On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:58:23PM +, Charles Forsyth wrote:
But suppose the standard does not evidently aim to be understood, in the
generally understood meaning of understood,
or there are more words in the standard than will ever appear in the
programmer's own programs?
Do you mean
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.
The HLL will have to have a compiler. If the compiler is, finally,
machine instructions, how does one guarantee that it does
Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.
C was created as a language to do bit fiddling in - a tool for writing
assembly language a bit more productively than doing it by hand. The
original Unix C compiler was a tool for writing
On Tuesday 30 of October 2012 10:26:52 Richard Miller wrote:
Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.
C was created as a language to do bit fiddling in - a tool for writing
assembly language a bit more productively than doing
On Mon Oct 29 23:17:25 EDT 2012, cthom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 October 2012 23:06, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
real word. And without a standard there would've been lot
less interoperability and far more bugs.
gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
real word. And without a standard there would've been lot
less interoperability and far more bugs.
This remains true. It is possible and not that difficult to write
code that can be successfully and correctly compiled by
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
on the above fubar?
--
dexen deVries
[[[↓][→]]]
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:45:33AM +0100, dexen deVries wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
on the above fubar?
That when one does programming, one tries to have not fuzzy behavior,
that is to know
On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
on the above fubar?
any sort of advanced code-moving optimization is confusing. but the
way c/c++ are
The man to texinfo transition has not improved the information but, on
the contrary, the size and complexity of informations, decreasing the
ratio signal/noise.
from lions, i get only 7889 lines of code in the v6 kernel; the gcc
man page is 13000+, the last i checked.
- erik
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your tak
e
on the above fubar?
He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
On 29 October 2012 22:35, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
But it is easy to fool compilers to do what he wanted
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com
wrote:
He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
Why not. Compilers never get wise to the ways of sneaky programmers!
On Mon Oct 29 19:06:41 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth
charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
Why not. Compilers never get wise to the ways of sneaky programmers!
On Mon Oct 29 18:37:11 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Mon Oct 29 19:06:41 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth
charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
Call me crazy, but I always felt compilers were there to emit code that
reflected what I wrote, not what it thinks it can do a better job writing
for me. People complain that Go is not a good systems language due to the
garbage collector. Maybe C isn't a good language due to all the places
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:10:55 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Mon Oct 29 18:37:11 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wr
ote:
On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:26:52 PDT Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
/sys/src/cmd follows plan9 c, not c99, right? But pick a
similar set of programs. If this happens, I claim it would be
because programs assume something not guaranteed by the
compiler.
Oops. Meant to say not
No disagreement there on requiring optimization. But my
point was that a programmer should understand the standard
rather than complain when he gets surprised due to his lack
of knowledge.
i agree that one should know the language. but i'm not sure i'll
say it's the programmer's fault when
But my point was that a programmer should understand the standard
But suppose the standard does not evidently aim to be understood, in the
generally understood meaning of understood,
or there are more words in the standard than will ever appear in the
programmer's own programs?
Worse! Standard
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:53:17PM -0600, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
the vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten.
wait, you're saying this as if it's a bad thing‽
check your syslog for messages about references whizzing past your
terminal
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:36:16 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
No disagreement there on requiring optimization. But my
point was that a programmer should understand the standard
rather than complain when he gets surprised due to his lack
of knowledge.
i agree that one
m(
--
cinap
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:58:23 - Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com
wrote:
But my point was that a programmer should understand the standard
But suppose the standard does not evidently aim to be understood, in the
generally understood meaning of understood,
or there are more
The C standard is not too hard to understand. For something
worse try one of those ITU standards! Try IEEE 802 standards!
I have had to read the Bridging standard many many more times
(compared to the C standard) to make sense of it. The
standards *shouldn't* be so horrible but they are.
On Mon Oct 29 20:36:26 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
Not a question of fault but IMHO a programmer, like a
carpenter or anyone who does real work, has to experiment and
learn the strengths and weaknesses of his tools of his trade
if he wants to become competent.
The language standard
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.
Two problems with this:
1) Developer time is not worth saving, because developers are cheap and
they don't use their time
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:10:41 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
you are arguing for a cartoon hammer that runs away when you're
not looking at it.
That is an excellent definition of optimization! Typical
optimizations:
- putting a variable in a register
- caching a value in a
On 29 October 2012 23:06, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
real word. And without a standard there would've been lot
less interoperability and far more bugs.
Most interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc
30 matches
Mail list logo
