Sunday, December 4, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Dec 03 11:53PM

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:54:01 -0800 (PST)
woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > learners.
 
> This "Standard slam" video shows how lame the standard can be:
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLNq-4IiNTY&list=PLRyNF2Y6sca06lulacjysyu8RIwfKgYoY&index=15
 
It is easy to try to make yourself appear clever by putting down
other people's efforts. Human beings have this tendency but you seem to
be especially good at it.
 
So you like to get off on criticizing others? Makes you feel better
about yourself? Makes you feel like less of a weirdo? It won't work.
Everyone on this newsgroup knows that your views are worthless.
 
You could not write a specification for a programming language to save
your life.
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Dec 03 07:50PM -0800

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 5:54:00 PM UTC-6, Chris Vine wrote:
 
> So you like to get off on criticizing others? Makes you feel better
> about yourself? Makes you feel like less of a weirdo? It won't work.
> Everyone on this newsgroup knows that your views are worthless.
 
Some day people will admit that children are best served
by having both a father and a mother. I think it's my
defense of children that motivates some people to attack
me like this. They have gone astray and want others to
join them. I'm happy to fight for children's right to the
diversity of a father and a mother. As I've pointed out
before, two men don't even have breast milk for a baby.
There are physical, mental and spiritual differences between
men and women and I think children benefit from having both
of those perspectives.
 
I'm glad Michael Caisse gave that talk and that he got so
much applause at the end of the talk.
 
Also I'm glad there is a standard, and I hope that by the
grace of G-d I'll be able to help improve the standard in the
future -- your discouraging words notwithstanding. I did have
an idea a couple of years ago for improving the standard that
was discussed here. If I remember right, Alf said something
positive about the idea.
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com>: Dec 04 04:13AM -0500

On 12/03/2016 04:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
> naked mud-wrestlers without anyone following your trail, or if you are
> hiding from the CIA. But for most information, google is the sensible
> choice for the non-fanatic.
 
that's bullshit. They are actually both so bad now that the only
difference is that duckduckgo doesn't search you.
 
It used to be that duckduckgo was somewhat superior. But now they use
the bling engine.
 
The bottom line is that they all now are so bent are displaying products
to sell, that real information is getting harder and harder to find
outside of wikipedia, which sucks for its own reason.
 
Furthermore, finding information HAS ZERO to do with searching and
tracking. Its already an accomplished feat, maybe 15 years already.
The purpose of tracking you is to monetarise you and so that they can
have control of you....PERIOD.
 
I can't believe that after all these years that, A) there are trolls
who enter threads dead for 2 weeks just to push their love for duck duck
go, and then other blowhards, even stupider, and likely on someones
payroll, to counter argue.
 
 
Anyway, they are both off topic, and one more outburst and you both go
/dev/null
ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com>: Dec 04 04:18AM -0500


> Brian
> Ebenezer Enterprises
> http://webEbenezer.net
 
FOOOOMP /dev/null
 
fucking idiot
Popping mad <rainbow@colition.gov>: Dec 04 09:23AM

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 22:48:19 +0100, David Brown wrote:
 
>>> vendors and therefore is generally not very accessible to learners.
 
>> This "Standard slam" video shows how lame the standard can be:
 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ZLNq-4IiNTY&list=PLRyNF2Y6sca06lulacjysyu8RIwfKgYoY&index=15
> If you are not careful, it will compile enough information about you
> to recommend other C++ videos to you rather than Katty Perry tracks and
> funny cat videos.
 
 
 
that is your one fucking post and your not worried about tracking and
privacy? Yeeesh
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Dec 04 09:35AM

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:50:31 -0800 (PST)
> an idea a couple of years ago for improving the standard that
> was discussed here. If I remember right, Alf said something
> positive about the idea.
 
You are incapable of applying logic. I have no idea what your views on
the bringing up of children are but it must be completely obvious that
my post had nothing to do with that. It was about your dismissive
attitude to the efforts of people who in fact know a lot more than you
do.
 
Given your difficulties with logic, your chances of improving the
standard are negligible.
bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 01:05AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 01:50AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 02:10AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 02:18AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 02:50AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 03:18AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 03:46AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 05:01AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 04 06:23AM +0100

Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 04 12:24AM -0500

Hello.......
 
 
Yet about the essence of quality now..
 
You have seen my previous proof about the essence of quality,
but there is still a contradiction that is caused by empirical
facts, like quality can be interpreted like more productivity
and more performance and efficiency neglecting the criterion
of happiness and this can be dictated from the actuel law of force
of concurrence that forces the people to work more and more neglecting
there happiness, so this can not be interpreted like quality, so
science is limited and constrained by empirical facts that introduces
like a contradiction, because science is the consequence of quality,
but quality is constrained by empirical facts like the law
of force of concurrence.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 11:01PM -0500

Hello......
 
What is the essence of quality ?
 
I have said in my previous proof that essence of science
is dependant and correlated and the consequence of the essence
of quality.
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
But more quality is the consequence of more money and more
intelligence both cultural and genetical, and quality
must proceed logically by giving priorities, so since
the goal is also happiness of people an this is very important ,
and since the goal is also to not degenerate the people towards more
suffering and more problems and this also very important, so higher
quality must guide the people, that means also more money and higher
intelligence must guide people, because more quality is also the
consequence of more money and more intelligence, the characteristic of a
good strategist is in accordance with this logical proof, because a
strategist has to focus on three basic elements:
 
1- Priorities (we will focus resources on these things)
 
2- Sequencing (we will do this first, then that)
 
3- And the theory of victory (we will succeed for the following reasons)
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 09:47PM -0500

Hello.....
 
Here is the essence of science:
 
It's like in philosophy, i have used logical proofs an measure
to understand the essence of science.
 
I have said that:
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
So if you are purist of science, like pure functions of functional
programming, you will say that science can not be called science
if it has a weakness that is not science that make the consequence
of science that is a higher degree of quality a low degree of quality.
 
So from this second logical proof that is rigorous, we can say that
programming is not science and money is not science.
 
So to call it science i think that we must maximize efficiently
the degree of intelligence by both maximize efficiently the genetical
intelligence and the cultural intelligence to be able to call it science.
 
So programming can not be called science if it has genetical
intelligence weaknesses and/or cultural intelligence weaknesses.
 
I think this is mandatory in the essence of science.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 09:18PM -0500

Hello...
 
There is something important to know about the essence of science
 
I have said that:
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
If you are purist of science, like pure functions of functional
programming, you will say that science can not be called science
if it has a weakness that is not science that make the consequence
of science that is a higher degree of quality a low degree of quality.
 
So from this second logical proof that is rigorous, we can say that
programming is not science and money is not science.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Dec 03 08:58PM -0500

On 11/27/16 10:02 PM, Christopher J. Pisz wrote:
> allocated a large chuck of space up front.
 
> For example, this simple memory manager I found on IBM's site, that they
> used as their first example.
 
...
 
> Can you point me to some memory management techniques that allow for
> allocating different amounts of storage and are not designed to work
> with one type only?
 
The idea of the custom memory manager will generally only really make
sense if there is something about the memory you want to manage that
doesn't fit the 'standard' model. For truly unpredictable/variable
object, the standard malloc is fairly good, and you are unlikely going
to improve on it unless you know something about the objects you will be
allocating.
 
Generally, they DO make a system call to get the base memory for the
heap in moderately large chunks. This is something you could possibly
tune. You also could just make one big call to expand the heap, then
free the memory and then move on, the heap is unlikely to be shrunken
immediately.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 08:51PM -0500

Hello.......
 
 
By my logical proof:
 
Money is also science.
 
Because with money you can reuse intelligence to attain
higher degree of quality, and reusing a higher intelligence is
also a higher intelligence.
 
It's the essence of science.
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 08:18PM -0500

Hello.....
 
About my previous logical proof...
 
I have proved to you that modeling in programming by reusing
intelligence is also science.
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
So by modeling in programming by reusing intelligence,
that means by reusing intelligente technics in programming,
or by reusing intelligente code, is also called intelligence
and is also a higher degree of quality, so it is also called science.
 
 
So my proof is correct i think.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 08:10PM -0500

Hello.......
 
About my previous logical prof...
 
I have proved to you that modeling in programming by reusing
intelligence is also science.
 
Because by definition: what is science ?
 
Science is called science because it uses intelligence to
attain a higher degree of quality.
 
So by modeling in programming by reusing intelligence,
that means by reusing intelligente technics in programming,
or by reusing intelligente code, is also called intelligence
and is also a higher degree of quality, so it is also called science.
 
 
So my proof is correct i think.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 07:51PM -0500

Hello,
 
Take for example mathematical logic, you will learn for example
in mathematical logic that:
 
p -> q (that means: if p then q)
 
is equivalent to:
 
not(q) -> not(p)
 
because it is infered mathematically from:
 
p -> q
 
is equivalent to:
 
not(p) or q
 
 
Why we are using the equivalence: not(q) -> not(p) ?
 
Because there is problems that looks like:
 
a and b -> c
 
that are easier to prove with: not(c) -> not(a) or not(b)
 
 
And this brings efficiency , so it brings a higher level of quality,
so a higher level understanding of logic to formalize logic is
modeling and is also science.
 
This is the essence of programming, because programming is also
modeling, and when you model with big O of datastructures , this
modeling constitute also science, because like in philosophy that
understand the essence of things, the modeling with big O of
datastructures has a consequence of bringing a higher degree of quality
that constitute a good approximation of the high degree of quality
that we find in science, so when you do modeling with intelligente
technics and modeling with big O,so that means by reusing intelligence,
so tht means by reusing intelligente code, that is also science.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 03 07:05PM -0500

Hello,
 
Is programming a science..
 
We have to be smart and do also do philosophy to answer this question
my dear programmer...
 
The goal of philosophy is to use logic and measure to understand the
essence of the things.
 
This is how we must understand programming..
 
So to understand the essence of programming, it's also
to understand the building blocks of programming, but
since the building block of programming is also mathematical
logic and also discrete mathematics and also mathematics that
permit us to calculate also the big O space and time complexity,
so the essence of real programming must not come without
this mathematics, so since it is mathematics that gouvern
real programming, so real programming is also science.
 
Other than that when we say this:
 
Take for example mathematical logic, you will learn for example
in mathematical logic that:
 
p -> q
 
is equivalent to:
 
not(q) -> not(p)
 
because it is infered mathematically from:
 
p -> q
 
is equivalent to:
 
not(p) or q
 
So this higher level logic permit us to formalize logic, so
a higher level understanding of logic is also science, because
for example: p -> q is equivalent to not(q) -> not(p) permit
us to prove efficiently, so that is also science, so a higher
level understanding of discrete mathematics and mathematical logic
is also science, and so a higher level understanding of what
is the big O of mergesort and using mergesort in high level
manner constitute also science, because the consequence
that is a higher level quality in the higher level understanding
is a good approximation of what constitute also science, so
when you learn what is the big O of datastructures and
understand and work with them in higher level manner is
called also modeleling and this modeling constitute
also a good approximation of what is science.
 
So i think that programming is also science.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdne.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)