Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com>: Nov 29 06:32PM
>> Ah, I love how in C you just implicitly cast from const void* to
> I love how in C++ you have a billion names of cast. Even for a
> strong coercion.
I love how you can wrap the C++ casts behind macros, and then
take advantage of them in code that compiles as C or C++:
#ifdef __cplusplus
#define strip_qual(TYPE, EXPR) (const_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#define convert(TYPE, EXPR) (static_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#define coerce(TYPE, EXPR) (reinterpret_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#else
#define strip_qual(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
#define convert(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
#define coerce(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 28 11:00AM +0100
Imagine you sort a list of pointers to a list of items to prevent
expensive swaps of the items at the first place. How could you
rearrange the items according to the pointer-list in place with
the fewest steps without any external memory ?
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Nov 28 10:49AM
> expensive swaps of the items at the first place. How could you
> rearrange the items according to the pointer-list in place with
> the fewest steps without any external memory ?
In my experience sorting list by pointer is much slower then swaps
and rearagning access order, makes slow traversal afterwards.
--
current job title: senior software engineer
skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell...
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 28 12:12PM +0100
> In my experience sorting list by pointer is much slower then swaps
> and rearagning access order, makes slow traversal afterwards.
No, that depends on the size of the items you have. I had items that
were so "heavy" (20 bytes) that sorting the pointers was faster and
with light items of 8 bytes sorting the items was faster.
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 28 05:34PM +0100
On 28.11.2020 11:00, Bonita Montero wrote:
> expensive swaps of the items at the first place. How could you
> rearrange the items according to the pointer-list in place with
> the fewest steps without any external memory ?
Better drop the in-place requirement. And then it's trivial. But do
consider that this adds an O(n) copying, and that sorting is just
O(n log n) in the first place.
- Alf
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 28 05:38PM +0100
> Better drop the in-place requirement. And then it's trivial. ...
It's not because I need a certain solution but I'm just curious
about if there's an in-place solution without external memory.
| Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Nov 28 01:03PM -0500
On 11/28/20 11:38 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Better drop the in-place requirement. And then it's trivial. ...
> It's not because I need a certain solution but I'm just curious
> about if there's an in-place solution without external memory.
It will need at least 1 temporary location to save to, but that is enough.
| Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com>: Nov 28 06:08PM
> expensive swaps of the items at the first place. How could you
> rearrange the items according to the pointer-list in place with
> the fewest steps without any external memory ?
Are the items scattered in dynamic memory, and of the same size?
Or can they be in a single, contiguous block of memory, and of variable
size? E.g.
[B ][C ][A] -> [A][B ][C ]
Firstly, literally without any external memory whatsoever, we cannot
even swap two items. Even the XOR trick for swapping objects bitwise
still requires external memory, such as a machine register. I think you
have to assume that you have enough external memory to exchange two
objects.
Are all items treated as unique, or can the solution potentially
take advantage of situations when pairs of items happen to be
bit-for-bit equivalent, not requiring a swap even if they appear
out of order through the pointer list?
All in all, this is essentially a miminal edit distance problem,
(in which only transpositions are allowed, no substitutions,
deletions or insertions):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_distance
| Tim Woodall <news001@woodall.me.uk>: Nov 28 06:13PM
> expensive swaps of the items at the first place. How could you
> rearrange the items according to the pointer-list in place with
> the fewest steps without any external memory ?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking!
But:
N items in array. ptr is sorted.
for(i=0; i<N; i++)
{
swap(array[i], *ptr[i]);
for(y=i; y<N; y++)
if(ptr[y] == &array[i])
{
swap(ptr[y], ptr[i]);
break;
}
}
Completely untested. There's an O(N**2) search of the ptr array but O(N)
swaps.
I'm assuming than each item is very big and the number of items is quite
small otherwise why the no external memory when you've already used
extra memory with the ptr array.
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Nov 27 09:53PM -0600
On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> A halt decider is a function F such that F(P, I) is true iff P(I) is a
>>> finite computation and false otherwise.
>>> Do you agree?
I never answer yes or no questions with a yes or no answer.
I always answer yes or no questions with a complete explanation that
derives a yes or no answer. I answered the above question this way in my
next answer.
>> that is not halting behavior.
> Again an evasion, and for the same reason. You gave (a) so you can't
> retract it, and you know (b) is also a fact.
It is not an evasion it is a step-by-step proof that I am correct and
you always skip these steps and leap to the conclusion that I am incorrect.
> A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
> halted is indeed a non-halting computation. But a computation that
> would not halt and one that is halted are different computations.
Yes, that is the exact dichotomy required by the actual halting problem.
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (!Input_Halts)
HALT
else
HERE: goto HERE;
}
Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) does correctly decide that its input would not halt
unless Halts stopped simulating it, then Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) itself halts.
> Confound_Halts(Confound_Halts) is a computation that does halt. It's
> just a word game to say that it only halts because it's simulation had
> to be halted in the course of determining the return value from Halts.
Not so much. In this case H_Hat never gets any return value from Halts
so it can't possibly do the opposite of whatever Halts decides and Halts
does have to stop simulating H_Hat or H_Hat would have never halted.
>> stopped simulating it.
> Halts(Confound_Halts, Confound_Halts) returns false, according to you,
> making Confound_Halts(Confound_Halts) a finite computation.
No not at all. Halts is a finite computation. The input to Halts is only
finite because Halts forced it to be finite, otherwise it is infinite.
> How this
> determination is made by Halts makes no difference. The determination
The input to Halts is only finite because Halts forced it to be finite,
otherwise it is infinite.
> it if readers took the fact that Halts has a particular /reason/ for
> returning false, namely that the execution would not otherwise
> terminate, as excusing the fact that false is the wrong answer.
The input to Halts is only finite because Halts forced it to be finite,
otherwise it is infinite.
>>> Therefore Halts is not a halt decider. Which of the these do you
>>> disagree with?
> No answer? What a surprise!
I just proved that Halts does decide (H_Hat, H_Hat) correctly because
the input to Halts is only finite because Halts forced it to be finite,
otherwise it is infinite.
>>> other hand, duck and dive, evade and distract. Maybe you will change
>>> and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOVE.
> Not a single one of my questions answered.
I answer yes or no questions with a complete explanation.
If you can have the discipline to very very carefully analyze my answers
as if there was a real chance that I am correct then it should be quite
easy to verify in your own mind that I am actually correct.
This is the key to understanding that I am correct.
On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
> halted is indeed a non-halting computation.
When the simulator stops simulating H_Hat before H_Hat ever gets any
return value from Halts this makes it impossible for H_Hat to do the
opposite of whatever Halts decides, thus making all the conventional HP
proofs lose their entire basis.
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
|
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Nov 27 10:52AM -0600
On 10/19/2020 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 26 11:58PM -0800
> but will refer you to the above -- it's one of the only
> SaaS approaches to serialization. The ark was built
> with the future in mind.
No. My point is that same general effect can be achieved
in lot of ways. Everybody know that there are pile of
serialization libraries.
Only by understanding what is the
difference between several things doing same thing
in general ... for example std::set, std::list that is kept
being sorted and std::vector that s kept being sorted ...
people can choose one or other.
You are pushing questionable properties like some
kind of online code generator used ... but at the end
it does not matter. Matters if the code (however it
was produced) is making whole product that uses
it competitive or not nd in what use cases.
| Leo <usenet@gkbrk.com>: Nov 27 06:08PM +0300
> I come here and teach people that sin exists and that judgment is coming
> and that Jesus came to save us from our sin so we won't face that
> judgment.
You are aware that alt.religion.christian and alt.religion.christianity
exist, right? Along with the commonly-available churches that were built
to contain your kind. When you have those options, why would you ever
think comp.lang.c++ is the right place for this?
--
Leo
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 27 08:12AM -0800
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 10:09:16 AM UTC-5, Leo wrote:
[sic -- no attribution given]
> exist, right? Along with the commonly-available churches that were built
> to contain your kind. When you have those options, why would you ever
> think comp.lang.c++ is the right place for this?
In Matthew 28:18-20, did Jesus say, "Go ye therefore into all the churches, and all gatherings of religious people, and teach?" Or did He say "go ye therefore into all the world and teach, making disciples?"
Jesus came to save the lost. As we (Christians) go, we are to teach people in every area of life. We encounter the lost at every point, at every place, including Usenet groups. Jesus calls us to teach all.
I am obedient to that calling because I want Jesus to save everyone. I don't want anyone to be judged.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 27 04:27PM
On 27/11/2020 16:12, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> In Matthew 28:18-20, did Jesus say, "Go ye therefore into all the churches, and all gatherings of religious people, and teach?" Or did He say "go ye therefore into all the world and teach, making disciples?"
> Jesus came to save the lost. As we (Christians) go, we are to teach people in every area of life. We encounter the lost at every point, at every place, including Usenet groups. Jesus calls us to teach all.
> I am obedient to that calling because I want Jesus to save everyone. I don't want anyone to be judged.
And Satan invented fossils, yes?
/Flibble
--
¬
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 27 08:42AM -0800
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 6:17:59 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I'm afraid Hodgin is quite serious, and quite mad.
Leigh, if you were compromised by aliens, if unbeknownst to you they had taken control of your mind and body, and were guiding you into harmful things, destructive things to you and those around you, would you want to know? Would you want to be restored to self-determination, to autonomy, to not being used and abused by intruders with wicked and harmful intent?
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 27 04:51PM
On 27/11/2020 16:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 6:17:59 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> I'm afraid Hodgin is quite serious, and quite mad.
> Leigh, if you were compromised by aliens, if unbeknownst to you they had taken control of your mind and body, and were guiding you into harmful things, destructive things to you and those around you, would you want to know? Would you want to be restored to self-determination, to autonomy, to not being used and abused by intruders with wicked and harmful intent?
Difference there is that aliens might actually exist whilst your god doesn't as its existence as predicated on the Bible being fact: the Bible is demonstrably fiction irregardless of your delusions to the contrary.
/Flibble
--
¬
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 27 03:29AM
neoGFX (C++) Design Studio Demo (Widget Resizing) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7IVGGQXX70 \o/ #cpp #gamedev #coding #neoGFX
That is all.
/Flibble
--
¬
|
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 25 06:41PM -0500
On 11/22/20 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Now .. with your off-topic religious spam, spammer.
> #atheism
You're a man of incredible double-standards, Leigh. You insist that
your obscene and vulgar form of atheism be applied and allowed here on
this public forum. You are like a bully demanding others with different
views be silent while you sound off like a nattering nabob.
You shout at the top of your lungs vulgarity and obscenity, and you
offer no apologies for any of it. You laugh all the while you post, as
if you have some right to force your vulgarity and obscenity down other
people's lives.
You believe with all your heart that God doesn't exist, and that atheism
is the way to go in this world.
That's your right, Leigh. You can believe whatever you want to, but you
do not have the right to trample over other people's beliefs and their
rights with your loudness, obscenity and vulgarity.
If you believe in the individual, you have the duty and responsibility
to extend to other people the same courtesy you would expect in return,
which is to allow them to post those things which are most dear to their
hearts as well. And whereas they won't post f-word this and f-word that
in their content, their content has a purpose as well.
I come here and teach people that sin exists and that judgment is coming
and that Jesus came to save us from our sin so we won't face that
judgment. I come here to post in love the way to be spared from that
horrific future of damnation, of literally burning alive for all
eternity in the lake of fire. I do this because I care for people.
You espouse what you believe, not because you care for people, but
because you care only for yourself. You're like a child crying to get
attention. Shouting and grabbing and running and just being bad in
every way so people will look at you.
I truly pity you, Leigh. You're the most miserable man I've ever met
online, and that includes the truly horrible Peter Cheung.
You have a lot of growing up to do, Leigh.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:12AM
On 25/11/2020 23:41, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> You espouse what you believe, not because you care for people, but because you care only for yourself. You're like a child crying to get attention. Shouting and grabbing and running and just being bad in every way so people will look at you.
> I truly pity you, Leigh. You're the most miserable man I've ever met online, and that includes the truly horrible Peter Cheung.
> You have a lot of growing up to do, Leigh.
And Satan invented fossils, yes? Fuck off spammer.
/Flibble
--
¬
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:13AM
On 25/11/2020 23:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest. You're an excellent coder, but you have too much complexity in your code in my opinion. You don't try to make things easier for lesser developers, or developers who don't want to be quite as deep as you seek to be into C++. I think it will hinder adoption of your product compared to an easier API that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers for the.
> Regardless, Brian's not harming anyone. You should let people live their programming lives the way they see fit. He comes here with C++ content the same as you. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's more or less desirable.
> "Lighten up, Francis."
And Satan invented fossils, yes? Fuck off spammer.
/Flibble
--
¬
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 25 07:19PM -0800
On 11/25/2020 1:17 PM, Brian Wood wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 12:37:29 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Sorry, but on-line code generation is here to stay...
Okay.
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:58AM
On 25/11/2020 23:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> Take your meds then stop trolling.
> You push Neo-whatever consistently. You come up with a way to log content as a service and conclude it's the best thing ever created.
> I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest.
I think you're an idiot.
You're an excellent coder, but you have too much complexity in your code in my opinion. You don't try to make things easier for lesser developers, or developers who don't want to be quite as deep as you seek to be into C++. I think it will hinder adoption of your product compared to an easier API that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers for the.
Have you considered the possibility that my code isn't actually that complex and that the problem is that you aren't a very good C++ coder?
Satan. Fossils.
/Flibble
--
¬
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 25 11:30PM -0800
> was doing something much bigger. It wouldn't be the
> last time someone got a side job by working on a
> larger project.
Are you saying that you are like Noah who was trying to
save the world? Isn't it bit absurd self-praise even by
Christian standards?
> the right architecture and language 21 years ago, and
> have stuck with it, some of my ideological opponents
> realize there's more to the story -- "grandfathered in."
Thinking that you are extremely successful is perhaps
one of the reason why you are not. We engineers
need to see and acknowledge the problems for to be
capable to address those. So I repeat ... take the
most high level issues of serialization and write down
if and how your product addresses those:
<https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/serialization>
| Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 26 09:40AM -0800
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:30:58 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> Are you saying that you are like Noah who was trying to
> save the world? Isn't it bit absurd self-praise even by
> Christian standards?
"It's not me, man." Bob Dylan
Noah was successful in saving his family and some
animals. G-d willing, my efforts will be at least that
successful.
> > realize there's more to the story -- "grandfathered in."
> Thinking that you are extremely successful is perhaps
> one of the reason why you are not.
I claim to have chosen the right architecture, SaaS, and
language, C++. I don't claim to have have a lot of users
or to have made a lot of money from my service, etc.
> most high level issues of serialization and write down
> if and how your product addresses those:
> <https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/serialization>
If your point is my offering has weaknesses, fine,
but will refer you to the above -- it's one of the only
SaaS approaches to serialization. The ark was built
with the future in mind.
In the past you and others have provided specific
comments on my software and documentation
that have been helpful. That's another thing to be
thankful for.
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 10:22AM -0800
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 10:58:22 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > You push Neo-whatever consistently. You come up with a way to log content as a service and conclude it's the best thing ever created.
> > I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest.
> I think you're an idiot.
It's possible. :-)
> > that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers
> > for [them].
> Have you considered the possibility that my code isn't actually that complex and that the problem is that you aren't a very good C++ coder?
I've looked at the little bits of code you've published so far and I see it as advanced C++ code that will have niche audiences. It will take someone like me to get your code, write API wrappers to make it easier to integrate before it's adopted. That's my opinion, and I could be wrong.
When you wrote your service logging feature I looked at it and thought to myself, "Seriously?" I literally wrote a C version and almost published it, but I didn't want to argue with you. You have a right to code the things the way you do, and I respect that right. My personal opinion is it's too much.
You're undoubtedly a far greater C++ developer than I am. I have waded in to C++ the distance I have, and I saw where it was headed and I said, "Nope. Not for me."
Since that time I've been able to work on my CAlive programming language. And literally in developing that language, and in integrating the class with operator overrides, I finally began to see some of the power of C++ that I had been missing because I approached it from a different angle. I wasn't approaching it this way through C++'s obtuse syntax, but rather from the needs of the data and language as they spoke to me.
Developing CAlive has given me a far greater respect for C++, but I still think the syntax required to make it work is obtuse and difficult to read. If I were in charge of the C++ steering committee, I would be working on releasing a set of UI interfaces that allow the complexities of C++ to be handled through a GUI rather than raw source code. It would be better in some cases to take source code things and present them in a different way that makes it easier to get a mental handle on things, and then to have that tool re-release them in native C++ code. You'd lose some efficiency possibly in the translation, but today's CPUs are fast enough it wouldn't matter except for all but the most niche performance-requiring applications.
> Satan. Fossils.
Leigh. Leigh Leigh Leigh. How can I say this? There's more to our existence than you presently know. The understanding you do not have today of why men and women like me operate as we do is found in that extended form of our existence.
You limit yourself to what you currently know today by rejecting things Christians offer you. If you want to grow, receive some of it and put it to the test. Rigorously. You will find it holds up to all scrutiny, and calls out in a new voice, in a new way, that desires for you to seek deeper and learn more.
You're an amazing man, Leigh. But with all of that, you're still lacking something exceedingly significant in form and function, but even more so for your future.
Shields down, Leigh. Let the first bits come through and put them to the test. The "Satan. Fossils." argument is never one I've stated. It's not true. Put that one aside and listen to the real answer and put it to the test: Soft tissue is being found in fossils. It can't be millions of years old. Period.
https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/
Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 07:10PM
On 26/11/2020 18:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Shields down, Leigh. Let the first bits come through and put them to the test. The "Satan. Fossils." argument is never one I've stated. It's not true. Put that one aside and listen to the real answer and put it to the test: Soft tissue is being found in fossils. It can't be millions of years old. Period.
> https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/
> Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter.
Why are you so fucking deliberately obtuse?
This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this:
The soft tissue found in those fossils was FOREIGN CONTAMINATION, i.e. the soft tissue was UNRELATED to the fossil itself.
Are you now going to ignore this YET AGAIN?
So Satan invented fossils, yes?
/Flibble
--
¬
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 01:33PM -0800
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/
> > Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter.
> Why are you so .. deliberately obtuse?
Because I'm not. You hold to a false thinking, and only from within the false framework do you believe you are justified in calling me obtuse, but since it's false it's like division by zero in an equation. Everything past there is invalid.
> This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this:
There are 85 examples, some of whole blood cells, collagen, blood vessel segments, and other body tissues. Found by different scientists. Now that they know such things exist, they are looking for it. The tissue is from their death at the flood about 4400 years ago, not millions. It's the only way it could still be soft.
> The soft tissue found in those fossils was FOREIGN CONTAMINATION, i.e. the soft tissue was UNRELATED to the fossil itself.
> Are you now going to ignore this YET AGAIN?
This is what I meant by not taking only a cursory glance. Investigate the details. It's not foreign contamination.
Or be a coward to truth and facts. Your choice, Leigh.
Cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr>: Nov 26 10:08PM
Dana Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:33:29 -0800 (PST), Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> napis'o:
[snip]
>> This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this:
> There are 85 examples, some of whole blood cells, collagen, blood vessel segments, and other body tissues. Found by different scientists. Now that they know such things exist, they are looking for it. The tissue is from their death at the flood about 4400 years ago, not millions. It's the only way it could still be soft.
Are you serious???
It has nothing with C++ and should not be in this news group...
but... are you serious???
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 11:17PM
On 26/11/2020 22:08, Nikolaj Lazic wrote:
> Are you serious???
> It has nothing with C++ and should not be in this news group...
> but... are you serious???
I'm afraid Hodgin is quite serious, and quite mad.
/Flibble
--
¬
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Nov 26 01:22PM -0600
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 01:22PM -0800
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well!
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Learn something: http://www.3alive.org
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Nov 26 09:08AM
> Dunno, I started to learn C++ in 1993, gcc 2.95.2 was buggy as hell,
> and that was after 1998. ;)
For some reason there are certain versions of gcc that became really
ubiquitous and persisted in widespread use for much, much longer than
significantly newer and improved versions of the compiler became
available. gcc 2.x was one of them. It persisted for an inordinate
number of years in many systems, long after it had been superseded
by much newer versions.
Eventually it was phased out of most systems. However, for some reason
gcc 4.x seems to now be the holdout that refuses to die. There are
still, to this day, many Linux systems out there that have gcc 4.x
as their only compiler, and for some reason refuse to upgrade.
gcc 4.x has partial C++11 support, which makes it a pain to compile
any program that uses the C++11 (or newer) features that it doesn't
implement. At least it's not as bad as gcc 2.9, but still...
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 26 06:01AM -0800
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 11:09:14 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> gcc 4.x has partial C++11 support, which makes it a pain to compile
> any program that uses the C++11 (or newer) features that it doesn't
> implement. At least it's not as bad as gcc 2.9, but still...
Yes, the C++11 support in it is not only partial but has several known
defects in sense that valid programs crash. But perhaps there are
reasons why they can not upgrade.
C++17 for example was quite damaging standard and newer compilers
for some reason broke C++14 features even in C++14 mode to comply
with that broken standard.
Also the issues can possibly be like for example too aggressive
optimizations that break some sanity checks of undefined
behavior and the like.
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Nov 26 08:44PM
On Thu, 2020-11-26, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> gcc 4.x seems to now be the holdout that refuses to die. There are
> still, to this day, many Linux systems out there that have gcc 4.x
> as their only compiler, and for some reason refuse to upgrade.
I think the reason is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and CentOS, and all
other distributions which want to be binary-compatible with it).
Release 7 came in 2014 and is still supported. Release 8 came in 2019
and I guess a lot of organizations haven't migrated. And of course
the longer you wait, the harder it gets.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
Hi, everybody, Happy Thanksgiving to ye all, with or without the turkey.
jch
James C. Hsiung (熊 玠）, Ph.D.
Professor of Politics & Int'l Law
New York University
19 West 4th St.
New York, N.Y.
(212) 998-8523 Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sharon Kahn < sharon62kahn@gmail.com> Date: November 25, 2020 at 5:26:29 PM CST Subject: Happy thanksgiving 🦃🍽
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sharon Kahn <sharon62kahn@gmail.com>
Date: November 25, 2020 at 5:26:29 PM CST
Subject: Happy thanksgiving 🦃🍽
Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 24 04:42PM -0800
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> of whole conference in YouTube are too out of focus wide.
> About your middleware writer lot of questions have raised over the
> years but have any ended as issues in some issue tracker?
Not in a formal issue tracker, but I've made many changes
to my software based on advice from people here and
other forums. I'm not opposed to issue tracking, but
think of it as more helpful for external users.
> It seems
> that you just want to advertise it.
When Noah built the ark, he first had to plant the trees.
After some years, people noticed all the trees growing
around his house. Later they noticed this huge ark
that was almost two football fields long. He
couldn't plant the trees and build the ark in his
basement. Probably he could do some of it in a shop,
but a lot of it was done outside. Maybe his neighbor
wanted a cart and realized that he could ask Noah
to build one for him since he had all that wood and
was doing something much bigger. It wouldn't be the
last time someone got a side job by working on a
larger project.
For me the advertising is a side-effect of pressing on --
making the software better. Perhaps because I chose
the right architecture and language 21 years ago, and
have stuck with it, some of my ideological opponents
realize there's more to the story -- "grandfathered in."
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
| Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 24 10:03PM -0800
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 6:42:59 PM UTC-6, Brian Wood wrote:
> After some years, people noticed all the trees growing
> around his house. Later they noticed this huge ark
> that was almost two football fields long. He
Not sure it was that long, but well over one football
field -- 300 feet.
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 24 10:37PM -0800
On 11/22/2020 12:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Your fucking god doesn't fucking exist.
> Yes, I will fucking swear here.
> #atheism
Please try to tone the god damn fucking swearing down a little bit!
Fucking shit damn it to heck, and beyond. ;^)
| Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 25 01:17PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 12:37:29 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Sorry, but on-line code generation is here to stay...
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 25 09:24PM
On 25/11/2020 21:17, Brian Wood wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 12:37:29 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Sorry, but on-line code generation is here to stay...
Take your meds then stop trolling.
/Flibble
--
¬
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 25 06:21PM -0500
On 11/25/20 4:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 25/11/2020 21:17, Brian Wood wrote:
>> Sorry, but on-line code generation is here to stay...
> Take your meds then stop trolling.
You push Neo-whatever consistently. You come up with a way to log
content as a service and conclude it's the best thing ever created.
I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest. You're an
excellent coder, but you have too much complexity in your code in my
opinion. You don't try to make things easier for lesser developers, or
developers who don't want to be quite as deep as you seek to be into
C++. I think it will hinder adoption of your product compared to an
easier API that people will want to use without having to write their
own easier wrappers for the.
Regardless, Brian's not harming anyone. You should let people live
their programming lives the way they see fit. He comes here with C++
content the same as you. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's
more or less desirable.
"Lighten up, Francis."
--
Rick C. Hodgin
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Nov 25 06:55AM
>> --
> Yes, and on UNIX, C compilers were free, but commercial C++ compilers were
> expensive. That was a factor in its adoption.
IIRC, C compilers were not free either: you'd get a compiler with the
OS, but it wouldn't support ANSI C.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Nov 25 06:05PM
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> spake the secret code
>> Widespread adoption of gcc came much later. We (and I assume most
>> others) were using commercial compilers, not gcc.
>Which were worse then gcc..
No, they weren't. Software teams aren't stupid. They wouldn't spend
money on compilers that were inferior to free compilers.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
|
|
