- c++ is a cobol, c still being great - 3 Updates
- vector<>::erase-behaviour - 5 Updates
| cdalten@gmail.com: Apr 05 02:29PM -0700 On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:06:15 AM UTC-7, fir wrote: > and.. c still being so much great (also as c i add some basic lov level implementation mechanisms, like how dlls are implemented, hov things map to assembly and so on..someone could say this is not c bu in my reckognition its like c programmer realm, too) > so.... > ps note im not saying this to aggreviate c++ people its more for peacefull fun Lisp is better because things like the Visitor and Factory pattern found like languages like C and C++ end up just becoming a special case of map/reduce in the Lambda Calculus. But of course you wouldn't know nor appreciate such esoteric things since you never made it beyond high school in your third world country. |
| fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: Apr 05 02:37PM -0700 > > ps note im not saying this to aggreviate c++ people its more for peacefull fun > Lisp is better because things like the Visitor and Factory pattern found like languages like C and C++ end up just becoming a special case of map/reduce in the Lambda Calculus. > But of course you wouldn't know nor appreciate such esoteric things since you never made it beyond high school in your third world country. our criminal idiot chad, welcome and goodbye (badbye in that case) |
| cdalten@gmail.com: Apr 05 02:41PM -0700 On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 2:37:15 PM UTC-7, fir wrote: > > Lisp is better because things like the Visitor and Factory pattern found like languages like C and C++ end up just becoming a special case of map/reduce in the Lambda Calculus. > > But of course you wouldn't know nor appreciate such esoteric things since you never made it beyond high school in your third world country. > our criminal idiot chad, welcome and goodbye (badbye in that case) Your programming is as bad as your grammar you stupid pol. Now I see why you labor for a living. With that, go run along and go labor some more you no talent jew. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Apr 05 08:54PM +0200 On 05.04.2019 19:39, David Brown wrote: >> to express, was the favored interpretation. > Ah, so the "circular assumption" comes from reading the words in the > standard, and assuming the authors wrote what they intended to write? At that time your circular reasoning was first posted it was a pure assumption, one that was not made more likely by any supporting facts known at that time, because there were none. At the time we didn't know that the committee after C Defect Report 17 decided on the assumed interpretation. It's still not a known fact that this resolution was the original intent, but given the now known resolution of C Defect Report 17 it's a reasonable assumption; it would be quite unreasonable to believe otherwise. Repeating an invalid argument, or an argument that isn't accepted, as you did now, is a fallacy known as Argumentum ad Nauseam. In English that's argument by repetition. So you managed to post /two/ fallacies in one sentence. From experience it's not unlikely that this thread will now devolve into even more fallacies posted, e.g. ad Ad Hominem is commonly used, and regarding the question of whether the endless stream of fallacies are really fallacies,the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is not uncommon. It's a stupid social game that's all about appearances. The facts have been cleared up. [snip] Cheers!, - Alf |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Apr 05 09:06PM +0200 > [snip] > If, as he incorrectly assumed, gcc did not exist yet, how could the gcc > folks have possibly formed any interpretation at all, of anything? Please, since you ask I feel obliged to answer. I am in no way trying to patronize you or talk down to you, and I'm aware that it's Friday evening, when e.g. many people have a good time along with friends perhaps with a beer or two, or wine, like that, so that one could easily ask a question that, after deeper consideration, one would realize had a really trivial answer. So, please accept my sincere apologies for answering this question; it's asked, I give the trivial answer, but I do not mean this as a put-down or anything, and in particular I do not mean it as an argument that the simple physical possibility implies that that was what happened. This is the answer: anyone could form an interpretation of the wording /at any time/ since it was written. And I've already mentioned that, up-thread. Cheers & hth., - Alf |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Apr 05 09:20PM +0200 On 05/04/2019 20:54, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > At that time your circular reasoning was first posted it was a pure > assumption, one that was not made more likely by any supporting facts > known at that time, because there were none. I did not make the post that you called "circular reasoning". And that post /was/ supported by facts - the C standards here haven't changed, and the C++ standards copied them. Maybe you were not aware of the facts - that does not change them. > you did now, is a fallacy known as Argumentum ad Nauseam. In English > that's argument by repetition. So you managed to post /two/ fallacies in > one sentence. In English, when you get things wrong, it is called "being wrong". When you try - incorrectly - to label other people's correct posts as some sort of logical fallacy, it is called "being a smart-arse". It does not make you right. > into even more fallacies posted, e.g. ad Ad Hominem is commonly used, > and regarding the question of whether the endless stream of fallacies > are really fallacies,the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is not uncommon. You were wrong. It's time to accept that, and learn from it - not to play silly-buggers with word games. You didn't know the history here, and made invalid interpretations of the wording in the standards. That's okay - now you know better. Add it to the impressive range of things that you /do/ know about C++ - you are a good teacher in this group, but sometimes you need to learn things too. > It's a stupid social game that's all about appearances. The facts have > been cleared up. Good. |
| Manfred <noname@invalid.add>: Apr 05 09:41PM +0200 On 4/5/19 8:54 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > are really fallacies,the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is not uncommon. > It's a stupid social game that's all about appearances. The facts have > been cleared up. Ad maiora semper! |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Apr 05 02:37PM -0700 On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 3:06:47 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > > folks have possibly formed any interpretation at all, of anything? > Please, since you ask I feel obliged to answer. > I am in no way trying to patronize you or talk down to you, and I'm You don't come across as patronizing or talking down - you come across as some one who has failed to understand the arguments he's responding to. ... > This is the answer: anyone could form an interpretation of the wording > /at any time/ since it was written. That trivial answer is completely inapplicable to the context - he incorrectly assumed that "gcc folk" didn't exist yet at the relevant time. An organization that didn't exist yet could not possibly have influenced either the writing of those words or the committee's resolution of the DR, and the fact that they could (and almost certainly did) read those words at some later time and form an interpretation of them is completely irrelevant to the point he was making. Let me reinstate some preceding context: On 4/4/19 6:44 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> writes: >> On 03.04.2019 17:10, jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: ... >> Thanks, now it appears to be clear where the nonsense comes from, >> namely the "optimization" in the GCC compiler. > That's unlikely. The wording in the C standard predates gcc. He was wrong about the C standard pre-dating gcc, and he admitted as such as soon as I pointed it out. But you didn't choose to object on those grounds - instead, you claimed that: "Without that circular assumption the above would express in a Spock-incompatible way that GCC folks could not have made an interpretation of wording that already existed, which is a much worse fallacy." The "nonsense" you referred to was an interpretation based upon the actual wording of the C90 standard, which was confirmed as being the correct interpretations of those words by the committee's resolution for DR#017 in 1992. Therefore, the only way that this nonsense could have come from 'the "optimization" of the gcc compiler' is if that compiler were in existence early enough for its optimization strategies to influence either the wording of the C90 standard, or the committee's decision on DR#017. All that Ben was pointing out is that, since he believed that gcc wasn't around at that time, it couldn't have influenced either of those things. His comment had nothing to do with the "circular assumption" you've identified, namely that the C committee's intent when writing that wording was that it be interpreted in exactly the same fashion that the committee later endorsed in it's resolution to DR#017. The committee might or might not have changed it's mind about the meaning of that wording between they time that they wrote it and the time that they resolved that DR - but that doesn't matter. Either way, Ben's statement would have been equally accurate - if he'd been right about when gcc was created. Incidentally, I don't consider that to be a circular assumption. I believe that the committee may have intended from the very beginning that the words that it wrote have the meaning that it later confirmed. I don't believe that in a circular fashion, I believe it because I've read those words, and consider the meaning that was later confirmed by the committee to be the only one supported by that wording. Therefore, I consider it entirely plausible, though not certain, that the committee intended those words to have that meaning from the very beginning. Sure, they might have originally intended those words to have a different meaning, and only realized later that the actual words that they had written had a meaning different from their original intent, one that was, entirely by accident, better (in their opinion, not yours) than their original intent. That's not an impossible sequence of events, but I consider it a pretty unlikely one. |
| 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