Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > How important is architecture to C developers?

Reply
Thread Tools

How important is architecture to C developers?

 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Oct 3, 10:44*pm, Ben Bacarisse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> nroberts <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > On Oct 3, 1:10*pm, Ben Bacarisse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> I don't follow what you are getting at here. *If you can't rely on the
> >> data having nulls in the right places, both a static and a dynamic
> >> allocation scheme are going run into trouble (except for deliberately
> >> contrived examples). *If the data is properly terminated, then both
> >> methods will be equally safe.

>
> > The difference is that the dynamic scheme would respond to an
> > extremely long string by allocating space to be able to hold it while
> > the static version is going to check against maximum bound and reject
> > it.

>
> Not, I thought, the dynamic scheme that was proposed. *I though that was
> explicitly covered and it was imposing such a limit that made you
> conclude the two schemes were very similar in the first place. *It
> seemed like you were making a new argument for why the dynamic scheme
> was not workable.


yes he can't have it both ways. C provides primitives to allow you to
implement dynamically expanding memory (see malloc, realloc). C++
provides you with ready made classes (string, vector) to do the same
thing.

I think there is a difference in approach between C and C++
developers. Perhaps the very explicitness of C code makes programmers
more likely to choose static rather than dynamic solutions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/ 5/11 07:26 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 3:23 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> Why one Earth don't people just say colleagues? Can't they spell it?
>>

>
> col... coll... cologne.
> nope, apparently not...
>
> actually, partly it may be that the term "colleagues" is more commonly
> associated with things like academic positions (college professors, ...)
> and research-scientists.
>
> the term "co-workers" (or team-members, teammates, ...) then is more
> typically used for reference to ordinary professions.


Not in my parts of the world. I've only heard the dreaded "co-workers"
creeping in in recent years.

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Oct 5, 7:26*am, BGB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 3:23 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On 10/ 4/11 12:00 PM, Bill Reid wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 12:40 am, Nick Keighley<(E-Mail Removed)>



> >>> and no suggestions for improvement are acceptable? Can we jangle our
> >>> chains?

>
> >> Of course you can make suggestions for "improvement", but depending
> >> on the situation you might be doing so at your own risk...it's always
> >> best to wait to be ASKED for suggestions and even then you should
> >> tread carefully and always be polite, fact-based, respectful, and
> >> SINCERE...

>
> > I sincerely hope none of my staff ever felt that way. They certainly
> > never appeared to!

>
> a lot of this sounds like people dealing with some sort of xNTJ types...


National Tax Journal? Not Terribly Jolly? Non-Terrestrial
Juristiction?

I'm guessing he works with psychopaths

<snip>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Oct 5, 8:20*am, Ian Collins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 10/ 5/11 07:26 PM, BGB wrote:
>
> > On 10/4/2011 3:23 PM, Ian Collins wrote:

>
> >> Why one Earth don't people just say colleagues? Can't they spell it?

>
> > col... coll... cologne.
> > nope, apparently not...

>
> > actually, partly it may be that the term "colleagues" is more commonly
> > associated with things like academic positions (college professors, ...)
> > and research-scientists.

>
> > the term "co-workers" (or team-members, teammates, ...) then is more
> > typically used for reference to ordinary professions.

>
> Not in my parts of the world. *I've only heard the dreaded "co-workers"
> creeping in in recent years.


cow-orkers in Dilbert
 
Reply With Quote
 
BGB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/5/2011 12:20 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/ 5/11 07:26 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 3:23 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> Why one Earth don't people just say colleagues? Can't they spell it?
>>>

>>
>> col... coll... cologne.
>> nope, apparently not...
>>
>> actually, partly it may be that the term "colleagues" is more commonly
>> associated with things like academic positions (college professors, ...)
>> and research-scientists.
>>
>> the term "co-workers" (or team-members, teammates, ...) then is more
>> typically used for reference to ordinary professions.

>
> Not in my parts of the world. I've only heard the dreaded "co-workers"
> creeping in in recent years.
>


dunno, I have generally always heard co-workers.

for the most part, I have been living in the western part of the US
(such as Nevada and Arizona), except for some time living on Guam.

but, IME, it has been as-stated:
"colleagues" is usually for academics and scientists;
"co-workers" is for most everyone else.

typically, academics and industry are regarded as separate and
unrelated, only really so much related as many jobs expect people to
have college degrees and similar...


or such...
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/05/2011 03:57 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:26�am, BGB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

....
>> a lot of this sounds like people dealing with some sort of xNTJ types...

>
> National Tax Journal? Not Terribly Jolly? Non-Terrestrial
> Juristiction?


He's referring to Myers Briggs personality type classifications.
<http://www.myersbriggs.org/>

--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Reid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Oct 4, 3:14*pm, Stephen Sprunk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 03-Oct-11 18:00, Bill Reid wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 12:40 am, Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 7:09 am, Bill Reid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, nroberts <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 2, 5:48 pm, Bill Reid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> For many if not most jobs, what you describe about yourself is
> >>>>> the classic description of a bad employee. *You are given a job to
> >>>>> do, and a set of existing tools and policies and procedures to
> >>>>> complete the job,

>
> >> and no suggestions for improvement are acceptable? Can we jangle our
> >> chains?

>
> > Of course you can make suggestions for "improvement", but depending
> > on the situation you might be doing so at your own risk...it's always
> > best to wait to be ASKED for suggestions

>
> Why? *Everyone I work with is always open to hearing suggestions; if the
> suggestions are rejected, it is usually because I didn't understand the
> full context of what they were doing.
>

Heh. In my experience, the majority (I'm struggling mightily not
to say all) of "suggestions" are completely self-serving...

One time, this company I was working for was not doing well,
because of a failure of management (which is always the case),
and just to make the point crystal-clear the CEO rented out
a movie theater one morning and had everybody in the company
above the rank of janitor (they actually should have included
the janitors) meet there to make "suggestions" on how to
get the company profitable and growing again.

So after this idiot blathers on for a while about how the
people in the room had this tremendous collective experience
and wisdom that would allow them to set critical business
goals for the company, he opened the floor for "suggestions".
So one of our fine engineering managers stands up and says:

"I don't think the coffee in the break rooms is very good.
I know the engineers in my group would be more productive
if they had premium brand-name coffee, like Peet's or
something."

There was a murmur in the theater as 200 engineers
nodded in agreement, while the moron CEO actually wrote
down the "suggestion", instead of doing what he should
have done, which is pulling out a gun and shooting her.

But he should have known better. A few months earlier
he kind of tried the same thing in a smaller setting with
a few key managers in the company. After asking the
group what they thought were the problems facing the
company, another fine engineering manager said:

"The problem is that this company is becoming seen
as a 'sweat-shop' by the engineering community. I
mean all we do is write drivers for all these networking
cards and we don't get to perform any high-level
system architecture, so we're bored and frustrated."

Aside from the obvious, there were a couple more
things wrong with that: 1) that's what the software
engineering requirements were in that company in
that market and 2) they were the most ridiculously
incompetent driver writers imaginable, in one case
it took a parade of software "engineers" FIVE
FRICKIN' YEARS to NOT write an Ethernet driver,
they finally had to bring in an actual programmer
(a friend of mine) to finally do it in five weeks.

So anyway, a couple weeks later we got the
good coffee in the break rooms, and I have to
say it was quite tasty and very eyeball-bulging
good. Now he had said that he would read a special
email address for further suggestions, so I
wrote about a five page proposal for somewhat
modifying our products and marketing strategy
to exploit what I saw as an emerging multi-$billion
market.

Got an almost immediate reply from him: "That's
not the product direction that we have in place
so we won't be going in that direction."

BRILLIANT!!! Needless to say, with leadership
like that, the company went bust, and many many
$billions were made by other companies exploiting
the market I suggested...but at least I got some
good free coffee there before I moved on to my
next idiotic company...

> > and even then you should tread carefully and always be polite, fact-
> > based, respectful, and SINCERE...

>
> I strive to always be polite, fact-based, respectful and sincere. *That
> you think this means one has to "tread carefully" gives us insight into
> your true personality and character.
>

The fact that you can't read simple English gives us insight into
your job skills...

> > Note carefully the OP at one point just decided to start
> > working on his "improvements" without authorization,

>
> That depends on what his assigned tasks were.
>

The fact that you couldn't comprehend what his assigned tasks
were even though he specifically stated them in the original
post gives us insight into your job skills...and like your
other failures to read simple English gives us insight into
what you would LIKE life to be, much like a Rorsharch (sp?)
test...

> >> If I think my boss or team mate is wrong I'll tell him so.

>
> > I've learned the hard way to wait until asked.

>
> I've learned the hard way that, if I feel the need to wait until asked,
> I should start looking for another job.
>

Ever complain about the coffee at work or being in
a 'sweat-shop'? Tell the truth...

> > So again, you may disagree, but I think that great
> > genius Homer Simpson hit the nail on the head when
> > he developed his first rule of getting along at work:
> > "No matter what the boss says, just say 'GREAT idea,
> > boss!'"

>
> You take career advice from a cartoon?
>

It's funny cuz it's true...

> Considering Homer's boss and Homer's gross incompetence at just about
> everything he attempts, that would probably be the best course of action
> _for him_. *Hopefully, though, your situation is quite different and
> therefore a different course of action would be best.
>

You know, realistically, we all have a little "Homer Simpson"
in all of us, and if you think otherwise, you may lack a critical
personality component to effectively work with others...

> > ... the biggest rule breakers turn out to be the biggest (and
> > craziest!) rule makers when they get the chance...

>
> Someone who believes they always know better than everyone else will, if
> a subordinate, feel no need to follow an "inferior" manager's rules and,
> if a manger, feel no need to listen to their "inferior" subordinates.
>
> I have no desire to work for such a person nor have such a person
> working for me.
>

EXACTLY! That's all I've ever said here...so why all the hate?
Why did the OP, who clearly thinks he knows better than everyone
else at his job, tell me he has diagnosed me (as a "layman",
BWHAHAHAHA!!!) with a serious unspecified mental illness?

---
William Ernest Reid
 
Reply With Quote
 
BGB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/5/2011 3:31 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 03:57 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 7:26�am, BGB<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ...
>>> a lot of this sounds like people dealing with some sort of xNTJ types...

>>
>> National Tax Journal? Not Terribly Jolly? Non-Terrestrial
>> Juristiction?

>
> He's referring to Myers Briggs personality type classifications.
> <http://www.myersbriggs.org/>
>


yep...


now, very coarse stereotypes (lumping I/E together, as often behavior is
similar between them, mostly differing in degree):

xNTJ:
often authority crazed (and don't like "back-talk"), often jerks, may
break rules/laws which hinder their personal gain. all this more so with
ENTJ (who may be all "up in your face" about it), an INTJ being more
likely to read lots of fiction and then look down on whoever has
different views/beliefs (such as the "arrogant atheist" stereotype, ...).

xSTJ: rule-crazed (everything "by the book"). can also be jerks, but
only so much as the rules/laws/... allow, ... they will look down on
those who don't accept/follow the same rules as themselves.

xNTP:
often more theoretically minded, tending towards intellectual activities
(such as doing math). more likely to disregard rules (often seeing them
as relative). may often tend to disregard "reality", and may take humor
in trolling people or acting like a clown. may often speculate more
about doing work than actually doing so (twiddling away lots of time
trying to figure out "the best way to go about doing the project" but
never getting around to it).

xSTP:
generally more "oh f*** it, lets try to get some work done" (but may
also procrastinate, usually more like "well I could do it, but it looks
like effort..."). so the project will often get done, all at once, at
the last minute. will tend not to care so much about rules or theory,
just so long as stuff can be made to work ("I have no idea why or how
this pile of crap works, but good enough..."). OTOH, they may get really
into debugging or performance-tuning things.


and, for the feeler types (for completeness):
xNFJ: may be really big about making everything look nice/elegant/...
and get caught up about things being "proper" and "dignified", ...

xSFJ: lots of traditions, and people being expected to follow them, "you
can't have Christmas without the tree", and may get really stubborn over
all this.

xNFP: trying to analyze/understand/... peoples' feelings, and acting
like clowns. concerned with everyone having a good time, but may annoy
people with their clownishness and-or emotional prodding.

xSFP: mostly about being expressive and artsy. don't care about rules or
much else, and may act mostly on whim and impulse, and wherever the
aesthetics lead, but still worry about peoples' feelings or perceptions
of them...


or such...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Sprunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 04-Oct-11 17:49, Bill Reid wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:35 pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>> I also suspect that if you are asked by the boss to do things like
>> falsify company records, even if in a way that isn't illegal, but
>> violates company policy, you'd be better off refusing if you can
>> get people above your boss to believe you.

>
> Nah, I've been asked to illegally falsify company records,
> completely illegally, several times, and those orders came
> from right on top (or at least so I believe, I know they came
> from the "director" level for a fact, and I'm sure the VPs
> were well aware of it). Generally, this was unlawful or
> illegal time card fraud.


I friend of mine was once fired for falsifying timecards as ordered by
his manager. It was the best thing that ever happened to him; he now
works for a great company with ethical managers doing what he loves
_and_ making significantly better money. If he had known how much
better it could be, he would have resigned years earlier.

> Sooooo...dunno why we have such differing
> work experiences, but there it is...


I suspect it is because you tolerate working for such people.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2011
Le 05/10/11 09:14, Nick Keighley a crit :
>
> yes he can't have it both ways. C provides primitives to allow you to
> implement dynamically expanding memory (see malloc, realloc). C++
> provides you with ready made classes (string, vector) to do the same
> thing.
>


C provides the same functionality with the C containers library.
http://code.google.com/p/ccl/

> I think there is a difference in approach between C and C++
> developers. Perhaps the very explicitness of C code makes programmers
> more likely to choose static rather than dynamic solutions.


The problem is that existing utilities and solutions are rejected by a
vocal minority of people like many in this group (kiki et al) that want
to keep the language at the development level of 1989.

Then, they say that C doesn't provide primitives fcor doing that even if
it is patently false.

 
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
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
collocated architecture versus distributed architecture apngss@yahoo.com C Programming 3 09-29-2005 07:44 AM
collocated architecture versus distributed architecture apngss@yahoo.com Java 3 09-29-2005 07:44 AM
ON Linux Platform: How can we build binaries for another architecture from 0x86 architecture rashmi C Programming 2 07-05-2005 02:31 PM
how can I use a signal defined in one Architecture to another Architecture Muhammad Khan VHDL 4 07-10-2003 06:14 PM



Advertisments