- Reverse Iteration Fractal Encryption... - 2 Updates
- enum with flags, overloaded operators and switch - 1 Update
- list of operating systems that can run C++? - 3 Updates
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Jun 27 01:16PM -0700 On 6/26/2016 8:52 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 21/02/16 21:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> Original idea by Juaquin Anderson in the comments of the >> following thread: [...] > the imaginary parts as plaintext bits, seems like it would work. > but oh oh, what is an escape orbit? for each iteration? > If you/he means the imaginary part of x, then it seems to make some sense. FWIW, my experiments say its the sign of the (real) part, during forward iteration that can recreate the bits stored during reverse iteration: http://pastebin.com/VsvH3HdE Juaquin must have made a mistake here. Or, I created another version accidentally that works with real. I will ask him. I need to go right now, I have fairly limited time to work on this. Your question is very great; insightful indeed! I will get back to you later on tonight, or tomorrow morning. Also, take a close look at these two threads: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.crypt/mycXj0ViYaw/hVFJ3vE4BAAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.crypt/mycXj0ViYaw/lS28y_52BAAJ All of the required math can be found here: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.javascript/dgakiMzhgv0/discussion Sorry, got to go now. ;^o [...] |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Jun 27 01:21PM -0700 On 6/26/2016 8:52 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 21/02/16 21:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> Original idea by Juaquin Anderson in the comments of the [...] Read this as well: https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/1YKAJn1XKYd |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Jun 27 09:23PM +0200 On 26.06.16 17.19, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > switch (+f) At least it looks more pretty. Marcel |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jun 26 11:07PM -0700 On Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:10:44 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote: > > C++ and what is in C#. > So what known software was written in C in 1968 and what does that fact > tell us about the utility of C? Nothing was written in C in 1968. That does tell us that C had no utility in 1968. Why you asked me to type those tautologies? > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was > written in it" seems kind of silly. 14 years old programming language is not new. |
| "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>: Jun 27 05:55AM -0400 In article <5b912432-f3d1-4b81-bb92-ccb6329f6242@googlegroups.com>, ootiib@hot.ee says... > Nothing was written in C in 1968. > That does tell us that C had no utility in 1968. > Why you asked me to type those tautologies? Good, you got the point. Quantity of code written in a language may reflect the age of the language more than it does the quality of it. > > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was > > written in it" seems kind of silly. > 14 years old programming language is not new. Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52. C is 44. C++ is 33. By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java and Python, to name two other popular languages that I for one consider to be new. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jun 27 04:33AM -0700 On Monday, 27 June 2016 12:56:10 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote: > > Why you asked me to type those tautologies? > Good, you got the point. Quantity of code written in a language may > reflect the age of the language more than it does the quality of it. Example about nonexistence of programming language is hardly about age of it. > > > written in it" seems kind of silly. > > 14 years old programming language is not new. > Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52. What known software is written in those, then? Or are those "too old"? > C is 44. C++ is 33. By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java > and Python, to name two other popular languages that I for one consider > to be new. So what your claim is? I have impression that you claim is that it is silly to expect that at least something widely known has been written in 14 years old programming language. The reason is that you for one consider it too new for that. You seemingly even consider about 21 years old Java and Python as new. For me tools of that age must be rather mature. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment