«

On 2011-11-19, blmblm myrealbox.com <> wrote:
> I'd say not so much troll as, um, "person with unusual opinions, fond
> of airing them" (to be diplomatic), but -- whatever.

He's either intentionally trolling or seriously illucid. He seems to be
deeply convinced that it's vital to use single-character names for efficiency
whenever possible, for instance.

He's been writing stupendously bad code in C for as long as anyone can
remember, and he seems to be functionally ineducable. He might be a troll,
he might not be, but in any event it doesn't seem possible to communicate
productively with him at this time.

-s
--
Copyright 2011, 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!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

Seebs wrote:

> He's been writing stupendously bad code in C for as long as anyone can
> remember, and he seems to be functionally ineducable.

That's a fricken oxymoron: I've yet to see a C programmer write any good
code! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!

Keith Thompson wrote:

Aside. This is your (decidedly old world banner): Keith Thompson
(The_Other_Keith)

Who the **** is that? Read, you post **** like that, it better be
underlined. (For you, that means "hyperlink", look it up).

I have better things to do than you making mad as hell. Bitch.

On Nov 18, 9:40*am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-...
> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:4ec53d42$0$1387$ ...
> > > "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> > > messaggio
> > >news:...
> > >> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> > >> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:

> > >>> in the while the train go always more far from home

<snip train gibberish>

> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> sort of metaphor?
[...]
> #it is not one metatphor

so explain what you mean or shut up about the train


> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>
> > > lets call one programming language X
> > > i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> > > is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> > > without U.B.
>
> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability but a
> slow compiler.
>
> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
> #if they are complex or easy

no.

> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>
> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
> #call32[stack],

is that C

> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32,
> ret_XXbits
> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
> #i think with that all could be easy
> #where 32 means 32 bit

that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote?

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$. ..
>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?
> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor
>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me
> to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?

You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear the
train? Really? Don't **** with me.


Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump
that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.

Nick Keighley wrote:
"Who will stop the rain"?

"Jo" <> writes:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
> >> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-...
> >> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$. ..
> >>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> >>>> messaggio
> >>>> news:...
> >>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> >>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
> >
> > <snip train gibberish>
> >
> >> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> >> sort of metaphor?
> > [...]
> >> #it is not one metatphor
> >
> > so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me
> > to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?

The post I received at my server ended at "train".

Do not misquote people.

> You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear the
> train? Really? Don't **** with me.
>
>
> Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump
> that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.

Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more.
You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.

Phil
--
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
-- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator

Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Jo" <> writes:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-...
>>>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$. ..
>>>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto
>>>>>> nel messaggio
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>>>
>>> <snip train gibberish>
>>>
>>>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>>>> sort of metaphor?
>>> [...]
>>>> #it is not one metatphor
>>>
>>> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want
>>> me to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?
>
> The post I received at my server ended at "train".
>
> Do not misquote people.

I don't quote anyone. Who do think is so important and that I blasphemed?

>
>> You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear
>> the train? Really? Don't **** with me.
>>
>>
>> Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can
>> trump that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not
>> you.
>
> Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more.
> You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.
>

Amd this fixiation of yours of the train, I am supposed to take that how?
Why dont you ask your dad about that instead of wasting my time.

On Nov 21, 7:24*am, "Jo" <n...@none.none> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> Aside. This is your (decidedly old world banner): Keith Thompson
> (The_Other_Keith)
>
> Who the <expletive> is that?

plonk

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$. ..
>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?
> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor
>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the trai
>
>

You mean about how you suck so bad. It was never for you, idiot.


I was here 2 years ago. I put away the guitar, not that I was good at it.
I said, ("said") I will put music on hold.


I suck at playing guitar, but ain't you still here asking me about a
train.


yeah, the train and me, it's none of your ****ing business.

Don't you even dare engage me, because I have nothing better to do then
to get you out of my face.

>> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>>
>>>> lets call one programming language X
>>>> i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
>>>> is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
>>>> without U.B.
>>
>> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
>> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
>> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability
>> but a
>> slow compiler.
>>
>> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
>> #if they are complex or easy
>
> no.
>
>> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
>> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
>> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
>> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>>
>> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat
>> u32[operators]=u32, #call32[stack],
>
> is that C
>
>> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32,
>> pop32,
>> ret_XXbits
>> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
>> #i think with that all could be easy
>> #where 32 means 32 bit
>
> that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote?