Question on structs

On 5 Nov, 19:39, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> In <slrnhf6733.42i.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs wrote:
> > On 2009-11-05, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:


> >> Why shouldn't I? If I'm wrong, (certainly not excluded, see above)
> >> then I expect I'll be corrected by those who know better.

I still seems odd to give advice to newbies that is actually wrong. I
sometimes post stuff I don't know to be correct just so I can test the
waters. But if it went to a newbie I'd try to label it as tentative.
In front of experts I'd just say it.

> > And this is why the status-weenies are idiots. *

for someone who doesn't understand status you don't half go on about
it...

> > They actually can't
> > conceive of you doing something in order to learn or develop, but
> > which could result in a temporary decline in other peoples'
> > perception of you.

never bothered me very much. Similarly I don't take the mick out of
people who don't know things I do (we're all ignorant about
something). The people who bug me are what I call the willfully
ignorant. It's not that they don't know something but that they don't
know something and pretend they do and won't be corrected.

> Why would making a mistake result in a temporary decline in other
> people's perception of you? I don't see that at all.

Nick Keighley

On 2009-11-06, Nick Keighley <> wrote:
>> In <slrnhf6733.42i.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs wrote:
>> > And this is why the status-weenies are idiots. *

> for someone who doesn't understand status you don't half go on about
> it...

I can model it well enough to explain it and describe its effects, I just
don't have the experience. I dislike people who insist that I'm actually
motivated by something I don't experience. (It's IMPORTANT. Someone
is WRONG on the INTERNET.)

> never bothered me very much. Similarly I don't take the mick out of
> people who don't know things I do (we're all ignorant about
> something). The people who bug me are what I call the willfully
> ignorant. It's not that they don't know something but that they don't
> know something and pretend they do and won't be corrected.

Yeah. That can be either fascinating, horrifying, or funny, but is also
nearly always annoying. (I've been watching a particularly beautiful
case of it descend into madness, as someone who guessed wrong on a
physics brainteaser has spent months defending an ever stupider position,
and is now at a point where, to preserve his ego, he has to deny pretty
much the last four hundred years of basic physics. It's maddening,
and yet, strangely awe-inspiring to watch.)

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

Okay, thanks to everyone. I think I can see where I was going wrong
now!

P.

phaedrus

On Nov 6, 5:49*am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2009-11-05,KennyMcCormack<gaze...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <slrnhf6dss.bjf.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>,
> > Seebs *<usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >>It's one of those epiphany things to realize that they genuinely think this
> >>is a plausible motivation to ascribe to people. *They really think stuff works
> >>this way!
> > Two words: Drama Queen
>
> I'd agree that those words are perhaps accurate, but I was trying to be more
> charitable. *While thinking about relationships in terms of status does
> generally lead to drama, I don't think it's usually intentional.
>
> >>(Perhaps more terrifying, there are large hunks of the world in
> >>which it does to a greater or lesser extent...)
> > Hmmm. *That kinda disproves your whole thesis, don't it?
>
> Nope.
>
> My thesis is that not everyone is completely driven by status -- in
> particular, that especially among engineering sorts, you're likely to see
> a lot of people who are totally unconcerned about status.
>
> It's like culture. *Cultural norms vary. *That's fine. *Lots of different
> cultures work. *What doesn't work is insisting on interpreting people's
> behavior according to the rules of another culture, because that's crazy.
> Imposing a status narrative on many of the posters in comp.lang.c is every
> bit as stupid as trying to describe a Japanese business meeting in terms
> of what the behaviors and speech acts in question would mean if they'd
> been performed at a business meeting involving a bunch of Texans.
>
> I'm not disputing that status relationships do exist in some contexts, or
> that some people care about them. *It's quite obvious that some people
> care very deeply about them. *I'm just disputing the assertion that every
> relationship anywhere is necessarily about status, or even has a status
> component to it. *Not all do. *It's only one of the many ways humans interact,
> and some people don't do it. *Autism's the obvious extreme case, but there
> are plenty of people who are physically capable of experiencing status
> relationships, but who still don't view status as a significant priority.
>
> In short, there are a lot of people out there who would rather look bad
> being right than look good being wrong. *I know it may sound strange or
> mysterious, but trust me, the opposite sounds just as strange to them.
>
> But again: *I've never claimed that *no* status relationships existed -- only
> that not *everything* is a status relationship. *If you think that
> acknowledging the existence of status relationships undermines this, you
> really do need to work on your basic reading comprehension skills. *Maybe
> you could start with the Sesame Street episode that introduces "some
> of the monsters, all of the monsters, none of the monsters".

But you are concerned with status, my dear boy. You are posting page
after page of nonsense to prove that you're right. And you continually
attempt to create artificial boundaries such that arguments that step
outside these boundaries can be dismissed as the arguments of the
insane.

For example, you thought recently that my relating of object oriented
code to labor unionization was a "non-sequitur" and proceeded to
denounce me as insane for this and other reasons.

But it's a documented fact that Bjarne Stroustrup started work in the
proto-object-oriented Simula culture, where Simula was a Fortran-based
language that used proto-objects to better document factory and
shipyard automation to Danish labor union heads, and I've provided the
documentation.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. *Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

spinoza1111

On 12 Nov, 16:23, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> [spinoza related] object oriented code to labor unionization [...]

that *was* interesting (assuming you didn't make it up)

> But it's a documented fact that Bjarne Stroustrup started work in the
> proto-object-oriented Simula culture,

I know Simula was a major influence on C++. Did he actually start work
in the Simula culture?

> where Simula was a Fortran-based

Algol-60-based

<snip>

Nick Keighley

On Nov 13, 5:10*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12 Nov, 16:23,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > [spinoza related] object oriented code to labor unionization [...]
>
> that *was* interesting (assuming you didn't make it up)

It's documented, but not, typically, in computer technical books
because most authors on tech matters within American culture are
silent on labor unionization or worker control as opposed to
management prerogative. This was because the Taft-Hartley act of 1948
stated that while American workers have the right to form unions, the
unions cannot control the workplace but only negotiate pay and
benefits.

My first programming job was at a heavily unionized university. The
computer operators at my job, two ladies of color who were Moms,
negotiated with my boss to get us all a four day week and as a result
our productivity increased and I was able to complete several art
works in a series called American Men of Science. This was in 1974. As
a long-term result the university gave its computer processing to a
facilities management company which proceeded to milk the university
while providing terrible service.

The operators needed clear instructions from me on my software which
is why I started using structured techniques in assembler (always GO
TO ing "down" the code so that its flowchart was structured). They
also had trouble determining which of 50+ programs to use to do Alumni
processing for selection and sorting, so I developed a proto-data base
that used format and selection sheets (somewhat on the model of an
ancient programming language called RPG, which had nothing to do with
rocket-propelled grenades) to replace those 50+ programs.

When I entered nonunion "real" jobs I was astonished and dismayed by
the authoritarianism and its reciprocal culture of doing as little as
possible work while claiming that "everybody else" was the problem.
For example, at Encyclopedia Britannica, most of the employees spent
half the day in the can snorting coke.
>
> > But it's a documented fact that Bjarne Stroustrup started work in the
> > proto-object-oriented Simula culture,
>
> I know Simula was a major influence on C++. Did he actually start work
> in the Simula culture?

He started work in Denmark.
>
> > where Simula was a Fortran-based
>
> Algol-60-based

OK, Fortran and Algol based.
>
> <snip>

spinoza1111

In article <934919a0-6bcf-4c6d-831b-> spinoza1111 <> writes:
> On Nov 13, 5:10=A0pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
....
> > > [spinoza related] object oriented code to labor unionization [...]
> >
> > that *was* interesting (assuming you didn't make it up)
>
> It's documented, but not, typically, in computer technical books
> because most authors on tech matters within American culture are
> silent on labor unionization or worker control as opposed to
> management prerogative.

I do not think Nick comes frm the American culture, and I do not come from
it either. But the story is in the Wikipedia page on Kristen Nygaard from
Norway, where Simula was invented. Note also that Ole-Johan Dahl has *not*
worked for the Norwegian trade unions, so the link between Simula and the
trade unions is very weak.

> This was because the Taft-Hartley act of 1948
> stated that while American workers have the right to form unions, the
> unions cannot control the workplace but only negotiate pay and
> benefits.

It is similar in Europe although no act is needed... BTW, Nygaards work
for the (Norwegian) trade unions was *not* oriented towards control of the
workplace, moreover, it was from 1971 to 1973 long after Simula had been
developed. But I think you have no idea how European trade unions work.
(Oh, BTW, I am also a member of a trade union...)

> > > where Simula was a Fortran-based
> >
> > Algol-60-based
>
> OK, Fortran and Algol based.

There is no trace of Fortran to be found in Simula.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

Dik T. Winter

spinoza1111 wrote:

>>> where Simula was a Fortran-based
>>
>> Algol-60-based
>
> OK, Fortran and Algol based.

There is not an iota of Fortran influence in Simula. It is totally based on
Algol 60, you blathering nitwit.

osmium

On Nov 17, 9:15*am, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote:
> In article <934919a0-6bcf-4c6d-831b-83cd29d68...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>spinoza11 11<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
> *> On Nov 13, 5:10=A0pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>*> wrote:
>
> ...
> *> > > [spinoza related] object oriented code to labor unionization [....]
> *> >
> *> > that *was* interesting (assuming you didn't make it up)
> *>
> *> It's documented, but not, typically, in computer technical books
> *> because most authors on tech matters within American culture are
> *> silent on labor unionization or worker control as opposed to
> *> management prerogative.
>
> I do not think Nick comes frm the American culture, and I do *not come from
> it either. *But the story is in the Wikipedia page on Kristen Nygaard from
> Norway, where Simula was invented. *Note also that Ole-Johan Dahl has *not*
> worked for the Norwegian trade unions, so the link between Simula and the
> trade unions is very weak.

Didn't say he did. However, according to John Markoff (technology
historian) Simula was developed because the trade unions of Denmark
had by law input into technical decisions, and a right to learn how
factory automation was being implemented.
>
> *> * * * * * * * * * * * * This was because the Taft-Hartley act of 1948
> *> stated that while American workers have the right to form unions, the
> *> unions cannot control the workplace but only negotiate pay and
> *> benefits.
>
> It is similar in Europe although no act is needed... *

In your dreams. The Taft-Hartley act is not law in Europe because it
would deprive European unions of power over work rules. The only
countries in which anything like it exists are marginal countries
returning to Fascism or clerical authoritarianism after Communism such
as Poland and Estonia, which were fooled into abandoning worker
protection by the "free market".

>BTW, Nygaards work
> for the (Norwegian) trade unions was *not* oriented towards control of the
> workplace, moreover, it was from 1971 to 1973 long after Simula had been
> developed. *But I think you have no idea how European trade unions work..
> (Oh, BTW, I am also a member of a trade union...)

And as usual you'll get screwed because you don't even know your own
history and law.

>
> *> > > where Simula was a Fortran-based
> *> >
> *> > Algol-60-based
> *>
> *> OK, Fortran and Algol based.
>
> There is no trace of Fortran to be found in Simula.

I was accepting a point made by another. This is because I first read
about Simula in 1970, in Saul Rosen's collection of papers on
programming languages, and it was designed, as were many other
languages of the time, in reaction to Fortran and in its footsteps.
Unfortunately, Fortran set the model because it was first implemented
and subsequent language designers had to react to its numerous
mistakes. Even Dijkstra says nice things about Fortran's being a
pioneering effort.


> --
> dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
> home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn *amsterdam, nederland;http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

spinoza1111

On Nov 18, 11:56*am, "osmium" <r124c4u...@comcast.net> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote:
> >>> where Simula was a Fortran-based
>
> >> Algol-60-based
>
> > OK, Fortran and Algol based.
>
> There is not an iota of Fortran influence in Simula. *It is totally based on
> Algol 60, you blathering nitwit.

**** you, asshole. I was tentatively accepting out of courtesy a point
made by another since I first read about Simula in Saul Rosen's 1968
collection of papers on programming languages, and all of the
implementors were reacting to or imitating Fortran.

spinoza1111