Re: Baby X is bor nagain

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: Baby X is bor nagain
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 27. Jun 2024, 14:31:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5jm32$2nqvp$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 27/06/2024 13:16, bart wrote:
On 26/06/2024 13:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote:
...
I /do/ use Python.  I use it when it is an appropriate language to use,
  which is very different circumstances from when I use C (or
C++). Different tools for different tasks.
>
And yet neither of you are interested in answering my question, which was
why its simplistic bytecode compiler is acceptable in this scenario, but
would be considered useless if applied to C code.
>
You throw out a lot of these sorts of question, by which I mean
questions that you either /do/ know the answers to or which you /should/
know the answers to.
>
If a software engineering student asked me this sort of "challenge"
question it would immediately become homework: come up with at least two
scenarios in which a simplistic C bytecode compiler would be an
unacceptable tool to use, and two in which Python with a trivial
bytecode compiler would be an acceptable tool to use.  In each case
explain why.  Anyone who could not would get marked down on the course.
>
  I'm not sure what you're implying here.
 Some here are consistently saying that any compiler whose internal processes are not at the scale or depth that you find in 'professional', 'industrial scale' products like gcc, clang, icc, is not worth bothering with and is basically a useless toy.
 And yet those same people are happy that such a straightforward compiler, which does less error-checking than Tiny C, is used within the dynamic scripting languages they employ.
I would expect Ben's students to understand the difference between a low level language aimed at systems programming and high efficiency binaries, and a high-level language aimed at ease of development, convenience, and simplifying coding by avoiding manual resource management.  I would expect his students to see the difference in the languages, the different appropriate uses of the languages, and the different requirements for tools for those languages.
I'd expect that from you too.  Since you seem ignorant of these things, I explained them to you.  If you won't listen, or even try to think a little, then I can't help you learn.

 It just seemed to me to be blind prejudice.
 They were also unwilling to answer questions about whether, given a simpler task of translating initialisation data such as long sequences of integer constants, or strings, they'd be willing to entrust it to such a 'toy' compiler or even a dedicated tool. Since here there is no analysis to be done nor any optimisation.
I don't think I bothered answering that one because it is clearly a pointless question.  Again, if you don't read what I and others write, answering your questions is a waste of time.

 Assuming the answer is No, it must be the bigger, much slower product, then it sounds like irrational hatred.
 So, what would your students say?
 
Maybe if they read your posts, they would think you are projecting.  You have consistently shown an irrational hatred and blind prejudice to C, gcc, IDEs, make, Linux, and indeed every programming language that is not your own invention, every compiler that is not your own or tcc, every editor, linter, build automation system, and other software development tool, and every OS except Windows.  I don't quite know how tcc and Windows escaped your obsessive "not invented here" syndrome.
Like most developers, I try to use the best tool for the job - where "best" can depend on many factors, including convenience and familiarity.  So when I embed file data in my C and C++ projects, I use the same compiler I use for the rest of the project (which is usually, but not always, gcc).  Even if tcc supported the targets I use (which it does not), why would I bother messing around with an extra tool there? gcc does the job in a time I consider practically instant (and therefore doing it faster is no benefit).
I have no "irrational hatred" of tcc - it is simply incapable (in a great many ways) of doing the job I need from a compiler, and for the jobs it /can/ do it is in no way better than the tools I already need and have.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Jun 24 * Baby X is bor nagain322Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `- Mac users (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
12 Jun 24 i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain313Bonita Montero
11 Jun 24 i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain309Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain308Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain305David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain301bart
12 Jun 24 ii i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
12 Jun 24 ii i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
12 Jun 24 ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain296David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain295Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i   +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
13 Jun 24 ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain293David Brown
13 Jun 24 ii i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5bart
13 Jun 24 ii i    i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3tTh
13 Jun 24 ii i    ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
14 Jun 24 ii i    ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
13 Jun 24 ii i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain287Michael S
14 Jun 24 ii i     +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
14 Jun 24 ii i     i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
15 Jun 24 ii i     i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
17 Jun 24 ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain283James Kuyper
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain86Kaz Kylheku
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Are Javascript and Python similarly slow ? (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Michael S
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain80David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain79Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain78David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain67Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain65Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain59Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain58Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain56David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain55Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain54David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain53Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain10bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i      `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain42David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain41Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain39Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1vallor
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain27Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i       `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain26Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
22 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain20Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i         `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain19Ben Bacarisse
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9James Kuyper
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Tim Rentsch
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Keith Thompson
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain193bart
17 Jun 24 ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii `* Topicality is not your strong suit (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)2Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Kalevi Kolttonen

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal