Saturday, August 4, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 14 topics

Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 10:50PM -0400

Hello....
 
 
I correct some typos because i write fast, read again..
 
What about the today computing ?
 
You have to know me more..
 
I am not thinking becoming an expert of "coding"..
 
I am not like that..
 
Because I am an "inventor", and i have invented many scalable algorithms
and there implementations to do better HPC(high performance computing),
i am thinking NUMA systems, and i am thinking "scalability" on manycores
and multicores and on NUMA systems etc. this is my way of "thinking",
and as a proof look at my new scalable reference counting with efficient
support for weak references, here it is:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references
 
As you have noticed it is "fully" scalable reference counting, so this
is HPC(high performance computing) , and i have implemented this
scalable algorithm that i have "invented" in Delphi and on the Delphi
mode of FreePascal , so that to make Delphi and FreePascal "much"
better, and notice with me that you will not find it on C++ or Rust.
This is my way of thinking , i am "inventing" scalable algorithms and
there implementations.
 
And i said the following:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be happy.
 
So i will ask you ? where will you find my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well? and where you will find my Parallel ForEach and
Parallel For with priorities that scales very well ?
 
You will not find them on C++ and you will not find them on Rust,
because i have "invented" them, because i am an "inventor", and this is
my way of thinking.
 
Here is my powerful Threadpool with priorities that scales very well,
read about it and download it from here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well
 
It is a very powerful Threadpool, because:
 
More precision about my efficient Threadpool that scales very well, my
Threadpool is much more scalable than the one of Microsoft, in the
workers side i am using scalable counting networks to distribute on the
many queues or stacks, so it is scalable on the workers side, on the
consumers side i am also using lock striping to be able to scale very
well, so it is scalable on those parts, on the other part that is work
stealing, i am using scalable counting networks, so globally it scales
very well, and since work stealing is "rare" so i think that my
efficient Threadpool that scales very well is really powerful, and it is
much more optimized and the scalable counting networks eliminate false
sharing, and it works with Windows and Linux.
Read the rest:
 
Read the rest:
 
You have to understand my work..
 
I have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, here
is some of them that i have "invented":
 
1- Scalable Threadpools that are powerful
 
2- Scalable RWLocks of different sorts.
 
3- Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references
 
4- Scalable FIFO queues that are node-based and array-based.
 
5- My Scalable Varfiler
 
6- Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear
System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and also a
Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
7- Scalable MLock that is a scalable Lock.
 
8- Scalable SeqlockX
 
 
And there is also "many" other scalable algorithms that i have "invented".
 
You can find some of my scalable algorithms and there implementations in
Delphi and FreePascal and C++ on my website here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/
 
What i am doing by "inventing" many scalable algorithms and there
implementations, is wanting to make "Delphi" much better and making
FreePascal on the "Delphi" mode much better, my scalable algorithms
and there implementations are like HPC(high performance computing,
and as you have noticed i said also:
 
You will ask why have i invented many scalable algorithms and
there implementations? because also my work will permit us also to
"revolutionise" science and technology because it is HPC(high
performance computing), this is why i will also sell some of my scalable
algorithms and there implementations to companies such as Google or
Microsoft or Embarcadero.
 
Also HPC has revolutionised the way science is performed. Supercomputing
is needed for processing sophisticated computational models able to
simulate the cellular structure and functionalities of the brain. This
should enable us to better understand how our brain works and how we can
cope with diseases such as those linked to ageing and to understand more
about HPC, read more here:
 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/why-do-supercomputers-matter-your-everyday-life
 
So i will "sell" some of my scalable algorithms and there
implementations to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero.
 
I will also enhance my Parallel archiver and my Parallel compression
Library that are powerful and that work with both C++Builder and Delphi
and to perhaps sell them to Embarcadero that sells Delphi and C++Builder.
 
Also I will implement soon a "scalable" Parallel For and a Parallel
ForEach..
 
This why i said before that:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be happy.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my Delphi and FreePascal and C++
Libraries portable to other CPUs like ARM etc. because currently they
work on x86 AMD and Intel CPUs.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my "scalable" RWLocks NUMA-aware
and efficient on NUMA.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 10:36PM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
 
What about the today computing ?
 
You have to know me more..
 
I am not thinking becoming an expert of "coding"..
 
I am not like that..
 
Because I am an "inventor", and i have invented many scalable algorithms
and there implementations to do better HPC(high performance computing),
i am thinking NUMA systems, and i am thinking "scalablility" on
manycores and multicores and on NUMA systems etc. this is my way of
"thinking", and as a proof look at my new scalable reference counting
with efficient support for weak references, here it is:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references
 
As you have noticed it is "fully" scalable reference counting, so this
is HPC(high performance computing) , and i have implemented this
scalable algorithm that i have "invented" in Delphi and on the Delphi
mode of FreePascal , so that to make Delphi and FreePascal "much"
better, and notice with me that you will not find it on C++ or Rust.
This is my way of thinking , i am "inventing" scalable algorithms and
there implementations.
 
And i said the following:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be
happy.
 
So i will ask you ? where will you find my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well? and where you will find my Parallel ForEach and
Parallel For with priorities that scales very well ?
 
You will not find them on C++ and you will not find them on Rust,
because i have "invented" them, because i am an "inventor", and this is
my way of thinking.
 
Here is my powerful Threadpool with priorities that scales very well,
read about it and download it from here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well
 
It is a very powerful Threadpool, because:
 
More precision about my efficient Threadpool that scales very well, my
Threadpool is much more scalable than the one of Microsoft, in the
workers side i am using scalable counting networks to distribute on the
many queues or stacks, so it is scalable on the workers side, on the
consumers side i am also using lock striping to be able to scale very
well, so it is scalable on those parts, on the other part that is work
stealing, i am using scalable counting networks, so globally it scales
very well, and since work stealing is "rare" so i think that my
efficient Threadpool that scales very well is really powerful, and it is
much more optimized and the scalable counting networks eliminate false
sharing, and it works with Windows and Linux.
Read the rest:
 
Read the rest:
 
You have to understand my work..
 
I have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, here
is some of them that i have "invented":
 
1- Scalable Threadpools that are powerful
 
2- Scalable RWLocks of different sorts.
 
3- Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references
 
4- Scalable FIFO queues that are node-based and array-based.
 
5- My Scalable Varfiler
 
6- Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear
System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and also a
Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
7- Scalable MLock that is a scalable Lock.
 
8- Scalable SeqlockX
 
 
And there is also "many" other scalable algorithms that i have "invented".
 
You can find some of my scalable algorithms and there implementations in
Delphi and FreePascal and C++ on my website here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/
 
What i am doing by "inventing" many scalable algorithms and there
implementations, is wanting to make "Delphi" much better and making
FreePascal on the "Delphi" mode much better, my scalable algorithms
and there implementations are like HPC(high performance computing,
and as you have noticed i said also:
 
You will ask why have i invented many scalable algorithms and
there implementations? because also my work will permit us also to
"revolutionise" science and technology because it is HPC(high
performance computing), this is why i will also sell some of my scalable
algorithms and there implementations to companies such as Google or
Microsoft or Embarcadero.
 
Also HPC has revolutionised the way science is performed. Supercomputing
is needed for processing sophisticated computational models able to
simulate the cellular structure and functionalities of the brain. This
should enable us to better understand how our brain works and how we can
cope with diseases such as those linked to ageing and to understand more
about HPC, read more here:
 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/why-do-supercomputers-matter-your-everyday-life
 
So i will "sell" some of my scalable algorithms and there
implementations to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero.
 
I will also enhance my Parallel archiver and my Parallel compression
Library that are powerful and that work with both C++Builder and Delphi
and to perhaps sell them to Embarcadero that sells Delphi and C++Builder.
 
Also I will implement soon a "scalable" Parallel For and a Parallel
ForEach..
 
This why i said before that:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be happy.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my Delphi and FreePascal and C++
Libraries portable to other CPUs like ARM etc. because currently they
work on x86 AMD and Intel CPUs.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my "scalable" RWLocks NUMA-aware
and efficient on NUMA.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 09:34PM -0400

Hello...
 
 
I correct some typos because i write fast, read again:
 
You have to understand my work..
 
I have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, here
is some of them that i have "invented":
 
1- Scalable Threadpools that are powerful
 
2- Scalable RWLocks of different sorts.
 
3- Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references
 
4- Scalable FIFO queues that are node-based and array-based.
 
5- My Scalable Varfiler
 
6- Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear
System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and also a
Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
7- Scalable MLock that is a scalable Lock.
 
8- Scalable SeqlockX
 
 
And there is also "many" other scalable algorithms that i have "invented".
 
You can find some of my scalable algorithms and there implementations in
Delphi and FreePascal and C++ on my website here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/
 
What i am doing by "inventing" many scalable algorithms and there
implementations, is wanting to make "Delphi" much better and making
FreePascal on the "Delphi" mode much better, my scalable algorithms
and there implementations are like HPC(high performance computing,
and as you have noticed i said also:
 
You will ask why have i invented many scalable algorithms and
there implementations? because also my work will permit us also to
"revolutionise" science and technology because it is HPC(high
performance computing), this is why i will also sell some of my scalable
algorithms and there implementations to companies such as Google or
Microsoft or Embarcadero.
 
Also HPC has revolutionised the way science is performed. Supercomputing
is needed for processing sophisticated computational models able to
simulate the cellular structure and functionalities of the brain. This
should enable us to better understand how our brain works and how we can
cope with diseases such as those linked to ageing and to understand more
about HPC, read more here:
 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/why-do-supercomputers-matter-your-everyday-life
 
So i will "sell" some of my scalable algorithms and there
implementations to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero.
 
I will also enhance my Parallel archiver and my Parallel compression
Library that are powerful and that work with both C++Builder and Delphi
and to perhaps sell them to Embarcadero that sells Delphi and C++Builder.
 
Also I will implement soon a "scalable" Parallel For and a Parallel
ForEach..
 
This why i said before that:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be happy.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my Delphi and FreePascal and C++
Libraries portable to other CPUs like ARM etc. because currently they
work on x86 AMD and Intel CPUs.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my "scalable" RWLocks NUMA-aware
and efficient on NUMA.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 09:20PM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
 
You have to understand my work..
 
I have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, here
is some of them that i have "invented":
 
1- Scalable Threadpools that are powerful
 
2- Scalable RWLocks of different sorts.
 
3- Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references
 
4- Scalable FIFO queues that are node-based and array-based.
 
5- My Scalable Varfiler
 
6- Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear
System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and also a
Scalable Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
7- Scalable MLock that is a scalable Lock.
 
8- Scalable SeqlockX
 
 
And there is also "many" other scalable algorithms that i have "invented".
 
You can find some of my scalable algorithms and there implementations in
Delphi and FreePascal and C++ on my website here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/
 
What i am doing by "inventing" many scalable algorithms and there
implementations, is wanting to make "Delphi" much better and making
FreePascal on the "Delphi" mode much better, my scalable algorithms
and there implementations are like HPC(high performance computing,
and as you have noticed i said also:
 
You will ask why have i invented many scalable algorithms and
there implementations? because also my work will permit us also to
"revolutionise" science and technology because it is HPC(high
performance computing), this is why i will also sell some of my scalable
algorithms and there implementations to companies such as Google or
Microsoft or Embarcadero.
 
Also HPC has revolutionised the way science is performed. Supercomputing
is needed for processing sophisticated computational models able to
simulate the cellular structure and functionalities of the brain. This
should enable us to better understand how our brain works and how we can
cope with diseases such as those linked to ageing and to understand more
about HPC, read more here:
 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/why-do-supercomputers-matter-your-everyday-life
 
So i will "sell" some of my scalable algorithms and there
implementations to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero.
 
I will also enhance my Parallel archiver and my Parallel compression
Library that are powerful and that work with both C++Builder and
Delphi to perhaps Embarcadero that sells Delphi and C++Builder.
 
Also I will implement soon a "scalable" Parallel For and a Parallel
ForEach..
 
This why i said before that:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be
happy.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my Delphi and FreePascal and C++
Libraries portable to other CPUs like ARM etc. because currently they
work on x86 AMD and Intel CPUs.
 
And my next step soon is also to make my "scalable" RWLocks NUMA-aware
and efficient on NUMA.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 04 09:08PM +0100

After much procrastination and umming and ahing I have decided to call my
ECS component that contains basic information about an entity
"entity_meta". Naming things properly can be hardest part of coding I
find: names inform your thinking about abstractions.
 
namespace neogfx
{
struct entity_meta
{
entity_id id;
neolib::uuid archetypeId;
bool destroyed;
 
struct meta : i_component_data::meta
{
static const neolib::uuid& id()
{
static const neolib::uuid sId = { 0x867e30c2, 0xaf8e, 0x452e, 0xa542,
{ 0xd, 0xd0, 0xd1, 0x1, 0xe4, 0x2d } };
return sId;
}
static const neolib::i_string& name()
{
static const neolib::string sName = "Entity Meta";
return sName;
}
static uint32_t field_count()
{
return 3;
}
static component_data_field_type field_type(uint32_t aFieldIndex)
{
switch (aFieldIndex)
{
case 0:
return component_data_field_type::Uint64;
case 1:
return component_data_field_type::Uuid;
case 2:
return component_data_field_type::Bool;
}
}
static const neolib::i_string& field_name(uint32_t aFieldIndex)
{
static const neolib::string sFieldNames[] =
{
"Entity Id",
"Archetype Id",
"Destroyed"
};
return sFieldNames[aFieldIndex];
}
};
};
}
 
That is all.
 
Message ends.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 06:58PM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
More precision, read again:
 
About portability of my software projects
 
I have thought more, and as you have noticed i have written Intel
assembler routines for 32 bit and 64 bit for atomically incrementing and
and for atomically CompareExchange etc. so now they are working with x86
AMD and Intel processors for 32 bit and 64 bit, but i will soon make my
Delphi and FreePascal and C++ libraries portable the other CPUs like
ARM(for Android) etc. for that i will use the following Delphi methods
for Delphi:
 
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/Libraries/XE8/en/System.SyncObjs.TInterlocked.CompareExchange
 
and
 
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/Libraries/Tokyo/en/System.SyncObjs.TInterlocked.Exchange
 
 
And I will use the same functions that you find inside FreePascal, here
they are:
 
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedexchange64.html
 
and
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedexchange.html
 
and
 
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedcompareexchange.html
 
and
 
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedcompareexchange64.html
 
 
I will use them inside my scalable lock that is called scalable MLock
that i have "invented", so that it will be portable, here it is:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock
 
 
And when my scalable MLock will become portable on Delphi and FreePascal
i will port with it all my other libraries that uses atomically
increment and decrement etc., so my libraries will become portable on
the other CPUs like ARM for Android etc., so i think you will be happy
with my work.
 
 
Stay tunned !
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 06:33PM -0400

Hello,,
 
About portability of my projects
 
I have thought more, and as you have noticed i have written Intel
assembler routines for 32 bit and 64 bit for atomically incrementing and
and for atomically CompareExchange etc. so now they are working with x86
AMD and Intel processors for 32 bit and 64 bit, but i will soon make
my Delphi and FreePascal and C++ libraries portable the other CPUs
like ARM(for Android) etc. for that i will use the following Delphi
method for Delphi:
 
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/Libraries/XE8/en/System.SyncObjs.TInterlocked.CompareExchange
 
And I will use the same functions that you find inside FreePascal, here
they are:
 
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedcompareexchange.html
 
and also the following for 64 bit:
 
https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/interlockedcompareexchange64.html
 
 
I will use them inside my scalable lock that is called scalable MLock
that i have "invented", so that it will be portable, here it is:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock
 
 
And when my scalable MLock will become portable on Delphi and FreePascal
i will port with it all my other libraries that uses atomically
increment and decrement etc., so my libraries will become portable
on the other CPUs like Android etc., so i think you will be happy with
my work.
 
 
Stay tunned !
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 03:38AM -0400

Hello....
 
I correct some typos, because i think fast and i write fast, please
read again:
 
 
I am a white arab..
 
About free software and open source projects..
 
As you have noticed , i have invented many scalable algorithms
and there implementations, i have given freely some of them, but i will
also sell some of them to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero, and
you have to understand more what is open source and free software ,
because as you have noticed many of my software projects are open source
and are also freewares..
 
I think the "spirit" of open source and free software projects comes
from a question to ask: Must science and technology be just for sale
to make money ? I think no. Because i think that the answer to that
question is that today universities are noticing that scientific and
technological knowledge of universities has also to be shared to render
science and technology more "efficient", so it is a difficult subject
but you are noticing that today many of the scientific and technological
knowledge of universities is freely available, this look
like open source and free software, open source and free software are
also saying that some part of softwares has also to be shared to be able
for others to understand it and to work on it to make it better and to
also bring more "efficiency". So this is also a difficult subject, but
this is how our world look like.
 
Read the rest of my post to understand better my thoughts:
 
About politics..
 
You have seen me writing about morality, and hope you have
understood my writing..
 
Now you have seen me explaining to you that morality is RELIABILIY
or perfection at best.
 
But there is still an important thing to know:
 
Reliability dictates also that today politics must take into account
the powers and counter-powers, for example we have the power of
consumer confidence index that we have to higher locally and
internationally, and also our world is a much "interconnected" world
economically and scientifically and technologically etc. also science
and technology is not just "private" companies, it is also universities
that share freely scientific and technological knowledge with others, so
this has to shape our politics , and make us see that our world is not
the mess of the past, and our world has changed, and we are more capable
today, and we are more interconnected today, and universities are also
sharing freely scientific and technological knowledge, so we have to not
be idiocy and we have to be more wisdom and take this facts into account.
 
 
Now you know me more, that i am a white arab, and a more
serious computer programmer, and i am doing also philosophy and
political philosophy, and you have seen me writing my poems and
explaining them more to you.. so hope you are feeling more confident
about me..
 
About capitalism now..
 
What do you think is capitalism ?
 
Capitalism is not as neo-nazism that starts from the idea that
it has to be european whites to be "perfection" and it wants to be
european whites, because this is a contradiction ! because perfection of
today needs "imperfections" of for example being more "weak" or "less"
beautiful to be able to be perfection ! this is the contradiction of
nazism and neo-nazism ! nazism and neo-nazism is not understanding it
correctly ! perfection of today is also the weak that needs the strong
and the strong that needs the weak ! and perfection of today has to know
how to accept some level of imperfections to be able to be the right
perfection ! this is what is not understanding neo-nazism and nazism !
this is why neo-nazism and nazism is intellectual inferiority. So now
you are more equipped to understand more what is morality.
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I am a white arab..
 
Yet about philosophy and political philosophy
 
You have to be smart to do philosophy and political philosophy
correctly..
 
You have seen me doing philosophy and political philosophy about morality..
 
But we have to be smart, because when you will read my previous post
about morality, you will start to understand more and to see more,
this is the goal of philosophy, and as you have noticed i have explained
to you why morality is the concept of RELIABILITY, and it is also
perfection at best, so you are feeling more its essence, so as you have
noticed we are pushed towards absolute perfections that will give total
happiness, so we have to solve our problems to attain like absolute
perfection, this is the essence and the goal of reliability: it is
solving problems, so you are understanding that capitalism too is
constrained by "reliability", because it must be "reliable" to advance
towards the goal that is happiness, so it must be also responsability ,
because capitalism that is composed of today capitalism and of the
future of capitalism must be responsability that knows how to manage our
world and the system.
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I am a white arab..
 
Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political philosophy..
 
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it(read my proof bellow), so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"reliability", and as a validation of my model, you will notice that we
are decentralizing "governance", and each of the decentralized parts of
the governance are grouping the "advantages" and trying to minimize the
disadvantages of each of us that do the governance , democracy is also
the same , because democracy is a system that wants to escape a "local"
maximum towards a global maximum like in artificial intelligence, and
democracy is doing it by applying itself to selecting the best among the
actors of politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of
civilization, is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by
optimization, as i have just explained to you.
 
Now about the essence of reliability
 
I am still doing philosophy, and you will notice what is smartness..
 
About the essence of reliability to be able for you to understand
the essence of morality..
 
What is the essence of reliability ? how reliability must be measured ?
 
If you say that being reliable is solving problems or not, it doesn't
show what is really reliability, you have to understand philosophically
its essence, i think that reliability is measured also by what is it
to be "happiness", the goal of human is being this "happiness", but
happiness has necessary "requirements", and the "nature" of requirements
is also being like absolute perfection that solves all our problems to
be able to be happiness, and this is why morality is pushed towards
absolute perfection that is absolute reliability that permit us to be
real happiness.
 
More precision about the essence of morality
 
I said before that:
 
"You have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY !"
 
When i say morality is RELIABILITY, i mean it is the concept of
RELIABILITY, because we can prove it by philosophy, because
the "goal" of human life is to be able be happiness, and to be able
to be happiness is solving like all our problems, and solving problems
is the essence of reliability, so morality is the goal of life
that is solving problems to be able to be "happiness", this is smartness.
 
I am a white arab and a more serious computer programmer that has
invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations and
i will sell some of them to Microsoft or to Google or to Embarcadero.
 
Now about the right abstraction of morality
 
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
 
This is a good question in philosophy !
 
It is like mathematics , you have to be more "logical" and be more
"measure" and be more "precise", and being more logical and more measure
and more precise is like doing mathematics !
 
Why have you seen me defining and explaining to you what is morality ?
 
It is a very serious subject, and you have to be smart to understand it !
 
Because philosophy, like the philosophy of the philosopher that is Sir
Immanuel Kant, must be a philosophy that is more "precise" calculations
with logic and measure that has as a goal to make us understand what is
all about morality ! this is what also i am doing ! and i will continu
to do it in front of your eyes..
 
So my question of today is:
 
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
 
A more correct abstraction of morality is first a definition
of morality that is sufficient and necessary to be able to see
more the big picture of what is morality, you can define morality as
being a composition of a priori pure moral inferred from reason
and of empirical moral inferred from experience, but i think that
this definition is too much abstraction that doesn't show us the big
picture of what is morality, so we have to be more smart , this
is why you have seen me thinking more smartly to find what is morality,
and you have noticed that my first definition of morality was that
morality is: Performance and reliability or is by just one word
reliability, and i have also defined morality by saying that it is:
perfection and strongness , and i have finally explained and give
another definition of morality that is: morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, this
abstraction is more correct also , i explain:
 
So when i said that morality is: performance and reliability, is it
a correct definition ?
 
It is like philosophy that i am doing..
 
So notice that i have proved it this way:
 
==
 
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
 
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
===
 
 
So as you have noticed that this proves the part of my definition
of morality that it is also "performance", now the second part
of the definition of morality is that morality is also "reliability",
and i have "proved" it like this:
 
==
 
What is the essence of reliability ?
 
What is reliability ?
 
We can simply say that we measure reliability by the fact that the
"reference" of measure is the fact that we want to solve and it is
also the fact that what we have do solve or not, if it solves that's the
measure that permit us to say that it is reliable, so being the right
"perfection" that solves our problems is also "reliability",
and being this right perfection is also "morality", and being this right
perfection is dependent also on the standard of quality, so to be
a correct morality we have to be high standards of quality to be
able to solve and to succeed, and as i said Morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, and when i
say "that is possible", that means that "compassion" when it is
"possible" is also inherent to morality,so this definition avoids
"extremism" that is too violent. So it
is like mathematics.
 
==
 
So now you are seeing more the big picture of what is morality,
because the essence of reliability is solving problems and
the essence of perfection is also the same , it is solving problems,
and "performance" is inherent to the concept of reliability ,
because to be able to solve problems, reliability must
be also performance or strongness, this is why i said that
the definition of morality can be also only: RELIABILITY ,
or it can be also Performance and reliability or it can
be perfection and strongness,
 
You can define morality as being a composition of a priori pure moral
inferred from reason and of empirical moral inferred from experience.
 
You will say that this definition is a "general" definition.
 
Now what about my definitions of morality ?
 
We have to be more smart..
 
I think that morality can not be morality if it is not good
for us ! i think this is inherent to morality, and you will
notice that this "good for us" can be "not" yet absolute "perfection",
but we have to speak about a constraint over morality,
that morality can not be called morality if the living conditions are
too bad ! so this will abstract more correctly the definition
of morality, so now we can say that my definition of morality
as being performance and reliability is correct, also empiricism tells
us that the essence of our life shows us that to be able to "survive"
we have to be also this performance and this reliability, and
when i say reliability is inherent to my definition of morality, that
means it is the "right" reliability because it is also inherent to it,
so my definition is also correct, and this applies also to my other
definitions of morality that i think are correct. So i think my logical
proof is valid
 
Morality is also "diversity"
 
I said it to be able to be more correct abstraction,
i give you an example: if you say like neo-nazism that "all" of us that
are not handicaped have to work "hard" to not be a parasite of the
system, i think that's lack
of maturity that doesn't recognize that there is also "constrains"
that we have to deal with, and saying like neo-nazism that all
that are not handicaped have to work hard to not be a parasite is also
an "idealism" that is not correct morality, this is why you have to be
more "maturity" that is pragmatism, that means that is realistic to be
able to be an appropriate morality, today because of our world is
not a perfect world, competitiveness and prioritization dictate
that high IQ individuals can group together (like Google)
and make "much" "much" more money than the less smart individuals,
and also because of Risks and competitiveness we are allowing
the Banks to make more and more money, this is also morality that
takes into account the constrains, but how in this context can we take
more money from the rich and give it to the poorer ? i think
that capitalism such as the one of USA knows also about pragmatism,
because capitalism of USA is a policeman that doesn't want capitalism to
be changed in more favor of the poorer because it fears imperfections
of humans and it fears the "mess" of socialism
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 04 12:34PM -0400

On 08/04/2018 03:38 AM, Sky89 wrote:
> I correct some typos, because i think fast and i write fast, please
> read again:
 
Since you know you do this often ... why not address the shortcoming
and leave the post in an unposted state for five minutes. Come back
to it, read it again, and then only post once.
 
And, there are alternative courses of action (such as not posting in
the first place).
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 03:28AM -0400

Hello,,
 
Read this:
 
 
I am a white arab..
 
About free software and open source projects..
 
As you have noticed , i have invented many scalable algorithms
and there implementations, i have given freely some of them, but i will
also sell some of them to Google or to Microsoft or to Embarcadero, i
have ut you have to understand more what is open source and free
software , because as you have noticed many of my software projects are
open source and are also freewares..
 
I think the "spirit" of open source and free software projects comes
from a question to ask: Must science and technology be just for sale
to make money ? I think no. Because i think that the answer to that
question is that today universities are noticing that scientific and
technological knowledge of universities has also to be shared to render
science and technology more "efficient", so it is a difficult subject
but you are noticing that today many of the scientific and technological
knowledge of universities is freely available, this look
like open source and free software, open source and free software are
also saying that some part of softwares has also to be shared to be able
for others to understand it and to work on it to make it better and to
also bring more "efficiency". So this is also a difficult subject, but
this is how our world look like.
 
Read the rest of my post to understand better my thoughts:
 
About politics..
 
You have seen me writing about morality, and hope you have
understood my writing..
 
Now you have seen me explaining to you that morality is RELIABILIY
or perfection at best.
 
But there is still an important thing to know:
 
Reliability dictates also that today politics must take into account
the powers and counter-powers, for example we have the power of
consumer confidence index that we have to higher locally and
internationally, and also our world is a much "interconnected" world
economically and scientifically and technologically etc. also science
and technology is not just "private" companies, it is also universities
that share freely scientific and technological knowledge with others, so
this has to shape our politics , and make us see that our world is not
the mess of the past, and our world has changed, and we are more capable
today, and we are more interconnected today, and universities are also
sharing freely scientific and technological knowledge, so we have to not
be idiocy and we have to be more wisdom and take this facts into account.
 
 
Now you know me more, that i am a white arab, and a more
serious computer programmer, and i am doing also philosophy and
political philosophy, and you have seen me writing my poems and
explaining them more to you.. so hope you are feeling more confident
about me..
 
About capitalism now..
 
What do you think is capitalism ?
 
Capitalism is not as neo-nazism that starts from the idea that
it has to be european whites to be "perfection" and it wants to be
european whites, because this is a contradiction ! because perfection of
today needs "imperfections" of for example being more "weak" or "less"
beautiful to be able to be perfection ! this is the contradiction of
nazism and neo-nazism ! nazism and neo-nazism is not understanding it
correctly ! perfection of today is also the weak that needs the strong
and the strong that needs the weak ! and perfection of today has to know
how to accept some level of imperfections to be able to be the right
perfection ! this is what is not understanding neo-nazism and nazism !
this is why neo-nazism and nazism is intellectual inferiority. So now
you are more equipped to understand more what is morality.
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I am a white arab..
 
Yet about philosophy and political philosophy
 
You have to be smart to do philosophy and political philosophy
correctly..
 
You have seen me doing philosophy and political philosophy about morality..
 
But we have to be smart, because when you will read my previous post
about morality, you will start to understand more and to see more,
this is the goal of philosophy, and as you have noticed i have explained
to you why morality is the concept of RELIABILITY, and it is also
perfection at best, so you are feeling more its essence, so as you have
noticed we are pushed towards absolute perfections that will give total
happiness, so we have to solve our problems to attain like absolute
perfection, this is the essence and the goal of reliability: it is
solving problems, so you are understanding that capitalism too is
constrained by "reliability", because it must be "reliable" to advance
towards the goal that is happiness, so it must be also responsability ,
because capitalism that is composed of today capitalism and of the
future of capitalism must be responsability that knows how to manage our
world and the system.
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I am a white arab..
 
Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political philosophy..
 
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it(read my proof bellow), so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"reliability", and as a validation of my model, you will notice that we
are decentralizing "governance", and each of the decentralized parts of
the governance are grouping the "advantages" and trying to minimize the
disadvantages of each of us that do the governance , democracy is also
the same , because democracy is a system that wants to escape a "local"
maximum towards a global maximum like in artificial intelligence, and
democracy is doing it by applying itself to selecting the best among the
actors of politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of
civilization, is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by
optimization, as i have just explained to you.
 
Now about the essence of reliability
 
I am still doing philosophy, and you will notice what is smartness..
 
About the essence of reliability to be able for you to understand
the essence of morality..
 
What is the essence of reliability ? how reliability must be measured ?
 
If you say that being reliable is solving problems or not, it doesn't
show what is really reliability, you have to understand philosophically
its essence, i think that reliability is measured also by what is it
to be "happiness", the goal of human is being this "happiness", but
happiness has necessary "requirements", and the "nature" of requirements
is also being like absolute perfection that solves all our problems to
be able to be happiness, and this is why morality is pushed towards
absolute perfection that is absolute reliability that permit us to be
real happiness.
 
More precision about the essence of morality
 
I said before that:
 
"You have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY !"
 
When i say morality is RELIABILITY, i mean it is the concept of
RELIABILITY, because we can prove it by philosophy, because
the "goal" of human life is to be able be happiness, and to be able
to be happiness is solving like all our problems, and solving problems
is the essence of reliability, so morality is the goal of life
that is solving problems to be able to be "happiness", this is smartness.
 
I am a white arab and a more serious computer programmer that has
invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations and
i will sell some of them to Microsoft or to Google or to Embarcadero.
 
Now about the right abstraction of morality
 
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
 
This is a good question in philosophy !
 
It is like mathematics , you have to be more "logical" and be more
"measure" and be more "precise", and being more logical and more measure
and more precise is like doing mathematics !
 
Why have you seen me defining and explaining to you what is morality ?
 
It is a very serious subject, and you have to be smart to understand it !
 
Because philosophy, like the philosophy of the philosopher that is Sir
Immanuel Kant, must be a philosophy that is more "precise" calculations
with logic and measure that has as a goal to make us understand what is
all about morality ! this is what also i am doing ! and i will continu
to do it in front of your eyes..
 
So my question of today is:
 
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
 
A more correct abstraction of morality is first a definition
of morality that is sufficient and necessary to be able to see
more the big picture of what is morality, you can define morality as
being a composition of a priori pure moral inferred from reason
and of empirical moral inferred from experience, but i think that
this definition is too much abstraction that doesn't show us the big
picture of what is morality, so we have to be more smart , this
is why you have seen me thinking more smartly to find what is morality,
and you have noticed that my first definition of morality was that
morality is: Performance and reliability or is by just one word
reliability, and i have also defined morality by saying that it is:
perfection and strongness , and i have finally explained and give
another definition of morality that is: morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, this
abstraction is more correct also , i explain:
 
So when i said that morality is: performance and reliability, is it
a correct definition ?
 
It is like philosophy that i am doing..
 
So notice that i have proved it this way:
 
==
 
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
 
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
===
 
 
So as you have noticed that this proves the part of my definition
of morality that it is also "performance", now the second part
of the definition of morality is that morality is also "reliability",
and i have "proved" it like this:
 
==
 
What is the essence of reliability ?
 
What is reliability ?
 
We can simply say that we measure reliability by the fact that the
"reference" of measure is the fact that we want to solve and it is
also the fact that what we have do solve or not, if it solves that's the
measure that permit us to say that it is reliable, so being the right
"perfection" that solves our problems is also "reliability",
and being this right perfection is also "morality", and being this right
perfection is dependent also on the standard of quality, so to be
a correct morality we have to be high standards of quality to be
able to solve and to succeed, and as i said Morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, and when i
say "that is possible", that means that "compassion" when it is
"possible" is also inherent to morality,so this definition avoids
"extremism" that is too violent. So it
is like mathematics.
 
==
 
So now you are seeing more the big picture of what is morality,
because the essence of reliability is solving problems and
the essence of perfection is also the same , it is solving problems,
and "performance" is inherent to the concept of reliability ,
because to be able to solve problems, reliability must
be also performance or strongness, this is why i said that
the definition of morality can be also only: RELIABILITY ,
or it can be also Performance and reliability or it can
be perfection and strongness,
 
You can define morality as being a composition of a priori pure moral
inferred from reason and of empirical moral inferred from experience.
 
You will say that this definition is a "general" definition.
 
Now what about my definitions of morality ?
 
We have to be more smart..
 
I think that morality can not be morality if it is not good
for us ! i think this is inherent to morality, and you will
notice that this "good for us" can be "not" yet absolute "perfection",
but we have to speak about a constraint over morality,
that morality can not be called morality if the living conditions are
too bad ! so this will abstract more correctly the definition
of morality, so now we can say that my definition of morality
as being performance and reliability is correct, also empiricism tells
us that the essence of our life shows us that to be able to "survive"
we have to be also this performance and this reliability, and
when i say reliability is inherent to my definition of morality, that
means it is the "right" reliability because it is also inherent to it,
so my definition is also correct, and this applies also to my other
definitions of morality that i think are correct. So i think my logical
proof is valid
 
Morality is also "diversity"
 
I said it to be able to be more correct abstraction,
i give you an example: if you say like neo-nazism that "all" of us that
are not handicaped have to work "hard" to not be a parasite of the
system, i think that's lack
of maturity that doesn't recognize that there is also "constrains"
that we have to deal with, and saying like neo-nazism that all
that are not handicaped have to work hard to not be a parasite is also
an "idealism" that is not correct morality, this is why you have to be
more "maturity" that is pragmatism, that means that is realistic to be
able to be an appropriate morality, today because of our world is
not a perfect world, competitiveness and prioritization dictate
that high IQ individuals can group together (like Google)
and make "much" "much" more money than the less smart individuals,
and also because of Risks and competitiveness we are allowing
the Banks to make more and more money, this is also morality that
takes into account the constrains, but how in this context can we take
more money from the rich and give it to the poorer ? i think
that capitalism such as the one of USA knows also about pragmatism,
because capitalism of USA is a policeman that doesn't want capitalism to
be changed in more favor of the poorer because it fears imperfections
of humans and it fears the "mess" of socialism and it fears
the "mess" of communism and it fears the mess of
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 04 08:30AM -0500

> fuzzy logic.
 
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
 
You spelt reliability wrong so please post the entire thing again with the
spelling correction as it is so fucking important that we reread the entire
post with the spelling correction you demented fuckwit.
 
/Flibble
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 04 04:21PM +0200

On 04/08/18 15:30, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
 
> You spelt reliability wrong so please post the entire thing again with the
> spelling correction as it is so fucking important that we reread the entire
> post with the spelling correction you demented fuckwit.
 
And you quoted his entire post to write this, ensuring that everyone who
has killfiled the OP gets to see it?
 
I share your irritation with this (and sometimes other) posters, but
your cures are worse than the disease.
 
Just killfile, or ignore posters you don't like. You can't rationalise
with them, you can't threaten them, you can't humiliate or annoy them
into stopping.
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Aug 04 04:20PM +0100

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 16:21:22 +0200
 
> Just killfile, or ignore posters you don't like. You can't rationalise
> with them, you can't threaten them, you can't humiliate or annoy them
> into stopping.
 
Actually, this one does respond to being reminded that he is a demented
fuckwit, until he becomes overcome by another manic urge to post his
off-topic garbage to this newsgroup.
 
He has a certain level of self-awareness, and you can for a while get
him to stop. He is certainly better behaved in this newsgroup than in
many of the others where he claims the right to inflict his illness on
others.
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Aug 04 09:50AM +0200

On 03.08.2018 23:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> then fair enough.
 
> IMHO consistency matters more than the exact standard.
 
> I like my curly brackets there... but there are other ways.
 
Before C++17 I always reduced namespace indentation to one level:
 
namespace foo{ namespace bar{
 
namespace impl{
void gah(){}
} // namespace impl
 
void hello(){ impl::gah(); }
 
class Baluba
{
};
 
}} // namespace foo::bar
 
That turned out to be consistent with C++17:
 
namespace foo::bar{
 
namespace impl{
void gah(){}
} // namespace impl
 
void hello(){ impl::gah(); }
 
class Baluba
{
};
 
}} // namespace foo::bar
 
I recall distinctly that there is a problem with a nested `impl` or
`details` namespace, namely that when it occurs in two or more distinct
parent namespaces, it can be ambiguous. However, I'm unable to reproduce
that problem. Could someone shed some light on that?
 
Cheers!,
 
- Alf
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 01:01AM -0400

Hello...
 
 
About C++ again..
 
I have just checked CPPCheck here:
 
http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/
 
 
And this static analyser has the same problem, it doesn't prevent
many "dangerous" implicit operations..
 
And I said before that type-safety of C++ is not good by default:
 
Here is my proof: look at this library that is "trying"(But it is
not yet sufficient) to improve the type-safety of C++:
 
Improve Type Safety in Your C++ Program With the type_safe Library
 
"Features provided by the type_safe library include improved built-in
types (ts::integer, ts::floating_point, and ts::boolean) which prevent
dangerous implicit operations like signed-to-unsigned promotion."
 
Read more here:
 
https://embeddedartistry.com/blog/2018/5/24/improve-type-safety-in-your-c-program-with-the-typesafe-library
 
 
This is why i said before the following:
 
Also I will not waste my time with C++, because from the start C++ was
handicaped, because it has inherited the deficiencies of C, i think C is
"not" a good programming language because it is "too" weakly typed and
it allows implicit type conversions that are bad for reliability etc.
and this looks like the mess of assembler, because C was "too" low level
for reliability, and since C++ has inherited from C, C++ has inherited
this too low level parts that are not good for reliability, so i will
not waste my time with C++ or with C, and i will continu to code in
"modern" Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal that is more
conservative because it has a "decent" reliability and a "decent"
performance, and those Delphi and FreePascal compilers are "powerful"
today. And i will also work with "Java", because Mono is not following
fast the developement of C# and it is not as portable as Java.
 
And here is what i wrote about C++ and Delphi and FreePascal and ADA:
 
Energy efficiency isn't just a hardware problem. Your programming
language choices can have serious effects on the efficiency of your
energy consumption. We dive deep into what makes a programming language
energy efficient.
 
As the researchers discovered, the CPU-based energy consumption always
represents the majority of the energy consumed.
 
What Pereira et. al. found wasn't entirely surprising: speed does not
always equate energy efficiency. Compiled languages like C, C++, Rust,
and Ada ranked as some of the most energy efficient languages out there.
 
Read more here:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
RAM is still expensive and slow, relative to CPUs
 
And "memory" usage efficiency is important for mobile devices.
 
So Delphi and FreePascal compilers are also still "useful" for mobile
devices, because Delphi and FreePascal are good if you are considering
time and memory or energy and memory, and the following pascal benchmark
was done with FreePascal, and the benchmark shows that C, Go and Pascal
do rather better if you're considering languages based on time and
memory or energy and memory.
 
Read again here to notice it:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
 
Also Delphi is still better for many things, and you have to get more
"technical" to understand it, this is why you have to look at this
following video about Delphi that is more technical:
 
Why are C# Developers choosing Delphi to create Mobile applications
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ToSr4zOVQ
 
 
And I think there is still a "big" problem with C++ and C..
 
Look at C++ explicit conversion functions, they were introduced in
C++11, but this doesn't come by "default" in C++, like in modern Object
Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal and like in ADA , because in C++ you
have to write explicit conversion functions etc., so this is not good
for reliability in C++, and C++ doesn't by "default" come with range
checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed
to unsigned and arithmetic overflow , you have for example to add and
use SafeInt library for that, and C++ doesn't by "default" catch
out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays this is why C++ is
not good for reliability.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and Run-time
checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , and
catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc. and they do not allow those bad
implicit type conversions of C++ that are not good for reliability.
 
And you can carefully read the following, it is very important:
 
https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:
 
"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."
 
Read here:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php
 
 
So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.
 
 
So for all the reasons above , i think i will stop coding in C++ and
i will quit C++.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 04 12:47AM -0400

Hello...
 
 
Again about Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor..
 
I just wrote this:
 
"I think that this Parallel ForEach and ParallelFor are like futulities,
because they don't bring "enough" high level abstraction to consider
them interesting, because i think my Threadpool with priorities that
scales very well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with
"priorities" and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so
no need to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For."
 
 
But to be "nicer", i think i will soon implement both Parallel ForEach
with "priorities" that scales very well and ParallelFor with
"priorities" that scales very well using my Threadpool with priorities
that scales very well, and they will be integrated as methods with my
Threadpool with priorities that scales very well, so that you will be happy.
 
 
So stay tunned !
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 03 11:50PM -0400

Hello...
 
 
I correct a mistake in english, we say "emulating", not simulating
 
Read again my corrected post:
 
 
More about Parallel ForEach and Parallel For..
 
I think i have made a mistake, because i think that this Parallel
ForEach and Parallel For are like futulities, because they don't bring
"enough" high level abstraction to consider them interesting,
because i think my Threadpool with priorities that scales very
well is capable of easily emulating Parallel ForEach with "priorities"
and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so no need
to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For.
 
 
Here is my powerful Threadpool with priorities that scales very well,
read about it and download it from here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well
 
 
It is a very powerful Threadpool, because:
 
More precision about my efficient Threadpool that scales very well, my
Threadpool is much more scalable than the one of Microsoft, in the
workers side i am using scalable counting networks to distribute on the
many queues or stacks, so it is scalable on the workers side, on the
consumers side i am also using lock striping to be able to scale very
well, so it is scalable on those parts, on the other part that is work
stealing, i am using scalable counting networks, so globally it scales
very well, and since work stealing is "rare" so i think that my
efficient Threadpool that scales very well is really powerful, and it is
much more optimized and the scalable counting networks eliminate false
sharing, and it works with Windows and Linux.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Aug 03 11:38PM -0400

Hello,,,
 
 
Read this:
 
 
More about Parallel ForEach and Parallel For..
 
I think i have made a mistake, because i think that this Parallel
ForEach and Parallel For are like futulities, because they don't bring
"enough" high level abstraction to consider them interesting,
because i think my Threadpool with priorities that scales very
well is capable of easily simulating Parallel ForEach with "priorities"
and ParallelFor with "priorities" that scale very well, so no need
to implement Parallel ForEach or Parallel For.
 
 
Here is my powerful Threadpool with priorities that scales very well,
read about it and download it from here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well
 
 
It is a very powerful Threadpool, because:
 
More precision about my efficient Threadpool that scales very well, my
Threadpool is much more scalable than the one of Microsoft, in the
workers side i am using scalable counting networks to distribute on the
many queues or stacks, so it is scalable on the workers side, on the
consumers side i am also using lock striping to be able to scale very
well, so it is scalable on those parts, on the other part that is work
stealing, i am using scalable counting networks, so globally it scales
very well, and since work stealing is "rare" so i think that my
efficient Threadpool that scales very well is really powerful, and it is
much more optimized and the scalable counting networks eliminate false
sharing, and it works with Windows and Linux.
 
 
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)