Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:29:25PM +0900, Simon Walter wrote: > On 07/18/2016 11:06 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:16:03AM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>Simon Walker wrote: > > > >> > >><< > >>Can you explain how a computer works to a child or perhaps a rubber duck? > > >>You place a child at the same level as a rubber duck?! A child can > >>understand provided any concepts used are within his/her mental age. > > > >So can a rubber duck understand any concepts within its mental age. > >But none are. That's the difference. > > > > I am distinguishing between the two. Obviously Edwardo does not understand > English that well. Maybe I should thrown an "even" in there. However, the > rubber duck is important. It's not a term I came up with, as I am sure many > of you know. Though I would like propose a new term: shit programming. It > happens on the toilet. AKA "the aha moment". Explaining the plot to a rubber duck is one of the techniques fictino writers sometimes use when figuring out where a novel is going. It's not about whether the duck understands, It's about organising the writer's thoughts. -- hendrikk ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On 07/18/2016 11:06 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:16:03AM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: Hi, Simon Walker wrote: << Can you explain how a computer works to a child or perhaps a rubber duck? You place a child at the same level as a rubber duck?! A child can understand provided any concepts used are within his/her mental age. So can a rubber duck understand any concepts within its mental age. But none are. That's the difference. I am distinguishing between the two. Obviously Edwardo does not understand English that well. Maybe I should thrown an "even" in there. However, the rubber duck is important. It's not a term I came up with, as I am sure many of you know. Though I would like propose a new term: shit programming. It happens on the toilet. AKA "the aha moment". Today I did no shit programming. It was just methodical and cyclic - incremental if you will. Peace, Simon ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:16:03AM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > Hi, > > Simon Walker wrote: > > << > Can you explain how a computer works to a child or perhaps a rubber duck? > >> > You place a child at the same level as a rubber duck?! A child can > understand provided any concepts used are within his/her mental age. So can a rubber duck understand any concepts within its mental age. But none are. That's the difference. -- hendrik :=) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
Edward, Do you realize you have been consuming a large fraction of the "bandwidth" of this mailing list for your own e-learning of the C language and of Linux OS, and for expressing your pathos about the reactions of others? This list has a lot of short-lived off-topic (or sideways) threads, which I consider interesting, your's is really long-lived and that may explain the reactions of others. As someone already told you, you might better find another list for e-learning the C language. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
Hi, Simon Walker wrote: << Edward, you need to read a 101 computing book or a take primer in CS - and have some patience. It takes time to learn something. Don't expect so much from yourself. >> Do you realise you are not talking to a child? "101 computing" is aimed for children. << Put down those programming tools until you understand how a computer works. >> What do you mean by that? Are you addressing a computer hardware engineering student? << Can you explain how a computer works to a child or perhaps a rubber duck? >> You place a child at the same level as a rubber duck?! A child can understand provided any concepts used are within his/her mental age. Bring me a child whose mental ability is within the norm and we will see whether I can explain to him/her how a computer works. Although it should be unnecessary to state the obvious, a child cannot understand any concepts that are beyond his mental age. Edward ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On 07/18/2016 02:11 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: Le 15/07/2016 06:43, Edward Bartolo a écrit : Yes, I refrain from writing C obfuscated code. +1 It doesn't make sense with today's powerful computers not to write readable code, that is why I make an effort to write readable code. I would rather give credit to high quality compilers than powerful computers. Yup, this is where the credit belongs. Though, it could be said that large screens are powerful. Edward, you need to read a 101 computing book or a take primer in CS - and have some patience. It takes time to learn something. Don't expect so much from yourself. Put down those programming tools until you understand how a computer works. It will make your life easier. How do you know if you know how a computer works? Can you explain how a computer works to a child or perhaps a rubber duck? We teach what we need to learn. Being intentional is what counts. Simon ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
Le 15/07/2016 06:43, Edward Bartolo a écrit : Yes, I refrain from writing C obfuscated code. +1 It doesn't make sense with today's powerful computers not to write readable code, that is why I make an effort to write readable code. I would rather give credit to high quality compilers than powerful computers. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:43:36AM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: [cut] > > Your intention is glaringly clear: you are not sincere, you are a dumb > liar and must be treated like one. What counts is feedback from those > who want to really help. > > You made my day, ROFLMAO! > > Next one, please! Edward, if you keep reacting like that, I think that you will hardly find anybody else willing to give you any feedback at all. Or to read your emails, for that matter... HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
On Thu, 7/14/16, Edward Bartolo <edb...@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads. To: "dng" <dng@lists.dyne.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016, 11:43 PM Hi, << About choice of language. I read there are 191 undefined behaviors in the C99 standard, which means an equal number of tarpits waiting for the cognitively difficient coder. >> And the source of that quote is . . . I looked on the archives and only found your two posts titled "Larcenous mail threads" (though I might have missed something) . . . Note that I am not reading the thread on C code golinux ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
Hi, << About choice of language. I read there are 191 undefined behaviors in the C99 standard, which means an equal number of tarpits waiting for the cognitively difficient coder. >> ROFLMAO! I pity your vane attempts to mislead me and destabilise me psychologically. "Cognitively dificient"?! You seem addressing some kindergarthen failure. But reality proves otherwise and that is what counts. 191 undefined behaviours?! LOL. What is that if not bending backwards to make a point? Then, how does my code work reliably? I had that code evaluated by an experienced C coder who gave me postive feedback about it. Who cares about someone bending backwards to make a point that contradicts reality? Reality is in my favour :D Yes, I refrain from writing C obfuscated code. It doesn't make sense with today's powerful computers not to write readable code, that is why I make an effort to write readable code. Yet, you stupidly interpret that as "intellectual deficiency". Your intention is glaringly clear: you are not sincere, you are a dumb liar and must be treated like one. What counts is feedback from those who want to really help. You made my day, ROFLMAO! Next one, please! ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] Larcenous mail threads.
Hi, Lately, I have been noticing repeatedly that sending mail to "Studying C as told. (For help)" results in mail being sent to "Re: [DNG] Studying C as told. (For help)". My repeated emails at the end of the latter are the result of my attempts to send main to the proper thread. Why is this happening? In my latest code submits to the thread, I presented a functional and efficient parser for Boolean expressions but I got no replies. I had my latest code evaluated by an experienced C coder who confirmed the code works and is efficient. The only correction was to test for the return value of malloc even though on today's systems RAM runs into Giga Bytes. Edward ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
