On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 05:09:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
Haha, incidentally, I've just moved to LA, and I'm failing to
convince myself I won't die if I try and drive here ;) .. I'm
still chickening out.
Someone once said, that the biggest problem with Fortran, is that
people actually use it.
Also: https://losc.ligo.org/software/
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 at 13:42:04 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
Dennis Ritchie did only two things wrong: placing the * at the
wrong side in pointer declarations; and making arrays as
unsafe, raw pointers -- and in consequence providing two
redundant ways to do one same thing: [2] or arr+2
Good read, and totally agree there's no point in trying to
convince programmers to use a new tool other than their own
choice. C++ evangelists should read this.
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 01:36:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
1-based array indexing...
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 09:06:01 UTC, qznc wrote:
Dijkstra made a good argument for zero-based:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html
Donald Knuth on that proposal ;-)
Edsger Dijkstra's Retirement Banquet - Part 8 of 13
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 16:31:07 UTC, Meta wrote:
This is just plain negligence on upper management's part. I
can't believe they got that far without doing due diligence to
verify his results.
Of course you're supposed to perform due diligence before buying
something. Not 1-2 years
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 13:09:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Ouch! I had an experience like that once.
I worked at a company that bought a one-man show's company who
had an impressive load-balancing software we wanted to
incorporate in our system.
About 1-2 years into him
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 13:36:59 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Arrays (or in physics-speak, matrices)
multiplied together quite intuitively as:
C = A*B gives an element-by-element multiplication of A and B,
assuming A and B are the same size.
Ehhh?
The same true for ndslice. ndslice returns
Arrays (or in physics-speak, matrices)
multiplied together quite intuitively as:
C = A*B gives an element-by-element multiplication of A and B,
assuming A and B are the same size.
Ehhh?
On 10/17/17 4:40 AM, crimaniak wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
Especially comments:
George Michaelson • a day ago
One of the saddest moments of my
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
Especially comments:
George Michaelson • a day ago
One of the saddest moments of my career in computer centre
helpdesk was
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 18:56:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I suppose this is like Walter not daring to write code with
1-based arrays. :D On that note, though, in D I only rarely
actually need to specify explicit indices. Foreach and generic
code alleviates most cases of explicit
On 10/16/17 2:42 PM, Manu wrote:
That... and they drive on the wrong side of the road! ;)
We drive on the right side. Both literally and philosophically :)
Seriously though, driving in LA is nothing compared to an eastern city
where everything was determined by horse-cart paths.
I drove a
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:42:56AM -0700, Manu wrote:
[...]
>That... and they drive on the wrong side of the road! ;)
[...]
Ah! Well, that is a different story, then. :D My hometown also drives
on the wrong side of the road (I learnt driving after I left), and I'm
also still chickening out,
On Monday, October 16, 2017 11:42:56 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> That... and they drive on the wrong side of the road! ;)
http://jokes.cc.com/funny-lookin--good/yn3vw9/the-wrong-way
- Jonathan M Davis
On 16 October 2017 at 10:56, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:09:04PM -0700, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >On 15 Oct. 2017 6:40 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d"
> ><[1]digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:09:04PM -0700, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>On 15 Oct. 2017 6:40 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d"
><[1]digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
[...]
> I don't want to even try 1 based. All my learned behaviors with
> arrays would just produce corrupt
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 15:22:30 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 15 Oct. 2017 11:50 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
Haha, incidentally, I've just moved to LA, and I'm failing to
convince myself I won't die if I try and
On 15 Oct. 2017 11:50 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
> Haha, incidentally, I've just moved to LA, and I'm failing to convince
> myself I won't die if I try and drive here ;) .. I'm still chickening out.
>
LA? Cool!
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 00:26:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 03:09:21PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
1-based array indexing... I don't know, but I've
On 10/15/2017 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
Haha, incidentally, I've just moved to LA, and I'm failing to convince myself I
won't die if I try and drive here ;) .. I'm still chickening out.
LA? Cool!
(Don't watch "To Live and Die in LA")
Or just get a used "Yank Tank" and you'll be fine.
On 15 Oct. 2017 6:40 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 1-based array indexing... I don't know, but I've become so accustomed
> to 0-based indexing that I doubt I'll ever be able to get used to a
> language with
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
The article could have mentioned the restrict annotation in C.
They mention the issue indirectly because Fortran programmers
On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
1-based array indexing... I don't know, but I've become so accustomed
to 0-based indexing that I doubt I'll ever be able to get used to a
language with 1-based indexing. Or whether D will ever be able to
challenge Fortran in this respect. :P
I don't
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 17:26:20 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 03:09:21PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
> >
> > Some good information there!
>
> 1-based array indexing...
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 03:09:21PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
>
> Some good information there!
1-based array indexing... I don't know, but I've become so accustomed
to 0-based indexing that I doubt I'll
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
A language similar to matlab when handling arrays? I recall
hating the damn thing when using it for graphics programming, it
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
Some good information there!
28 matches
Mail list logo
