Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better?

Reply
Thread Tools

Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better?

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
"Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Really the answer depends on your librsries. C without a library
>>> isn't much higher-level than assembly language. It's portable, it has
>>> support for floating point, structuers, strings, and pointer
>>> management, and it does your subroutine bookkeeping for you. But
>>> that's only a thin layer on top of assembler.

>> [...]
>>
>> I don't consider it a thin layer. The big difference is that assembly
>> language programs specify CPU instructions, while C programs specify
>> behavior.

>
> That is a lame post.


Try being less rude.

> "behavior"? Assembly instructions do not cause
> behavior?


Yes, assembly instructions cause behavior. More precisely, assembly
instructions specify machine code instructions, which cause behavior.

> What was wrong with my definition that had in it that C abstracts
> the CPU instructions?


What definition is that? What term were you defining?

C does so only in the same sense that all programming languages above
the level of assembly do so.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ansel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Really the answer depends on your librsries. C without a library
>>>> isn't much higher-level than assembly language. It's portable, it
>>>> has support for floating point, structuers, strings, and pointer
>>>> management, and it does your subroutine bookkeeping for you. But
>>>> that's only a thin layer on top of assembler.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I don't consider it a thin layer. The big difference is that
>>> assembly language programs specify CPU instructions, while C
>>> programs specify behavior.

>>
>> That is a lame post.

>
> Try being less rude.


And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.

>
>> "behavior"? Assembly instructions do not cause
>> behavior?

>
> Yes, assembly instructions cause behavior. More precisely,


And you are "keen" on being "more precise". Because you think that is a
winning thing. "checkmate", right?

> assembly
> instructions specify machine code instructions, which cause behavior.


You did not have to spout out loud your reflection.

>
>> What was wrong with my definition that had in it that C
>> abstracts the CPU instructions?

>
> What definition is that? What term were you defining?


What is not obvious to you? I don't want to interact with you more than I
have to. I said: "C abstracts the 'CPU level'". Don't dare try to take me
back to the 1960's, cuz I may get mad.

>
> C does so only in the same sense that all programming languages above
> the level of assembly do so.


"hello". Didn't I say that the dividing line between "high" and "low" level
was exactly that?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
"Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

[...]
>>> That is a lame post.

>>
>> Try being less rude.

>
> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.


Try harder.

[snip]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ansel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> [...]
>>>> That is a lame post.
>>>
>>> Try being less rude.

>>
>> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.

>
> Try harder.
>
> [snip]


I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture too.
Been for a long time.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
....
>>>CPU is layer. C don't programs a instructions, difference that The
>>>programs consider specify thin while I language assembly big behavior.
>>>specify it

>>
>> That is a lame post.


Every Kiki post is lame. That's what makes them so much fun to read.

Every time I point this out, in one form or another, you can hear a giant
balloon being popped. Whoosh!!!

--
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
"Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> [...]
>>>>> That is a lame post.
>>>>
>>>> Try being less rude.
>>>
>>> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.

>>
>> Try harder.
>>
>> [snip]

>
> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture too.
> Been for a long time.


I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care.

*plonk*

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Keith "Kiki" Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
....
>> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture too.
>> Been for a long time.

>
>I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care.


You do know.

And, you cared enough to post this.

>*plonk*


And enough to do that stupidest of all Usenet moves: announcing a plonk.

You are soooooo predictable, Kiki.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ansel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> "Ansel" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> That is a lame post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try being less rude.
>>>>
>>>> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.
>>>
>>> Try harder.
>>>
>>> [snip]

>>
>> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture
>> too. Been for a long time.

>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care.
>
> *plonk*


"Anonymous Coward".


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ansel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Keith "Kiki" Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> ...
>>> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the
>>> picture too. Been for a long time.

>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care.

>
> You do know.
>


Yes he does.

> And, you cared enough to post this.
>
>> *plonk*

>


He did do that. He likes "poker" when the odds are stacked in his favor.
Else he folds. Game on.

> And enough to do that stupidest of all Usenet moves: announcing a
> plonk.
>
> You are soooooo predictable, Kiki.


And I do hate boring. But apparently I don't get out enough, for y'all
wankers wanna "go throw the football around" or some such lame ass wanker
thing. "Enginerds" for sure.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ansel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> ...
>>>> CPU is layer. C don't programs a instructions, difference that The
>>>> programs consider specify thin while I language assembly big
>>>> behavior. specify it
>>>
>>> That is a lame post.

>
> Every Kiki post is lame. That's what makes them so much fun to read.
>


As if you were in some other category than he.


 
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
(int) -> (unsigned) -> (int) or (unsigned) -> (int) -> (unsigned):I'll loose something? pozz C Programming 12 03-20-2011 11:32 PM
Printing the range s of unsigned char and unsigned int. Junmin H. C Programming 20 09-20-2007 06:03 AM
conversion of signed integer to unsigned integer junky_fellow@yahoo.co.in C Programming 14 06-18-2005 02:29 PM
I would like to see what ports have been active on my Catalyst 6500 Shaun Cisco 2 07-12-2004 04:20 PM
A 1D Mark-II would have been useful here Andrew Digital Photography 7 02-04-2004 04:52 AM



Advertisments