Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Re: buffering of stdio streams

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: buffering of stdio streams

 
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2004
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
>

.... snip ...
>
> XXXX YYYY (OT) (All) Ratio
> ===============================================
> 1981-1992: 45 in about 12,400 (approx 0.4%)
> 1993-1993: 26 in about 12,600 (approx 0.2%)
> 1994-1994: 139 in about 13,000 (approx 1.1%)
> 1995-1995: 335 in about 13,600 (approx 2.5%)
> 1996-1996: 736 in about 14,800 (approx 5.0%)
> 1997-1997: 1,560 in about 16,700 (approx 9.3%)
> 1998-1998: 1,550 in about 19,300 (approx 8.0%)
> 1999-1999: 3,030 in about 24,700 (approx 12%)
> 2000-2000: 5,620 in about 37,200 (approx 15%)
> 2001-2001: 6,730 in about 68,200 (approx 9.9%)
> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
> 2003-2003: 4,860 in about 9,880 (approx 49%)
> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)
>
> Feel free to replicate the search and point out any errors.


I flat out don't believe your 2002 and 2003 numbers. 2001 and
2004 are also suspect. These may be the result of spam
annoyances.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2004
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:
>
> > Tak-Shing Chan wrote on 10/08/04 :
> >
> >> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
> >> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)

> >
> > These figures seems to be nuts.

>
> I repeated the searches and the results did not change:
>
> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 485,000 from 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec
> 2002 for "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.46 seconds)
>
> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 90,800 from 1 Jan 2004 to today for
> "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.10 seconds)


So examine the raw data, or at least a healthy sample of it.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tak-Shing Chan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2004
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, CBFalconer wrote:

> Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
>> I repeated the searches and the results did not change:
>>
>> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 485,000 from 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec
>> 2002 for "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.46 seconds)
>>
>> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 90,800 from 1 Jan 2004 to today for
>> "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.10 seconds)

>
> So examine the raw data, or at least a healthy sample of it.


That would be too expensive. Instead, I use a more reliable
data source (http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/) to retrieve
yearly posting statistics for comp.lang.c:

Year of 1999: 29685 messages (starting September 1999)
Year of 2000: 150337 messages
Year of 2001: 161248 messages
Year of 2002: 145586 messages
Year of 2003: 120995 messages
Year of 2004: 48575 messages (up to June 2004)

There indeed seems to be something wrong with Google. I
hereby retract from the percentages I posted.

Nevertheless, evidence showed that Ryan is probably right: a
random survey of comp.lang.c pre-1993 looks very different
(OT-bashing-wise) from post-1995. Could someone who had been
here since 1986 kindly comment on this issue?

Tak-Shing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tak-Shing Chan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2004
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, CBFalconer wrote:

> I flat out don't believe your 2002 and 2003 numbers. 2001 and
> 2004 are also suspect. These may be the result of spam
> annoyances.


Or possibly a Google bug.

Tak-Shing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tak-Shing Chan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2004
On 10 Aug 2004 http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de wrote:

> But if you look at the numbers you can easily see that there
> must be some mistake - or do you really believe the number
> of posts here jumped by a factor of about 7 from 2002 to 2003
> (that would be twice as many as had been posted in all years
> before taken together!) and then again dropped by a factor of
> 50 in the following year?


You are right. I used MSR Netscan and it disagreed with the
Google numbers.

> When you leave out these rather
> obviously bogus data points you see that the number of posts
> increased quite a bit (with a strong increase in slope in the
> last 7 years)- and it's to be expected that (especially since
> many of the people stumbling over the existence of newsgroups
> nowadays never have heard of netiquette) to see a corresponding
> increase in off-topic posts.


Since the numbers are unreliable, it could not support
either side of the argument...

Tak-Shing

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
exec() and sending to STDIO and reading from STDIO WinstonSmith_101@hotmail.com Java 18 10-22-2006 03:11 PM
How to disable stdio echoplex from java code (unix specific)? Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t Java 0 06-07-2005 03:31 PM
buffering of stdio streams Chris McDonald C Programming 30 08-09-2004 10:22 AM
INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR C1001: msc1.cpp (line 1794) error at every std include file: stdio.h, windows.h, ansi_c.h ???? paul calvert C++ 6 10-14-2003 04:34 PM
iostream or stdio Vicent C++ 2 08-25-2003 05:45 PM



Advertisments