[9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Saint Sexburga]

> If another wheelbarrow offers you candy, get your back to the wall quickly...

Well, I thought it was probably Choate, but after this I'm pretty sure
it's one of the Shaney clan.

Denny Crane!!

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 177 bytes --]

well, quite, but i was just trying to make it clear that it's mainly
when doing arithmetic with it that you need an explicit type.
so if you're not doing that, don't bother.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2816 bytes --]

From: "Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:14:14 +0100
Message-ID: <5b0af62ace5aa05af06022e4dc05c926@quintile.net>

> exceptions (hardly ever seen)?
> 
> 	p = (char*)malloc(25) + 3;
>

Sorry to continue the thread we hate, but I
would be become quite rude if I met the
author of code like this.

-Steve

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Steve Simon]

> exceptions (hardly ever seen)?
> 
> 	p = (char*)malloc(25) + 3;
>

Sorry to continue the thread we hate, but I
would be become quite rude if I met the
author of code like this.

-Steve

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Charles Forsyth]

> off-topic is whether it's OK to cast the return value from malloc.

in plan 9, usually, don't bother: it's pointless and anything necessary happens anyway.

exceptions (hardly ever seen)?

	p = (char*)malloc(25) + 3;

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Federico Benavento]

> Denny Crane!!

Federico G. Benavento!!

-- 
Federico G. Benavento

[9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Saint Sexburga]

PS - Sorry Russ, this thread is probably off-topic. I'd take it to
comp.lang.c, were it not that the only topic there that isn't
off-topic is whether it's OK to cast the return value from malloc.

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[W B Hacker]

Saint Sexburga wrote:
>> Best you stay away from complex machinery, then..
> 
>> Wheelbarrows come to mind...
> 
> Don't they always? And complex machinery - wall clock, CPU, or
> wheelbarrows - is not just money.
> 
> Wheelbarrows are the scarcest, and least 'renewable' resource any of
> us will ever have.
> 
> So we must adapt to what we have while we invent better wheelbarrows.
> 
> When wheelbarrows start to adapt to US, we should become very, very
> wary, 'coz they will have become smarter than we are, and they will
> also have become either certifiably insane to make the attempt or
> clever liars to fake it.
> 

If another wheelbarrow offers you candy, get your back to the wall quickly...

[9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Saint Sexburga]

> Best you stay away from complex machinery, then..

> Wheelbarrows come to mind...

Don't they always? And complex machinery - wall clock, CPU, or
wheelbarrows - is not just money.

Wheelbarrows are the scarcest, and least 'renewable' resource any of
us will ever have.

So we must adapt to what we have while we invent better wheelbarrows.

When wheelbarrows start to adapt to US, we should become very, very
wary, 'coz they will have become smarter than we are, and they will
also have become either certifiably insane to make the attempt or
clever liars to fake it.

Re: [9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[W B Hacker]

Saint Sexburga wrote:


>>
> Alas, I can make no sense of any of this. However, I suspect you are
> really either Jim Choate or Mark V Shaney.
> 
> Denny Crane!!
> 

Best you stay away from complex machinery, then..

Wheelbarrows come to mind...

[9fans] mumbo-jumbo jibber-jabber poopycock

[Saint Sexburga]

>
> Designers work in binary gate-array state tables.
>
> Not much choice until CPU go over to optical, and can *maybe* use UTF-8 directly
> as I/O in color frequency coding as well as simple on/off states.
>
> Even then only at a hefty price.
>
> Until then, asm's mnemonics are easier for humans to work with than octal, hex,
> or binary, and there isn't much to be done about that IF/AS/WHEN you absolutely,
> positively, *have to* get down to the lowest possible layer and find a
> binary-only animal at that layer.
>
> Fortunately, that 'have to' is 'damn seldom' thanks to a wide variety of
> toolsets, and those who do it often are no more fussed about doing it than
> having a different brand of beer now and then.
>
> Build a CPU that 'needs no assembler' and the first thing that happens is some
> contrarian will write one for it *anyway*. And/OR port forth to it.
>
> And they will be used. But never 'forced'.
>
> That because the second contrarian who arrives will port a 'C' compiler to it.
>
> Any of these can be labelled ugly or inelegant - but they are the tools that get
> the job done faster than most other choices.
>
> And time - wall clock, CPU, or hours of our lives - is not just money.
>
> Time is the scarcest, and least 'renewable' resource any of us will ever have.
>
> So we must adapt to what we have while we invent better machines.
>
> When machines start to adapt to US, we should become very, very wary, 'coz they
> will have become smarter than we are, and they will also have become either
> certifiably insane to make the attempt or clever liars to fake it.
>
> Can't trust either of those to keep a beer keg cold...
>
> Choices, folks.  Choices!
>
> Bill
>
>
>
Alas, I can make no sense of any of this. However, I suspect you are
really either Jim Choate or Mark V Shaney.

Denny Crane!!