222f0...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
>> "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>>
>> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
>
>Looks like a typo to me. Typographical errors appear in most computer
>and other books. Your purpose is to destroy Schildt's sales to promote
>>your book.
Enough such "typos" indicates negligence by the author, the publisher, or
both.
>
>Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
>book.
<snip>
You mean where they say "Traditionally we think of a compiler as a program
that tanslates a source language such as Fortran into assembly or machine
language of some computer"?
They mention query interpreters, text formatters, and silicon compilers as
using compiler technology.
Now, on pg 3, they mention that interpeters do not create a target programas
being a distinguishing characteristic from compilers. You're free to
disagree, of course.
My edition was published in 1986.
Dennis
spinoza1111
wrote:
> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:cf8077bf-6dbb-4a5a-9b3f->2222f056f__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
> >> "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>
> >> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
>
> >Looks like a typo to me. Typographical errors appear in most computer
> >and other books. Your purpose is to destroy Schildt's sales to promote
> >>your book.
>
> Enough such "typos" indicates negligence by the author, the publisher, or
> both.
Possibly. Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in cases
of negligence, and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging negligence
without establishing intent. If they cannot prove intent, and because
they act with malice, any global claims they make about Schildt's
competence become criminal libels, made with intent to destroy his
livelihood.
Heathfield's only published one typo if that is what it is.
Fourteen year old boys are fundamentalists, teasing kids who stumble
over words or "get it wrong". Most adults grow out of this and look at
a person holistically, but because C has created a generation of
Dijkstra's "coding bums" (men able to get high paying jobs without
accomplishing the tasks of transition to adulthood), many C
programmers remain stuck at the level of 14 year olds.
This is one of the most pernicious effects of C's poor design. Because
it was designed in such a slapdash manner, it spawned an abiding
aftermarket in a "knowledge" that is more secrets than real knowledge.
This allowed a generation of men to evade the tasks of growing up
because they could get jobs as C programmers, and employers overlooked
their defective character.
>
>
>
> >Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
> >book.
>
> <snip>
> You mean where they say "Traditionally we think of a compiler as a program
> that tanslates a source language such as Fortran into assembly or machine
> language of some computer"?
>
> They mention query interpreters, text formatters, and silicon compilers as
> using compiler technology.
>
> Now, on pg 3, they mention that interpeters do not create a target programas
> being a distinguishing characteristic from compilers. You're free to
> disagree, of course.
It appears you know very little about compiler internals. Were you to
have worked inside a compiler you would know that in actuality, a
program ordinarily called an "interpreter" by its users will in all
cases (save the case I mentioned of Mouse, a language using characters
in reverse Polish that literally needed neither lexical nor
syntactical analysis) produce *** an intermediate representation ***.
This *** intermediate representation *** might be a file, or a data
structure in memory, or it might even be single messages passed from a
compiler coroutine to the interpretive coroutine, but in all case the
"interpreter" does "compilation".
It also appears that you are yet another Fundamentalist who believes
along with St Augustine (cf Wittgenstein, Philosophical
Investigations) that words are bricks, that words are things, and that
there is, or even should be, a simple isomorphism between language and
reality. The alternative to this primitive view appears to be for you,
chaos and Ragnarok and meaninglessness, just as friend Ben Bacarisse
refused to accept the chaotic truth of C: that it is, as C, so
redefinable as to constitute a bad programming language.
Words are de Saussure's system of differences in Wittgenstein's
language game. Here, the "language game" is "get Schildt".
spinoza1111
OK, jerk face, I do seem to recall that one's supposed to quote and
not bracket malloc.h. Explain WHY in response to this post, because I
forget horseshit rules that derive from poor language design.
You actually believe that secrets are knowledge, and this means you're
a thug and a barbarian. But you are a useful idiot savant because
you've swotted the secrets. So tell us, slave, why malloc must be
quoted when included if that is the case.
When Priests are more in word, then matter;
When Brewers marre their Malt with water;
When Nobles are their Taylors Tutors,
No Heretiques burn'd, but wenches Sutors;
When euery Case in Law, is right;
No Squire in debt, nor no poore Knight;
When Slanders do not liue in Tongues;
Nor Cut-purses come not to throngs;
When Vsurers tell their Gold i'th' Field,
And Baudes, and whores, do Churches build,
Then shal the Realme of Albion, come to great confusion:
Then comes the time, who liues to see't,
That going shalbe vs'd with feet.
This prophecie Merlin shall make, for I liue before his time.
Shakespeare, King Lear
Beej Jorgensen
>I do seem to recall that one's supposed to quote and not bracket
>malloc.h. Explain WHY in response to this post
comp.lang.c FAQ list � Question 10.8a
Q: What's the difference between #include <> and #include "" ?
http://c-faq.com/cpp/inclkinds.html
-Beej
Chris McDonald
>Possibly. Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in cases
>of negligence, and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging negligence
>without establishing intent. If they cannot prove intent, and because
>they act with malice, any global claims they make about Schildt's
>competence become criminal libels, made with intent to destroy his
>livelihood.
This may all be true "in law", but you are the only one threatening
international law suits. No-one else has "charged" negligence; people
have simply, clearly, and repeatedly demonstrated unprofessional
carelessness by Schildt and his publisher.
In common practice, the same common practice that you promote so
loudly when discussing the way actual programming occurs, it's a
simple matter to be negligent without having an intent to be negligent.
It's termed carelessness and, if being performed in an environemnt where
professionalism is required, then it demonstrates a likely unprofessional
approach to the task.
To make errors, receive genuine criticisms, and to not correct those
errors is further demonstration of that unprofessionalism. And to then
make your livelihood based on those uncorrected errors.... ??
(so sue me too)
--
Chris.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> >news:cf8077bf-6dbb-4a5a-9b3f->2222f056f__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
> >> "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>
> >> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
>
> >Looks like a typo to me. Typographical errors appear in most computer
> >and other books. Your purpose is to destroy Schildt's sales to promote
> >>your book.
>
> Enough such "typos" indicates negligence by the author, the publisher, or
> both.
>
>
>
> >Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
> >book.
>
> <snip>
> You mean where they say "Traditionally we think of a compiler as a program
> that tanslates a source language such as Fortran into assembly or machine
> language of some computer"?
You missed "traditionally" unless like Tevye you like tradition.
Look, when I was writing "Build Your Own .Net Language and
Compiler" (Apress 2004) and very close to homelessness as a result of
this effort, not working full time in software, I'd intended to do
full .Net MSIL generation. I had to jettison this goal in order to
meet my committment to Apress and wound up generating my own "Nutty
Professor" bytecode for my own "Nutty Professor" paper machine.
A few reviewers claimed I was being dishonest because all I had about
object code generation was a small example which I presented and
discussed.
The problem was that at the time (the early days of .Net in 2004) the
process was complicated and drew attention from the key skills, IMO,
of compiler development, which are in the front end, since if you mess
the front end up there's no point in having a backend at all.
It is true that the real "cutting edge" of compiler development is in
code generation and optimization, and I even included some basic
optimization, but my purpose was above all the same as Herb Schildt's:
to get people started. Quite a lot of people found my book to meet a
need for a "getting started" or "for dummies" (pour les nuls)
approach...the book has been in the top ten of Amazon's books about
compilers.
I'm in the same situation as Schildt, and Java author Kathy Sierra. If
one writes in an engaging, witty or even just readable way, one's work
is subject to multiple interpretations, for human language isn't
computer language. This attracts the scorn of people who can't write
and who have become self-appointed *mullahs*, *ayatollahs*, and
*imams* of a blasphemous technological religion which has reversed
enlightenment. One's book becomes their hated Satanic Verses, like
Salman Rushdie's, and from their *madrassahs* they issue calls for
*jihad* to their students, their *taliban*, claiming that one has
polluted the crystal truth of their secular *qu'ran*.
They are Sadducees, they are Pharisees, they are hypocrites. Behold
them as they walk through the market: behold them as they walk through
Jardine's Crescent, for lo! their wives in full *hijab* follow them in
the noonday sun near the noonday gun, whilst they violate the
Prophet's rules for male attire, with hair on chest and naked legs.
For hypocrisy is common to these men and those who would have us
worship the god they've made of C. With beams in their eyes they would
remove motes.
[I'm gonna get mediaeval on your ass]
The only reason my book hasn't been attacked in detail is that the
*mullahs* are too indolent to learn VB.
spinoza1111
Just as I thought! You can't explain it inline! Instead you point to
this, which is incredibly poorly written, nearly incoherent garbage:
"For example, if you're working on a large, multi-person project, and
if there are central directories where the official or at least main-
line development versions of source and header files reside, and
individual ``playpen'' directories where each team member works with
files prior to checking them back in to the main source tree, and if
header files can #include other header files, and if you've just
checked out a header file into your own ``playpen'' include directory,
modified it, and then recompiled, only to have your changes not take
effect, it's likely that the header file you modified is included,
using double quotes, by another header file, and that other header
file exists only in the central include directory, so that when any
other source file included that other header, the preprocessor
retrieved the mainstream, unmodified version of that header, from the
same ``current'' mainstream include directory, rather than the one you
just modified. In this case, you may have to check out a copy of that
other header file, too, even though you have no need to modify it,
just so it will be sitting in your private include directory, for
other inclusions to find first and so that the secondary header file
it includes will be your modified copy."
Ben Bacarisse
> On Aug 21, 10:39 am, Beej Jorgensen <b...@beej.us> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I do seem to recall that one's supposed to quote and not bracket
>> >malloc.h. Explain WHY in response to this post
>>
>> comp.lang.c FAQ list · Question 10.8a
>>
>> Q: What's the difference between #include <> and #include "" ?
>>
>> http://c-faq.com/cpp/inclkinds.html
>>
>> -Beej
>
> Just as I thought! You can't explain it inline!
It is not clear what your question is. If you have a question about
"" vs <> I'd have a go at answering it, but I don't think this has much
to do with malloc.h
I am pretty certain that the comment you would have received about
malloc.h is that it is a non-standard header and that it is better not
to use it at all. malloc is defined in stdlib.h and has been for
about 20 years (i.e. this is not a new change in C99).
In old, pre-standard, C there were lots of different headers floating
around and no two compilers seemed to agree about them. One of the
huge benefits of the first language standard was that all that was
sorted out.
<snip>
--
Ben.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Possibly. Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in cases
> >of negligence, and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging negligence
> >without establishing intent. If they cannot prove intent, and because
> >they act with malice, any global claims they make about Schildt's
> >competence become criminal libels, made with intent to destroy his
> >livelihood.
>
> This may all be true "in law", but you are the only one threatening
> international law suits. No-one else has "charged" negligence; people
> have simply, clearly, and repeatedly demonstrated unprofessional
> carelessness by Schildt and his publisher.
>
> In common practice, the same common practice that you promote so
> loudly when discussing the way actual programming occurs, it's a
> simple matter to be negligent without having an intent to be negligent.
> It's termed carelessness and, if being performed in an environemnt where
> professionalism is required, then it demonstrates a likely unprofessional
> approach to the task.
Nobody outside programming recognizes the programmer self-image,
because the tools programmers use are made for exchange value (profit)
and not for use value, and access to employment is controlled by
nonprogrammers who value subservience over skill (cf Phillip Kraft,
PROGRAMMERS AND MANAGERS, Springer 1978). Programmers are covered by
traditional employment law in which "the employee is worthy of his
hire" and Reagan-era rewriting of the (US) Uniform Commercial Code
which today holds software vendors harmless for errors.
Therefore neither Schildt nor McGraw Hill can be seriously charged
with negligence and to make this charge is criminal and civil libel.
In my opinion, he did the best job he could for the bulk of his
audience, and his laudatory Amazon reviews confirm that his haters are
the sort of people who can't stand Microsoft, who set up www.meankids.org.
>
> To make errors, receive genuine criticisms, and to not correct those
> errors is further demonstration of that unprofessionalism. And to then
> make your livelihood based on those uncorrected errors.... ??
It is a common programmer fantasy, inside corporations which do not
recognize them to be professionals, and who treat them shabbily, to
believe that they work within a *laager* of professionalism, and in
these fantasy *laagers* men set themselves up as experts. But when the
content of their expertise is investigated one discovers it to be a
mass of mostly disconnected rules which they are unable to express in
clear English.
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111said:
<snip>
>> > Most of [Schildt's] "mistakes" are matters of interpretation and
>> > of style, and as such McGraw Hill's editors decided that they
>> > didn't rise to the level of errata.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> I predict (for you are very predictable) that you will post no
>> evidence whatsoever to support your (insupportable) assertion.
Prediction confirmed. I conclude that you recognise the
insupportability of your claim.
<snip>
>> >> > Meanwhile, I'm submitting C code for comment by the occasional
>> >> > decent person who wanders in here.
>>
>> >> And yet you ignore the comments. You were told about malloc.h
>> >> days ago, for example.
>>
>> > ...I'm sorry, I tune out when incompetent thugs expect me to
>> > "listen" to them.
>>
>> Calling me an incompetent thug doesn't make your code correct.
>>
>> > The comment was one of those snarky "everybody
>> > knows this" comments,
>>
>> No, it wasn't. It couldn't be, because everyone /doesn't/ know
>> this. For example, you clearly didn't.
>
> You are treating a mass of trivial details about fuckups as
> knowledge, and you want to be respected for a knowledge of
> unconnected details.
No, I'm treating a non-standard header as a non-standard header, and
noting that you are incapable of recognising it as such even after
having been told about it. You are unlikely to be taken seriously by
even the most addled and easily-led newbie unless you can demonstrate
the ability to learn.
>> > the writer of which is himself either
>> > incompetent or afraid to explain for fear of some other
>> > incompetent thug telling him he's wrong.
>>
>> > You need to stick strictly to the details of C which you have
>> > apparently swotted and memorized. Please don't lecture me on
>> > broader issues of programming, about which I know far more than
>> > you.
>>
>> It is one thing to assert this, but quite another to demonstrate
>> it.
>
> I think the demonstration is lost on you.
Awww, now I'm going to have to take my irony meter in for repair.
> You see, Dijkstra felt
> that use of natural language and mastery of its syntax indicated
> programming ability,
Probably true. You aren't seriously claiming that you are a master of
natural language, are you? You should warn people before making such
claims, even if only to give them time to put down their coffee.
> but most programmers believe the reverse: that
> great programmers are inarticulate or terse.
I don't know of anyone bright who believes that.
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111said:
<snip>
>> > Most of [Schildt's] "mistakes" are matters of interpretation and
>> > of style, and as such McGraw Hill's editors decided that they
>> > didn't rise to the level of errata.
>>
>> For that claim ("most") to be correct, Schildt would have had to
>> have made a very large number of "mistakes" that can sensibly be
>> described as matters of interpretation and style, because otherwise
>> there is no way for them to outnumber the technical errors. Please
>> post some examples of the mistakes to which you refer, taken
>> directly from a Schildt text.
>>
>> For each different one you post, I will post at least one technical
>> error from a Schildt text, thus disproving your claim.
>>
>> If you don't post any, it is reasonable to assume you know of none
>> and you're just making it up as you go along.
>>
>> I predict (for you are very predictable) that you will post no
>> evidence whatsoever to support your (insupportable) assertion.
Prediction looking good so far.
>>
>> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63
>> of "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>>
>> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
>
> Looks like a typo to me.
Absolutely. In other words, it's an error, not a "mistake that can
sensibly be interpreted as a matter of interpretation or style". So
you're one-down, and your "most" claim is dead in the water unless
you can post two instances of mistakes that /are/ matters of
interpretation or style.
> Typographical errors appear in most computer and other books.
Including my own, yes. As I said earlier, if you show me the official
erratum (either written by, or at least endorsed by, Schildt) that
describes this error, I'll stop considering it as an example. Why?
Two reasons: (1) it fulfils an obligation to the reader, and (2) it
demonstrates that the author is capable of recognising and learning
from his own mistakes.
<nonsense snipped>
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 21, 9:11 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Enough such "typos" indicates negligence by the author, the
>> publisher, or both.
>
> Possibly.
They suggest a lack of care which can be simply the result of a rushed
deadline. The responsible course to take, however, is to publish
errata, so that the puzzled reader has at least some chance of
discovering the truth.
> Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in
> cases of negligence, and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging
> negligence without establishing intent.
But I'm not taking the guy to court. I'm just showing that your claim
about his mistakes is wrong.
<snip>
> Heathfield's only published one typo if that is what it is.
Yes, but you have posted *no* examples to support your claim that
"most" of his mistakes are matters of interpretation and style. Look
up "most" in your dictionary. It means "with the greatest frequency".
You are currently 1-0 down. You must therefore post one example to
draw level, and two to pull ahead. If you get around to doing one or
the other, I will regain the lead by posting more examples of
mistakes that are clearly not matters of interpretation or style.
Easy, huh? There are only two ways for you to win: (1) to post more
mistakes that are matters of interpretation or style than I can post
technical errors, or (2) learn from your mistake. I suspect that
neither will happen.
<nonsense snipped>
Richard Heathfield
> OK, jerk face,
Down this corridor, fourth on the left. There's a notice on the door
saying "Gentlemen", but ignore that, and go right on in.
> I do seem to recall that one's supposed to quote and
> not bracket malloc.h.
I don't see why. It's not a standard header, so whether to use quotes
or chevrons is really a style issue. A good rule of thumb is "for
headers supplied by the implementation, use <>, and for your own
headers, use quotes", but there's no hard and fast rule about it.
> Explain WHY in response to this post, because
> I forget horseshit rules that derive from poor language design.
I don't know why you are bothering to use the header at all - you
don't need it. Nor do I know why you can't learn to ask politely. But
the way in which C distinguishes between chevrons and quotes is
explained in K&R2 on p88, and the C Standard also explains it in
3.8.2 (C89) or 6.10.2 (C99).
> You actually believe that secrets are knowledge,
There are no secrets here. You just have to learn to read. It
shouldn't take you more than a few years.
<nonsense and Shakespeare snipped>
spinoza1111
Yes, I feel that I can better express ideas than you. However, writing
skills track reading skills, and if your reading skills are low,
you're not qualified to judge writing.
You give little evidence of reading skills. Typically, you seize upon
one interpretation of what others have written and treat that as the
only possible interpretation. This is the mark of an uneducated
person.
Nor is it irrational to believe that one text can have more than one
meaning. You interpreted Aho/Sethi et. al as saying that a "compiler"
must generate an external file of object code. That is only one
possible interpretation, since traditionally, processors such as the
Purdue Fast Fortran Translators were called "compilers" since they
fulfilled the need for a "compiler" by generating interpreted code,
while protecting their host systems from student crashes.
>
> > but most programmers believe the reverse: that
> > great programmers are inarticulate or terse.
>
> I don't know of anyone bright who believes that.
There are very few "bright" programmers. In my experience, most
genuinely intelligent people have left, or have been driven from, the
field, because as programming was "rationalized" commencing circa 1970
(that is, drained of actual reason in favor of bureaucracy), people
who expressed themselves well quickly gained reputations as
troublemakers. As early as 1978, sociologist Phillip Kraft had
discovered that programming status was reorganizing itself around the
willingness to be subservient to management and capitalism.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> This line unintentionally left unblank- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
> Down this corridor, fourth on the left. There's a notice on the door
> saying "Gentlemen", but ignore that, and go right on in.
You set out to destroy people here in order to commercially promote an
unsaleable book, ass wipe, so don't you dare lecture me about courtesy
or collegiality.
>
> > I do seem to recall that one's supposed to quote and
> > not bracket malloc.h.
>
> I don't see why. It's not a standard header, so whether to use quotes
> or chevrons is really a style issue. A good rule of thumb is "for
> headers supplied by the implementation, use <>, and for your own
> headers, use quotes", but there's no hard and fast rule about it.
>
> > Explain WHY in response to this post, because
> > I forget horseshit rules that derive from poor language design.
>
> I don't know why you are bothering to use the header at all - you
> don't need it. Nor do I know why you can't learn to ask politely. But
I will ask with collegiality when you reply with collegiality. OK,
it's not needed because it's in stdlib. You might have said that some
time ago.
> the way in which C distinguishes between chevrons and quotes is
> explained in K&R2 on p88, and the C Standard also explains it in
> 3.8.2 (C89) or 6.10.2 (C99).
>
> > You actually believe that secrets are knowledge,
>
> There are no secrets here. You just have to learn to read. It
> shouldn't take you more than a few years.
>
> <nonsense and Shakespeare snipped>
Many thug Britons and pub bores really, really hate it when I quote
Shakespeare because it's always offensive to remind people deracinated
and decultured by an inferior and class-ridden educational system of
what they've been deprived of, especially when one's an American.
Sharif don't like it. You know he really hates it.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> ass wipe, so don't you dare lecture me about
> courtesy or collegiality.
If such hypocrisy were intentional, it might be amusing. But I really
don't think it is intentional. I think you really can't see the
contradictions inherent in what you post. And that's rather sad.
<snip>
> I will ask with collegiality when you reply with collegiality.
That would be "always", then.
> OK,
> it's not needed because it's in stdlib. You might have said that
> some time ago.
I pointed out some time ago that it's a non-standard header. The
proper header for malloc is documented in K&R2 on page 142 (see also
pp 251-2), and in the Standard, of which I presume you have a copy.
<snip>
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
> > ass wipe, so don't you dare lecture me about
> > courtesy or collegiality.
>
> If such hypocrisy were intentional, it might be amusing. But I really
> don't think it is intentional. I think you really can't see the
> contradictions inherent in what you post. And that's rather sad.
Ass wipe, don't you dare, don't you dare lecture me about courtesy or
collegiality
You are using this newsgroup dishonestly, shamefully, and unethically.
I'd prefer people use "bad" language, since language recognizable by a
primitive scan
Is better than the deliberate attempt to destroy a man.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I will ask with collegiality when you reply with collegiality.
>
> That would be "always", then.
Bullshit. "Collegiality" means questioning the professional bonafides
of a person only after working with them in meat space and after a
great deal of diligent research, UNLESS you question it basis on
violation of basic human norms of decency. You don't know whether
Schildt or Navia are bad persons, and you deliberately focus on
peephole images of their performance, isolated "errors" as opposed to
any bigger picture. Based on this limited input, you questioned
Navia's professional competence, and then used his response to
complete your case.
I question YOUR professional competence on violation of basic norms of
decency.
Richard Heathfield
> On Aug 21, 1:43 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > ass wipe, so don't you dare lecture me about
>> > courtesy or collegiality.
>>
>> If such hypocrisy were intentional, it might be amusing. But I
>> really don't think it is intentional. I think you really can't see
>> the contradictions inherent in what you post. And that's rather
>> sad.
>
> Ass wipe, don't you dare, don't you dare lecture me about courtesy
> or collegiality
reROTFL - you really don't see the contradiction, do you?
<nonsense snipped>
Julienne Walker
> On Aug 21, 12:47 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> > spinoza1111said:
>
> > > I forget horseshit rules that derive from poor language design.
>
>
That literally doesn't follow. Assuming you live with the same
perception of time as the majority of us, one has to ask a question
before receiving a reply to that question. Therefore it's impossible
to know whether the reply will be polite before asking. In fact,
asking the question without any hint of civility is a damning action
because people have a tendency to act in kind. If you are rude, others
will be rude to you.
Personally, I don't feel you have the right to demand collegial
treatment when you yourself only act collegial when it's convenient.
It's a simple matter[1] to ignore the tendency to act in kind and
continue being civil. You'll find that sticking to your guns (your
guns in this case being collegial behavior) even in the face of
adversity will garner far more respect than winning the argument at
any cost.
[1] Simple in theory. In reality, refusing to act in kind is
surprisingly difficult for most because most feel (assuming they feel
as I do) that failing to defend oneself against all attacks hurts
one's pride. It's because of this difficulty that not giving in is so
worthy of respect. I believe it's a sign of good character.
spinoza1111
I have already said that most people who make these kinds of
observations fail to diligently examine posts and read one or two of
the most recent posts in an exchange. They conclude from any verbal
self-defense that the victim is to be blamed, because people in
corporations have lost the ability to defend themselves.
In other words, Julienne, you're no den mother. You need to do your
homework. We have here a pattern: an unsuccessful computer author,
Richard Heathfield, is using this ng as a basis for deliberate attacks
on people based on his limited knowledge of computer science, attacks
that he is aware are amplified by the people he enables.
His behavior has ruined the utility of this newsgroup for its intended
purpose in precisely the same way I saw loudmouthed thugs at Bell-
Northern Research destroy the utility of structured walkthroughs.
If I type "fuck this shit" it is easy to use the most basic form of
parsing (a regular expression) to determine that I've said it, and it
is a facile inference that I'm the deviant.
But it's too facile, since Heathfield has transformed this newsgroup
into a normalized deviance WITHOUT saying "fuck this shit".
Do your homework and do not dare to lecture me.
spinoza1111
>
> > On Aug 21, 12:47 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> > > spinoza1111said:
>
> > > > Explain WHY in response to this post, because
> > > > I forget horseshit rules that derive from poor language design.
>
> > > Nor do I know why you can't learn to ask politely.
>
> > I will ask with collegiality when you reply with collegiality.
>
> That literally doesn't follow. Assuming you live with the same
> perception of time as the majority of us, one has to ask a question
> before receiving a reply to that question. Therefore it's impossible
> to know whether the reply will be polite before asking. In fact,
> asking the question without any hint of civility is a damning action
> because people have a tendency to act in kind. If you are rude, others
> will be rude to you.
>
> Personally, I don't feel you have the right to demand collegial
> treatment when you yourself only act collegial when it's convenient.
> It's a simple matter[1] to ignore the tendency to act in kind and
> continue being civil. You'll find that sticking to your guns (your
> guns in this case being collegial behavior) even in the face of
> adversity will garner far more respect than winning the argument at
> any cost.
This is nonsense, Julienne. People here who act with decency and in
good faith fail to phrase things the way the thugs here want find
things posted about them which contain no profanity but cost them
their jobs, and Heathfield enables and participates in this. When they
defend their interpretations, they are then labeled "drama queens".
These people are usually people who've accomplished something while
the residents here have accomplished nothing. That's why they are
here.
So fuck this shit.
Julienne Walker
For future reference (though I intend never to speak with you again),
I don't lecture from a position of ignorance. This is not the first
time you've told me to do my homework, and it's not the first time
I've either implied or directly explained that I've done my homework.
So at this point I've concluded that you're no different from those
pitiful people who love to hear themselves talk and refuse to listen
to anything else. Thus, you're not worth talking to.
Good bye, and good luck on your path to destruction.
Dennis (Icarus)
>On Aug 21, 9:11 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
>wrote:
>> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:cf8077bf-6dbb-4a5a-9b3f->2222f056f__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?>a63jfAD$z...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Aug 20, 6:53 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>>>
>> >> To show willing, I'll start, with a diagnosable syntax error on p63 of
>> >> "C: The Complete Reference" (1990):
>>
>> >> x = 10 / y ~(127/x);
>>
>> >Looks like a typo to me. Typographical errors appear in most computer
>> >and other books. Your purpose is to destroy Schildt's sales to promote
>> >>your book.
>>
>> Enough such "typos" indicates negligence by the author, the publisher, or
>> both.
>
>Possibly. Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in cases
>of negligence, and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging negligence
>without establishing intent. If they cannot prove intent, and because
>they act with malice, any global claims they make about Schildt's
>competence become criminal libels, made with intent to destroy his
>livelihood.
If you're talking about law, that may be the case. I was referring simply
to...negligence, neglectful, carelessness, inattention.
>Heathfield's only published one typo if that is what it is.
A typo is a an error.
<nonsense snipped>
>>
>> >Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
>> >book.
>>
>> <snip>
>> You mean where they say "Traditionally we think of a compiler as a
>> program
>> that tanslates a source language such as Fortran into assembly or machine
>> language of some computer"?
>>
>> They mention query interpreters, text formatters, and silicon compilers
>> as
>> using compiler technology.
>>
>> Now, on pg 3, they mention that interpeters do not create a target
>> programas
>> being a distinguishing characteristic from compilers. You're free to
>> disagree, of course.
>It appears you know very little about compiler internals. Were you to
And you'd be wrong.
>have worked inside a compiler you would know that in actuality, a
I wrote one for my master's thesis.
>program ordinarily called an "interpreter" by its users will in all
>cases (save the case I mentioned of Mouse, a language using characters
>in reverse Polish that literally needed neither lexical nor
>syntactical analysis) produce *** an intermediate representation ***.
>This *** intermediate representation *** might be a file, or a data
>structure in memory, or it might even be single messages passed from a
>compiler coroutine to the interpretive coroutine, but in all case the
>"interpreter" does "compilation".
Not at all, as that's an "***intermediate representation ***. In other
words, the *** intermediate representation*** is not an end-product.
A c compiler generates an object file on most platforms, which is then used
by the linker to generate an executable. Could generate an asm file just as
easily. While one culd argue that an obj file or asm file is also an
intermediate representation, the key point to remenber is that compilation
is finished.
A java compiler generates the java VM instructions. The JV can use a process
called just-in-time compilation to translate the VM instructions into
machine code. Note that they dn't call it "just-in-time interpretation".
A .net compiler can generate the MSIL, or platform-dependent instructions.
<irrelevant stuff snipped>
Dennis
Dennis (Icarus)
On Aug 21, 9:11 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:
>> >Aho/Sethi are arguably wrong about compilers on p 4 of the Dragon
>> >book.
>>
>> <snip>
>> You mean where they say "Traditionally we think of a compiler as a
>> program
>> that tanslates a source language such as Fortran into assembly or machine
>> language of some computer"?
>
>You missed "traditionally" unless like Tevye you like tradition.
No, I clearly didn't miss that since...well...I typed it.
continue reading
<snip>
>>
>> They mention query interpreters, text formatters, and silicon compilers
>> as
>> using compiler technology.
Using compiler tech is different from being a compiler.
>>
>> Now, on pg 3, they mention that interpeters do not create a target
>> programas
>> being a distinguishing characteristic from compilers. You're free to
>> disagree, of course.
You may've missed this, so I left it intact. Feel free to disagree with Aho
et. al. though.
Dennis
spinoza1111
You'll be back.
> I don't lecture from a position of ignorance. This is not the first
> time you've told me to do my homework, and it's not the first time
> I've either implied or directly explained that I've done my homework.
Where is the evidence that you've done your homework?
What you see and what is experienced by people like Navia here is
RADICALLY different. You look at the top of a LIFO stack and view n<5
layers.
Whereas Navia and other Heathfield victims have to see post after post
which questions their personal and professional standing in full view
of all and in which their words are twisted. Their reality is ignored
because the people that Heathfield enables don't read anything but the
top of the stack, and note that even Heathfield, since he's always
here (his publisher possibly paying him to blog), learns a thing or
two. For example, Heathfield has stated that I'm not a troll, details
at eleven, because he's obsessive enough to read posts. But as a
source of negative energy here, he enables others who don't, like you.
Just as the only responsible way for the United Nations to reconstruct
the experience of Serbia's victims in the Yugoslavian war was to build
an elaborate data base linking the top of the chain of command to
specific incidents, you will have to construct, as I and my attorney
may have to construct, a data base showing a pattern over time, and
although you express yourself in dulcet tones, and speak with the
tongues of men and angels...you have not done so.
The Puritan goal of an Anglo-Saxon net is to expose the soul to the
crowd, each member of which gets his fucking rocks off by baying for
the blood of the Chosen One or Drama Queen. As such, the Chosen one is
the only one to actually experience what's going down. Other people
have a fractured view whose specific contents depend on what posts
they have read, and you, baby, are no exception.
> So at this point I've concluded that you're no different from those
> pitiful people who love to hear themselves talk and refuse to listen
> to anything else. Thus, you're not worth talking to.
Again, an image here is substituted for reality because you access
this resource LIFO, and in one ear and out the other. As it happens,
most of my numerous friends will confirm that I'm a devastatingly
charming good listener and most of my enemies pub ranters and bores.
>
> Good bye, and good luck on your path to destruction.- Hide quoted text -
Because it's write-only, lifo, and in one ear and out the other, you
use mythology to stagger to your absurd conclusion. What am I to you,
Hecuba? Some Sixties-dreamtime character like Jim Morrison?
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The root words of both "compiler" and "interpreter" are verbs. To
compile is to use lexical and grammatical analysis to translate a
program to another form. This can be object code in a classic
compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the case
of a source transliterator, such as a program to translate C to C
Sharp (rotsa ruck on that one).
To interpret is to build a paper or "nutty professor" computer which
exists only as simulated by your interpreter.
Compilers such as Schildt's, mine, the Purdue University Fast Fortran
Translator of old, or the IBM 1401 Fortran compiler, which generate
code for an interpreter, form a smallish but honorable subset of
compilers both IMO and in the literature. In a court of law, Richard
Heathfield's ignorance and misuse of terminology for commercial and
libelous ends will be exposed for what it is.
Dennis (Icarus)
Very good.
>compile is to use lexical and grammatical analysis to translate a
>program to another form. This can be object code in a classic
That's what I've always heard and read as lexical analysis and parsing.
>compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
>known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the case
Also known as an abstract syntax tree (AST).
>of a source transliterator, such as a program to translate C to C
>Sharp (rotsa ruck on that one).
>To interpret is to build a paper or "nutty professor" computer which
>exists only as simulated by your interpreter.
Also called...a simulator, or emulator.
So you agree now that when the interpreter has finished builing
theintermediate form, and thn interprets that result.....it's still an
interpreter, and not a compiler?
>
>
>Compilers such as Schildt's, mine, the Purdue University Fast Fortran
>Translator of old, or the IBM 1401 Fortran compiler, which generate
>code for an interpreter, form a smallish but honorable subset of
>compilers both IMO and in the literature. In a court of law, Richard
>Heathfield's ignorance and misuse of terminology for commercial and
>libelous ends will be exposed for what it is.
Good to see you consider them to be compilers.
Dennis
spinoza1111
Don't patronize me about matters you don't fully understand, Dennis.
>
> >compile is to use lexical and grammatical analysis to translate a
> >program to another form. This can be object code in a classic
>
> That's what I've always heard and read as lexical analysis and parsing.
"Necessary" conditions for compiling (to compile): lexical analysis
and parsing (both are forms of parsing kept apart for convenience and
because lexical analysis can be performed simply, in one pass, without
a memory).
Generation of code for a real machine is not a necessary condition for
compiling because in common parlance by native English speaking
computer technicians and scientists, intepretive compilers such as the
examples I gave are said to be compilers, that compiled.
Learn linguistics (including what constitutes correct usage) and logic
(including the concept of necessary and sufficient condition) before
posting your views.
I agree that the usage of "compiler" to refer to interpretive
compilers (such as early Pascal and my examples) is in some desuetude
owing to the fashion for mindless speed and the evolution of backend
theory which has made retargetable code generation feasible.
Nonetheless, contemporary historians of technology refer to old
compiler/interpreters as compilers. Cf. my article in the Spring
Summer edition of IEEE Transactions in the History of Software
(Nilges).
>
> >compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
> >known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the case
>
> Also known as an abstract syntax tree (AST).
Thank you.
>
> >of a source transliterator, such as a program to translate C to C
> >Sharp (rotsa ruck on that one).
> >To interpret is to build a paper or "nutty professor" computer which
> >exists only as simulated by your interpreter.
>
> Also called...a simulator, or emulator.
>
> So you agree now that when the interpreter has finished builing
> theintermediate form, and thn interprets that result.....it's still an
> interpreter, and not a compiler?
You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
lexical and syntactical analysis.
Therefore, Richard Heathfield has libeled Schildt on this matter and
many other ways.
>
>
>
> >Compilers such as Schildt's, mine, the Purdue University Fast Fortran
> >Translator of old, or the IBM 1401 Fortran compiler, which generate
> >code for an interpreter, form a smallish but honorable subset of
> >compilers both IMO and in the literature. In a court of law, Richard
> >Heathfield's ignorance and misuse of terminology for commercial and
> >libelous ends will be exposed for what it is.
>
> Good to see you consider them to be compilers.
Well, I suppose you could get the computing Tsar of some mythical
kingdom to declare that no Compiler may be so labeled unless it
generates object code, but rotsa ruck on that one.
>
> Dennis- Hide quoted text -
Walter Banks
spinoza1111 wrote:
> > >Compilers such as Schildt's, mine,
The body of known compiler work for Schildt (or you) is extremely limited. From what I have seen little more than a parser, a task
that takes a few man days when writing a compiler compared to several man months to complete most compilers.
w..
Dennis (Icarus)
>On Aug 22, 10:58 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> >The root words of both "compiler" and "interpreter" are verbs. To
>>
>> Very good.
>
>Don't patronize me about matters you don't fully understand, Dennis.
Your perception on the latter is faulty at best. If you want to avoid my
being patronizking towards you, I'd suggest you stop being patronizing
towards me. After all, surely you remember all those posts abou how you'll
act in the manner in whihc you're being treated? :-)
>>
>> >compile is to use lexical and grammatical analysis to translate a
>> >program to another form. This can be object code in a classic
>>
>> That's what I've always heard and read as lexical analysis and parsing.
>
>"Necessary" conditions for compiling (to compile): lexical analysis
>and parsing (both are forms of parsing kept apart for convenience and
>because lexical analysis can be performed simply, in one pass, without
>a memory).
>
>Generation of code for a real machine is not a necessary condition for
>compiling because in common parlance by native English speaking
>computer technicians and scientists, intepretive compilers such as the
>examples I gave are said to be compilers, that compiled.
I never said that it was. A compiler took X and generated Y as the target.
Aho & Sethi used the final result to distinguish compilers from
interpreters.
>Learn linguistics (including what constitutes correct usage) and logic
>(including the concept of necessary and sufficient condition) before
>posting your views.
I have, and i can provide many, manhy references in support of my views on
what constitutes a compiler vs an interpreter. Did so in another post.
<snip>
>> >compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
>> >known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the case
>>
>> Also known as an abstract syntax tree (AST).
>
>Thank you.
Not sure what you're thanking me for.
>>
>> >of a source transliterator, such as a program to translate C to C
>> >Sharp (rotsa ruck on that one).
>> >To interpret is to build a paper or "nutty professor" computer which
>> >exists only as simulated by your interpreter.
>>
>> Also called...a simulator, or emulator.
>>
>> So you agree now that when the interpreter has finished builing
>> theintermediate form, and thn interprets that result.....it's still an
>> interpreter, and not a compiler?
>You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
>lexical and syntactical analysis.
Incorrect.
Lexical analysis and synatical analysis has to be done by both an
interpreter and a compiler, hence you cannot use that as the basis to
distinguish one from the other.
Dennis
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > > >Compilers such as Schildt's, mine,
>
> The body of known compiler work for Schildt (or you) is extremely limited. From what I have seen little more than a parser, a task
> that takes a few man days when writing a compiler compared to several man months to complete most compilers.
The recursive descent parser for Quick Basic that I wrote took a few
man-days. The interpreter, a few more. The assembler (which translated
the symbolic labels in the p-code) a few more. The graphical user
interface which allows the user to see what's happening in detail, a
few more. Oh yes, the lexical analyzer, a few more.
The complete and literate comments? A few more.
It adds up.
By the way, here is what one anonymous Amazon reviewer of the
associated book said:
"Most books contain code written just for the book: small and simple
examples. This book contains a huge amount of code that has obviously
been under development and evolving for a long time. The code has a
level of documentation, error checking and self-consistency testing
that is rare to see even in commercial code, much less sample code for
a book. The author may have written the original compiler in a few
days, but he himself mentions that he then went on to rewrite it
completely as clearly obvious by looking at the sample code."
Neither Schildt nor I would claim that our compilers are comparable in
scale to Navia's lccwin32, or to a commercial compiler. A compiler
that generates object code is a valuable asset, and takes longer. I
produced one such at Bell Northern Research, including complete object
code generation, and although it didn't take an order of magnitude
longer, it took ... longer.
However, I believe that these compilers that you mention, which take
"months" are modern myths and urban legends. Commercial compiler shops
don't only use evolutions of yacc and lexx they also use code
generators for the back-end, and these tools are valuable assets in
themselves.
To speak as if there are compilers different in kind merely because
they are written by mythical "real" programmers, "real" men, is a
Lacanian symptom with which I am very familiar in technology. Deprived
(cf Susan Faludi, "Stiffed: the Betrayal of the American Male) of any
chance at an independent existence by corporate life, programmers have
to posit a phallus somewhere so as to legitimate the economic
arrangements (no affordable health insurance in the richest country in
the world) which oppress them lest they go bat shit.
In fact, Navia comes closest to this mythical creature...and look how
you treat him!
>
> w..
spinoza1111
wrote:
> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:eb089914-5128-4fdb-be8d->3dac0e7e3__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >On Aug 22, 10:58 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> >wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> >The root words of both "compiler" and "interpreter" are verbs. To
>
> >> Very good.
>
> >Don't patronize me about matters you don't fully understand, Dennis.
>
> Your perception on the latter is faulty at best. If you want to avoid my
> being patronizking towards you, I'd suggest you stop being patronizing
> towards me. After all, surely you remember all those posts abou how you'll
> act in the manner in whihc you're being treated? :-)
Our perceptions, which are often more valid, take place in time. We
come in here to have the resident thugs trash us when we disagree with
their opinions. We defend ourselves like men, and then are called
drama queens and trolls.
It only seems like it takes place outside of time, and it only seems
that all are guilty.
>
>
>
> >> >compile is to use lexical and grammatical analysis to translate a
> >> >program to another form. This can be object code in a classic
>
> >> That's what I've always heard and read as lexical analysis and parsing.
>
> >"Necessary" conditions for compiling (to compile): lexical analysis
> >and parsing (both are forms of parsing kept apart for convenience and
> >because lexical analysis can be performed simply, in one pass, without
> >a memory).
>
> >Generation of code for a real machine is not a necessary condition for
> >compiling because in common parlance by native English speaking
> >computer technicians and scientists, intepretive compilers such as the
> >examples I gave are said to be compilers, that compiled.
>
> I never said that it was. A compiler took X and generated Y as the target.
> Aho & Sethi used the final result to distinguish compilers from
> interpreters.
>
> >Learn linguistics (including what constitutes correct usage) and logic
> >(including the concept of necessary and sufficient condition) before
> >posting your views.
>
> I have, and i can provide many, manhy references in support of my views on
> what constitutes a compiler vs an interpreter. Did so in another post.
I will agree that owing to the greater power of full-feature
compilers, many younger programmers prefer to refer to interpretive
compilers as interpreters. Nonetheless, as I've shown (did you miss
it) all "interpreters", save for the limit case of a language like
Mouse (do you know it?) do compilation in Aho/Sethi's sense, therefore
Richard Heathfield is guilty of libel qed.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
> >> >known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the case
>
> >> Also known as an abstract syntax tree (AST).
>
> >Thank you.
>
> Not sure what you're thanking me for.
Reminding me that a DAG is an AST, and a Snark is a Boojum.
>
>
>
> >> >of a source transliterator, such as a program to translate C to C
> >> >Sharp (rotsa ruck on that one).
> >> >To interpret is to build a paper or "nutty professor" computer which
> >> >exists only as simulated by your interpreter.
>
> >> Also called...a simulator, or emulator.
>
> >> So you agree now that when the interpreter has finished builing
> >> theintermediate form, and thn interprets that result.....it's still an
> >> interpreter, and not a compiler?
> >You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
> >lexical and syntactical analysis.
>
> Incorrect.
> Lexical analysis and synatical analysis has to be done by both an
> interpreter and a compiler, hence you cannot use that as the basis to
> distinguish one from the other.
OK, so for you, object code generation for a real machine is a
necessary condition for being a compiler. That's not common use.
>
> Dennis
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> comp.lang.c FAQ list · Question 10.8a
>
> Q: What's the difference between #include <> and #include "" ?
>
> http://c-faq.com/cpp/inclkinds.html
>
> -Beej
No, you have to explain why. I write fast. You should do. The prose at
the link is beastly.
Anyway, the angle bracket includes from the standard location, the
quote includes from a location that can be defined and can hold your
"own" includes. This BTW is just ridiculous. Such a detail does NOT
belong in a programming language for grownups.
In OO, the standard library is not replaceable. Instead, it is
overridable in the source code. While this doesn't prevent all
problems it prevents many accidental errors.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:eb089914-5128-4fdb-be8d->3dac0e7e3__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
BTW, this is a MASSIVE petitio principii, or question begging
argument:
(Ex)(Ey)[isAnInterpreter(x) && isACompiler(y) &&
doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) && doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) &&
x!= y]
therefore (you conclude) that doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis "cannot" be
used.
Absurd, and heart-breakingly so.
In the first line, you assert without proof that x, which interprets
bytecodes after it does lexical analysis and parsing,
isAnInterpreter...and not a compiler.
But this is what is at issue. You haven't refuted my claim that
lexical analysis and parsing add up to a compiler (I concede that a
compiler with lexical analysis, parsing, and object code generation to
a real machine is in more cases a larger project).
Instead, you've assumed what you wanted to prove.
Nice work...if you can get it.
>
> Dennis
Walter Banks
spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Aug 22, 3:43 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > spinoza1111wrote:
> > > > >Compilers such as Schildt's, mine,
> >
> > The body of known compiler work for Schildt (or you) is extremely limited. From what I have seen little more than a parser, a task
> > that takes a few man days when writing a compiler compared to several man months to complete most compilers.
> . . .
> Neither Schildt nor I would claim that our compilers are comparable in
> scale to . . . a commercial compiler.
:)
w..
Dennis (Icarus)
On Aug 22, 8:42 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:
>> >You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
>> >lexical and syntactical analysis.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>> Lexical analysis and synatical analysis has to be done by both an
>> interpreter and a compiler, hence you cannot use that as the basis to
>> distinguish one from the other.
>
>BTW, this is a MASSIVE petitio principii, or question begging
>argument:
>
>(Ex)(Ey)[isAnInterpreter(x) && isACompiler(y) &&
>doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) && doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) &&
>x!= y]
>
>therefore (you conclude) that doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis "cannot" be
>used.
>
>Absurd, and heart-breakingly so.
It is heartbreakingly absurd, in that, what I said, what that both
inteprerters and compilers have to perform lexical analysis and synatical
aalysis, hence you cannot claim an interpreter is a compiler on that basis.
Go reread your claim above where you state
"You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
lexical and syntactical analysis."
>In the first line, you assert without proof that x, which interprets
>bytecodes after it does lexical analysis and parsing,
>isAnInterpreter...and not a compiler.
How the interpreter is implemented, and what it does with the statement
afterwards, is up to the system.
>But this is what is at issue. You haven't refuted my claim that
>lexical analysis and parsing add up to a compiler (I concede that a
>compiler with lexical analysis, parsing, and object code generation to
>a real machine is in more cases a larger project).
They'll also add up to an interpeter, as lexical analysis and syntax
analysis are phases of the general problem - laguage translation.
Dennis
Dennis (Icarus)
On Aug 22, 8:42 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I never said that it was. A compiler took X and generated Y as the
>> target.
>> Aho & Sethi used the final result to distinguish compilers from
>> interpreters.
>>
>> >Learn linguistics (including what constitutes correct usage) and logic
>> >(including the concept of necessary and sufficient condition) before
>> >posting your views.
>>
>> what constitutes a compiler vs an interpreter. Did so in another post.
>I will agree that owing to the greater power of full-feature
>compilers, many younger programmers prefer to refer to interpretive
>compilers as interpreters. Nonetheless, as I've shown (did you miss
>it) all "interpreters", save for the limit case of a language like
>Mouse (do you know it?) do compilation in Aho/Sethi's sense, therefore
>Richard Heathfield is guilty of libel qed.
Check page 3 of the dragon book, 1986 edition.
"Instead of producing a target program as a translation, an interpreter
performs the operations implied by the source program".
Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
language.
The key is the separation of translation and execution.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >compiler, p-code in a compiler-interpreter, a parse tree (sometimes
>> >> >known as a DAG) for an optimizer, or even a source program in the
>> >> >case
>>
>> >> Also known as an abstract syntax tree (AST).
>>
>> >Thank you.
>>
>> Not sure what you're thanking me for.
>
>Reminding me that a DAG is an AST, and a Snark is a Boojum.
A DAG (directed acyclic graph) is not necessarily an AST.
<snip>
>>
>> Incorrect.
>> Lexical analysis and synatical analysis has to be done by both an
>> interpreter and a compiler, hence you cannot use that as the basis to
>> distinguish one from the other.
>
>OK, so for you, object code generation for a real machine is a
>necessary condition for being a compiler. That's not common use.
It is as far as I can tell.
Dennis.
Barry Schwarz
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
snip
>Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
>a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
>language.
You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
be executable machine language. In my experience, programs which
produce output in a different source language have been called
language translators, not compilers.
--
Remove del for email
Charlton Wilbur
[a great deal]
The fundamental mistake you are making is that you are assuming that Mr
Nilges is arguing in order to arrive at the truth. In fact, he is
arguing in order to hear his own voice, which means that facts and
definitions are useful only insofar as they can be quibbled over at
great length.
You are not going to get him to concede the point, because that will
shorten, rather than lengthen, the argument; and there is nobody left to
impress, as most of the people with more than two brain cells to rub
together have realized that he is a self-important twit with a bad case
of logorrhea.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Dennis (Icarus)
news:0q61951ltqpip0jhk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:16:23 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
>>Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code
>>for
>>language.
>
> You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
Yes, but to foster communication it's good to use accepted definitions.
> reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
> the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
> be executable machine language. In my experience, programs which
> produce output in a different source language have been called
> language translators, not compilers.
>
And yet, the phases are so similar. :-)
leexical analysis, syntactical analysis, code generation.....
The references I've seen to cfront have referred to it as a compiler, even
though the output was C, and not executable machine language. Just one
example.
Dennis
Keith Thompson
The distinction between a compiler and a translator is somewhat vague.
Here's how I've always heard it described.
Suppose you have a translator T that translates some input language
to target language, where the target language itself requires a
compiler or interpreter for the target program to be executed.
(Example: translator = cfront, input language = C++, target
language = C.. There are numerous other examples with C as the
target language.) If errors in the input language program are always
diagnosed by the translator then the translator is a compiler using
the target language as an intermediate form. If, on the other
hand, some errors are left to be diagnosed by the target language
compiler or interpreter, and significant portions of the translated
program are passed through unchanged, then the translator is more
of a preprocessor. The old Ratfor preprocessor, which implemented
control flow constructs for Fortran, is an expamle of this.
In both cases, it might be as accurate to say that the translator
is the front end of a compiler for the input language, and the
compiler consists of both the translator and the compiler for the
target language. For example, cfront together with the C compiler
would constitute a C++ compiler.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b106826-4d57-48ba...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 22, 8:42 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
> >> >lexical and syntactical analysis.
>
> >> Incorrect.
> >> Lexical analysis and synatical analysis has to be done by both an
> >> interpreter and a compiler, hence you cannot use that as the basis to
> >> distinguish one from the other.
>
> >BTW, this is a MASSIVE petitio principii, or question begging
> >argument:
>
> >(Ex)(Ey)[isAnInterpreter(x) && isACompiler(y) &&
> >doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) && doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis(x) &&
> >x!= y]
>
> >therefore (you conclude) that doesLexicalAndSyntaxAnalysis "cannot" be
> >used.
>
> >Absurd, and heart-breakingly so.
>
> It is heartbreakingly absurd, in that, what I said, what that both
> inteprerters and compilers have to perform lexical analysis and synatical
> aalysis, hence you cannot claim an interpreter is a compiler on that basis.
> Go reread your claim above where you state
> "You cannot properly label it an interpreter if it compiles, viz., does
> lexical and syntactical analysis."
Yes. Do you understand the difference between a noun and a verb,
Reading Rainbow? Do you understand that the root words are verbs?
>
> >In the first line, you assert without proof that x, which interprets
> >bytecodes after it does lexical analysis and parsing,
> >isAnInterpreter...and not a compiler.
>
> How the interpreter is implemented, and what it does with the statement
> afterwards, is up to the system.
>
> >But this is what is at issue. You haven't refuted my claim that
> >lexical analysis and parsing add up to a compiler (I concede that a
> >compiler with lexical analysis, parsing, and object code generation to
> >a real machine is in more cases a larger project).
>
> They'll also add up to an interpeter, as lexical analysis and syntax
> analysis are phases of the general problem - laguage translation.
Both nouns apply, then, to the products that Schildt and I produced.
They are compilers (minus back or ass end) and interpreters. It sounds
like you get more, and if I were a sleazebag I'd say so, but I'm not a
sleazebag, so there.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I agree that usage is trending that way. However, the older meaning
still applies as well, therefore Richard Heathfield is guilty of
libel.
>
> Dennis.- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:16:23 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>
>
> snip
>
> >Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
> >a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
> >language.
>
> You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
> reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
> the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
> be executable machine language. In my experience, programs which
> produce output in a different source language have been called
> language translators, not compilers.
You've not read enough.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "Barry Schwarz" <schwa...@dqel.com> wrote in message
The problem here seems to me to be an inability to think in terms of
what's called "topoi", in literary studies. The word derives more or
less from topology in which metric and projective relations are set
aside. Although topology is highly numerate, it appeared to Lacan that
it provided a bridge between mathematics and otherwise "unrelated"
fields including psychoanalysis and literarure.
A "compiler" (using scare quotes to show that unlike certain people
here I don't presume the meanings of words at issue to be known, which
is a *petitio principii*) does front end work. Does it cease being **
in some sense ** a compiler if its developers decide to generate C
SOURCE CODE, because they ALREADY HAVE a nifty keen swell optimizing
compiler for C? And is not this *pons asinorum* in real use in
"industry?"
Shoes for industry! Shoes for the day! Shoes for industry! Shoes for
the day! - The Firesign Theater, Don't Crush that Dwarf, Hand Me the
Pliers
Incapable of conceiving qualitative *topoi* which have no decision
procedure for labeling things, you clowns, who love labels (such as
"troll"), can't seem to get that what's a "compiler" depends upon a
community's praxis and needs, and therefore, seek to libel people
who've accomplished more than you, by denying in Schildt's case that
Little C is a compiler.
spinoza1111
Lawyers are gonna love this shit. That's because you didn't listen to
me, you big stupid idiot, when I said that COMPILE is the root word.
Because COMPILE is a verb, you will never come up with a definition of
the noun adequate to praxis.
How do you suppose "compilers" were invented? The Official, reifying,
Platonic Story was written by journalists with no clue, and they
fanned out of New York City to Princeton, Yale and Harvard to discover
that a couple of folks "invented" the compiler.
They didn't realise that to compile as a verb is a natural gesture of
the intelligent programmer faced with a problem above a certain level
of complexity. In the very early days, a spiritual mentor (as I relate
in my book) wrote what he later realized were compilers to solve
"hard" problems in railroad data processing, and at that early date,
there were no idiotic managers around to tell him not to "reinvent the
wheel" or that he'd exceeded his remit!
This was because the word, and therefore the Concept (Begriff) didn't
exist in 1955!
spinoza1111
> >>>>> "D" == Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> writes:
>
> [a great deal]
>
> The fundamental mistake you are making is that you are assuming that Mr
> Nilges is arguing in order to arrive at the truth. In fact, he is
> arguing in order to hear his own voice, which means that facts and
> definitions are useful only insofar as they can be quibbled over at
> great length.
No, the definitions being proposed are arrogant, reifying, and
productive of corporate stupefaction.
>
> You are not going to get him to concede the point, because that will
> shorten, rather than lengthen, the argument; and there is nobody left to
> impress, as most of the people with more than two brain cells to rub
> together have realized that he is a self-important twit with a bad case
> of logorrhea.
Gee, what's "logorrhea"? That's a mighty big word, son. Does it mean
by any chance "can write?"
>
> Charlton
>
> --
> Charlton Wilbur
> cwil...@chromatico.net
Kaz Kylheku
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:16:23 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
><nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
>>Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
>>a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
>>language.
>
> You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
> reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
> the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
> be executable machine language.
There are language implementations that are called compilers, which output C,
and not machine code.
Lisp hackers refer to sufficiently sohpisticated macros as compilers. LOOP is
effectively a compiler. It translates things like
(loop for x below 5 collecting (* x x)) into Lisp code written without LOOP.
Both C's in ``yacc'' stand for ``compiler'': yet another compiler-compiler.
Yacc outputs C; its compilation has to do with translating a grammar into
program logic.
Programs that grok interface languages and produce RPC stubs and other
materials have been called ``interface compilers'', as have been programs
that generate code from the output of some user interface designer.
Man page for "pic" program:
PIC(1) PIC(1)
NAME
pic - compile pictures for troff or TeX
If you want to insist that compilation refers only to translating a programming
language to machine code, you will have to accept that you will be perceived as
a parochial kook.
spinoza1111
> On 2009-08-23, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@dqel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:16:23 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> ><nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >>Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
> >>a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
> >>language.
>
> > You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
> > reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
> > the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
> > be executable machine language.
>
> There are language implementations that are called compilers, which output C,
> and not machine code.
>
> Lisp hackers refer to sufficiently sohpisticated macros as compilers. LOOP is
> effectively a compiler. It translates things like
> (loop for x below 5 collecting (* x x)) into Lisp code written without LOOP.
>
> Both C's in ``yacc'' stand for ``compiler'': yet another compiler-compiler.
> Yacc outputs C; its compilation has to do with translating a grammar into
> program logic.
yacc is often referred to as "not another compiler-compiler", either
in the sense of "oh no, not another compiler-compiler" or in the sense
of "generates C code how could it be a compiler of compilers".
> o
> Programs that grok interface languages and produce RPC stubs and other
> materials have been called ``interface compilers'', as have been programs
> that generate code from the output of some user interface designer.
>
> Man page for "pic" program:
>
> PIC(1) PIC(1)
>
> NAME
> pic - compile pictures for troff or TeX
>
> If you want to insist that compilation refers only to translating a programming
> language to machine code, you will have to accept that you will be perceived as
> a parochial kook.
The use of the word is fundamentally verbal, to refer to a deed and
not a thing. But all's fair here when it comes to the politics of
personal destruction. The goal is to destroy Schildt, and to denigrate
each of his accomplishments.
Richard Heathfield
> "spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>OK, so for you, object code generation for a real machine is a
>>necessary condition for being a compiler. That's not common use.
>
> It is as far as I can tell.
Actually, although he's wrong and it is indeed common use,
it is by no means the only use, and formal usage of "compile"
is "translate from one computer language to another". To illustrate
this point, I hereby present the complete source code for a compiler
that I wrote about a year ago (for a joke, obviously, but also
to make a point). It translates from a Turing-complete language
of my own devising (not C, obviously) into a more well-known
language that is about as far from machine language as you can get:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define LW 16
int t(unsigned long int n)
{
static unsigned long l = 0;
char x[] = "Oh? Oh! Oh okay.";
l==0 || putchar(' ');
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF000000) >> 24]);
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF0000) >> 16]);
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF00) >> 8]);
putchar(x[n & 0xFF]);
++l==LW && putchar('\n');
l%=LW;
return 1;
}
int main(void)
{
char i[256] = {0};
int ms = 0;
while(1 == scanf("%255s", i))
{
if(strcmp(i, "ELSE") == 0)
{
ms = !ms;
}
else
{
if(strcmp(i, "BEGIN") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C06)) ||
(t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C02));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "END") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C0F)) ||
(t(0xB0C02) && t(0xB0C06));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "THEN") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C02)) ||
(t(0xB0C02) && t(0xB0C0F));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "IF") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C0F)) ||
(t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C06));
}
else
{
fprintf(stderr, "Syntax error: %s\n", i);
}
}
}
putchar('\n');
return 0;
}
Here's a legal source program for the above compiler:
ELSE THEN IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN ELSE END THEN IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF
END THEN ELSE IF END IF IF IF IF IF IF IF END END IF IF IF END
THEN THEN THEN IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF
IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN ELSE END THEN THEN THEN IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN IF IF IF ELSE END ELSE THEN THEN
THEN THEN ELSE END IF IF IF END ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE END
ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE END THEN THEN IF END
If presented with the above input, the program's output is:
Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook?
Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook.
Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook!
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook.
Compilation at its best.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Phil Carmody
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:16:23 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
>>Now, a compiler can generate actual machien code, it could generate code for
>>a VM, it could generate aassembly, or even translate into another source
>>language.
>
> You are free to assign any meaning you like to a word but the only
> reference I could find that tolerates your expansion of the meaning is
> the Linux Info Project. Every other reference requires the output to
> be executable machine language.
Microsoft (and probably Borland) provides simple counter-examples to
that. Don't you remember the p-code output options they used to have
for when space was a premium?
What about compilers which generate Java bytecode?
> In my experience, programs which
> produce output in a different source language have been called
> language translators, not compilers.
So you've never seen an ASN.1 compiler that had C, C++ or Java as
its target language? Which probably means you've never seen many
ASN.1 compilers.
Phil
--
If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster far exceeds
expectations and made its parents too proud, but XML is the
drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder
before he had sex, which was rape. -- Erik Naggum (1965-2009)
Dennis (Icarus)
>
> Lawyers are gonna love this shit. That's because you didn't listen to
> me, you big stupid idiot, when I said that COMPILE is the root word.
> Because COMPILE is a verb, you will never come up with a definition of
> the noun adequate to praxis.
That looks libelous to me. Congrats, you've become precisely what you
(claim) to decry.
Let me guess, It's C's fault. :-)
The main "attack" Ive seen from Keith has been to simply disagree with you.
Unless you care to show otherwise?
<snip>
>
> This was because the word, and therefore the Concept (Begriff) didn't
> exist in 1955!
You realize, I hope, that it is now 2009, and that the word does have a
meaning as regards to a specific type of language translator these days.
There are plenty of books available on compilers, interpreters, and language
translators.
Dennis
Dennis (Icarus)
On Aug 23, 10:59 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:
>A "compiler" (using scare quotes to show that unlike certain people
>here I don't presume the meanings of words at issue to be known, which
>is a *petitio principii*) does front end work. Does it cease being **
>in some sense ** a compiler if its developers decide to generate C
>SOURCE CODE, because they ALREADY HAVE a nifty keen swell optimizing
>compiler for C? And is not this *pons asinorum* in real use in
>"industry?"
Did you miss what I said about cfront being a compiler?
That should answer your question.
Dennis