HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spc@pineal.sci.fau.edu (Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, but who cares?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:33:28 GMT

In article <id.FN9S.OC8@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.181200.23497@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>> You bring up an issue of portability.  With regard to C compilers in 
>> particular, there seems to be some problems with portability because some
>> popular compilers are insidiously incompatible with each other.
>
>It's a matter of perspective. When I say I'm having "serious problems", it
>means I've got to #ifdef out a bunch of code. And it usually means the code
>was poor to begin with. If it was in assembly, I'd have to rewrite from
>scratch.
>
>> If enough C programmers start actually doing some of what you are suggesting,
>> they are coming awfully close to spending more effort than to just have a
>> competent assembly language programmer do it correctly in the first place.
>
>Maybe so.
>
>But they only have to do it once.

  But what about the code you #ifdef out, don't you have to re-write that part?
Also, I have C code to view ILBM image files (on the Amiga).  I would like to port
the code to my Unix workstation.  But the code is SO Amiga specific, the entire
thing would be #ifdef out!  (Or should have the original programmers assumed that
at some time the code WOULD be ported and written it thusly?  Does that mean I 
have to assume that at some point, my code is to be ported to either a) DOS (640K
upper limit for everything) or b) some Wiz-bang multi-parallel 500GHz Transputer
using photons instead of electrons, that will be built in 10 years, but only code
written with a certain style can be compiled on it?  What is safe to assume?)

  -spc (Unix philosophy:
		1. Write cryptic and highly customizable code.
		2. Never write original code.  Find some that's close, and force it.
		3. Never write C.  That's what Awk and Perl and Bourne Shell are for.
		4. Never write Assembly.  That's what C is for.
		5. Never remove code.  #ifdef it out.
		6. Write sloppy code.  The compiler will optimize for you.
		7. Never worry about memory.  It's virtual anyway.
		8. If it's not running Unix, it's not a real computer.
       (Personally, I can't stand the Unix philosophy 8-) 8-)

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favori
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.183629.6213@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:

}My point is that after a reasonable effort to understand an architecture, the
}typical *good* assembly programmer knows how to write the best possible code
}for a majority of common program details.  Overall algorithms might yield to
}better ones, but I am referring to essentially the best hand method to code
}a particular well-focused procedure.  Such code becomes essentially "second
}nature" to a good assembly programmer, and thus the code is "correct" the
}first time.  At least in the sense that the majority of it isn't a candidate
}for rewriting for any reason related to technique per se.

And, once you've figured out these "best" methods for basic procedures,
you program them into a compiler so even ignorant hll programmers can
use them.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12736 comp.unix.misc:3277
From: bygg@sunet.se (Johnny Eriksson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:43:53 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <bqt.714224577@Minsk> bqt@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Johnny Billquist) writes:

! Nope, you don't need to know how a microwave oven works to heat
! a chees burger. To call this cheesburger perfect is a lie every
! day though. To get a perfect cheesburger, get yourself a cow,
! a knife, a fryingpan or an open fire. Cut and chop the meat from
! the really good parts of the cow, and cook it.
! Don't heat it in a microwave, that produces something edible, not
! something perfect.
! Then there is the question of cheese as well...

You should be able to get that from the same cow.

(Seems like we just switched from assembly to disassembly... :-)

! Johnny Billquist

--Johnny Eriksson
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Smoking near a computer
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:27:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.212711.11122@cs.mun.ca> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:
}I've always been told not to smoke near computers, or even in a
}computer room itself.  (And I never have) 
}
}My question, though, is: Why not?  What damage can a cigarette cause to
}a computer system (other than ashes in between the keys ;-)

It's amazing how much gunk can build up on surfaces in a smoking
environment -- in relatively short time, too.  It gets on pc boards.  It
gets on floppy disks.  In the days of removable disk packs it got on them.
It gets into all kinds of unsealed mechanisms.  It builds up on terminal
screens.  Etc., etc., etc. ...

_At best_ it will do none of these systems any good.  It will quickly
damage/destroy exposed disk or tape surfaces and read/write heads.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:44:14 GMT
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <NEERI.92Aug18182231@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.052636.23004@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>In article <id.6WFS.0NK@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>I'm not distancing myself from the horde, I'm part of it. The horde isn't as
>>>ignorant as you'd like to make out.
>>
>>I think others may have differing opinions about the statistics behind that.
>>I offered an open challenge for someone to quantify how many bugs they might
>>attribute to various language-based implementations of any code released by
>>any author on any basis, to rate the use of the various languages as that
>>pertains to reliability of product.  I don't see anyone challenging my
>>opinion that C would come in dead last.
>
>That's because it was so obviously just a polemical remark with no factual base
>that nobody saw a need to challenge it. But if you insist: I *do* challenge
>that opinion.
>
>The problem I saw with your challenge was that you failed to come up with a
>measure that would establish the quality of a language and its programmers
>without being polluted by the bunch of crappy programs that comes with the
>*popularity* of a language. What I mean with this is that more bad programs
>tend to be written in popular, easily accessible languages like C, BASIC, and
>HyperCard than in languages like Portal, Standard ML, or Ada, which are not
>likely to be accessible to amateur programers.

No, you have just joined me in proving it.  I *don't* exclude the cases you
brought up.  Part of my point is that the crappy programs exist!  This also
supports my automotive analogy.  (Manual transmission drivers are better
drivers because they are demonstrating their superior coordination skills,
etc, while a/t "muscle car" drivers are merely proving they have a heavy
right foot.)

>
>>I would think that writing buggy
>>code in C qualifies at least in part as not knowing what goes on under
>>the hood so to speak.
>
>In my experience with correcting other peoples' bugs, I found that most of the
>bugs came from not looking at the road so to speak :-)

I agree; That's why I said "in part".

>
>>Presumably all of these "experts" you claim exist
>>(aren't they "experts" since they aren't as ignorant as I make out?) had
>>full access to all of the associated wonderful development tools to 
>>eliminate all known problems, etc., so if so, then why the failing grade?
>
>Who gave the failing grade ?

You did, above.

cjl
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: 9600 baud ignorance??
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:25:46 GMT

anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>I've been waiting for someone to use this excuse :-).  The bps rate
>from the computer to the modem [...]
>certainly could be 9600bps, except that all the 9600 bps
>modems I know of [...] also have some sort of
>error correction/data compression protocol.  These protocols
>(especially data compression) need a higher DTE speed in order to get
>maximum performance.  People are already saying that 38.4Kbps is too
>slow when you have a 14.4Kbps v.32bis link and have up to 4:1 data
>compreession with v.42bis.

Actually 38.4Kbps is almost always adequate for v.32bis+v.42bis.  In
Real Life I seldom see throughput get much above 25Kbps (approximately
2:1 compression).  I'd be very surprised to find people who're seeing
congestion problems at 38.4Kbps DTE, particularly since the peak
modem throughput I've seen from mine is 33Kbps (and is plenty good
enough for me :-).

Theoretically you can saturate the DTE connection, but in practice
it's not a problem.

>Also, some slower modems allow dissimilar DTE/modem speeds.  My 2400bps
>modem allows me to have a 9600bps DTE regardless of what protocol (if
>any) I select.  This is nice as it gives me maximum throughput when I
>connect to an MNP5 modem ( up to 4800bps on a great day), and, if I
>connect to a 1200 bps modem, I don't have to switch my software down.

MNP5 has compression.  The only slow modems I've seen that allow
dissimilar DTE/modem speeds are those that support compression
protocols, and *all* of them that support compression allow dissimilar
speeds (elsewise the compression wouldn't be too useful :-).

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12620 alt.3d:868
From: george@epsilon.ee.ufl.edu (George L)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.3d
Subject: Re: 'Movement' on light and dark screen background.
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:03:29 GMT
Organization: EE Dept at UF

In article <1992Aug14.201730.8489@ccu.umanitoba.ca> grnbrg@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Brian Greenberg) writes:
>In <BswnIE.Dpt@world.std.com> bmarcum@world.std.com (Bill Marcum) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug10.163058.27199@iitmax.iit.edu> thssstb@iitmax.iit.edu (Stephen T Bacon) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug9.223743.7381@picarefy.picarefy.com> jwbirdsa@picarefy.picarefy.com (James W. Birdsall) writes:
>>>
>
>This theory was used in a Pepsi (?) commercial during the superbowl a few 
>years ago to produce a 3d effect;  the glasses you had to wear had one lens
>clear, and the other tinted (Not red and blue style). Objects moving from
>left to right on the screen looked 'closer' than objects moving from right
>to left (Or the other way 'round.  Not sure).
>
>Any alt.3d people want to elaborate?
>
Actually, it was a Coca-Cola commercial. I have a pair of the glasses here as 
I post. I had dug them out a while back to try to view some stereo pairs, but 
was dismayed to discover they were for an incompatible system (not red and 
blue/green).

This particular pair states "Use for viewing Nuoptix (R) 3-D presentations 
only." The right filter is a magenta cast of ~50% gray and the left filter 
has only a slight yellowish/green tint (although this could just be due to 
aging effects).

I remember the presentation as being distinctly "planar." That is to say, 
the depths of the objects on the screen appeared to exist at distances 
quantized to distinct planar regions, parallel to the screen. This might be 
due to a limitation of this system, the objects may have been created this 
way, or maybe my recollection is incorrect (it has been a few years and I 
hadn't really given it much thought since then).

So, anybody able to comment on the status of Nuoptix, and are they the same 
company that was pushing 3-D television movies back around ~1980? One I 
remember was about a gorilla that escaped from a circus. Only parts of the 
movie were in 3-D. I don't seem to remember any overtly disturbing artifacts 
when you didn't use the glasses during the 3-D segments, but I seem to 
remember the depth cues as being fairly subtle with the glasses (i.e. not 
overly impressive).

I would be interested in hearing from those of you who know the histories, 
technical details, limitations, and other sordid details of 3-D viewing 
strategies (e.g. colored filter, polarized, varifocal/rotating mirror, 
television compatible, novel, etc...). I may be reached at:
       george@alpha.ee.ufl.edu
A couple of requests:

1) Please, no "me too's" for information. I will post a summary when I have 
   compiled something worthwhile.
2) No random dot stereogram material please. That has already been covered 
   in depth, and enough material already exists for a decent FAQ.
3) Please respond via email as our newsfeed is unreliable.

Thank you
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jsr@dexter.mi.org (Jay S. Rouman)
Subject: Re: Deutsches Museum (was: Zuse Computers
Organization: Private System, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:04:30 GMT

In article <176caeINNahl@early-bird.think.com>, sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug21.072019.14385@grmbl.saar.de>, me@grmbl.saar.de (Martin Emmerich) writes:
|> |> In <4058@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >In article <1992Aug16.200705.58190@cc.usu.edu>, ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!) writes:
|> |> >> It was kind of funny seeing people try to take flash pictures of the
|> |> >> planetarium screen...
|> |> >Will those tourists _EVER_ learn?
|> |> 
|> |> I once visited the Peter's Church in Rome, the biggest church in
|> |> Christianity. You can see the tourists standing there, trying to
|> |> lighten the really huge dome with the flash of their pocket cameras.
|> 
|> Aw, come on. I can beat that easily. I've seen people take flash pictures
|> of the sunset.

This sure doesn't have much to do with computers, but I can't help mentioning
my favorite--watching people on the observation deck of the CN Tower taking
flash pictures of metro Toronto at night.  Those little flash tubes really
light up the city!
-- 
Jay S. Rouman  (jsr@dexter.mi.org)
From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Your co-worker may be an alien
Date: 15 Aug 92 13:44:19 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <PZS.92Aug14072447@ficus.webo.dg.com>, pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com (Peter Z. Simpson) writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:23:47 GMT, soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) said:
> 
> 
>> Sometime in the last decade one of the supermarket tabloids published a 
>> list of 10 ways you could spot aliens among your co-workers. The list was 
>> written so as to suggest that computer geek types were actually aliens.
>> I remember it was posted on the door of the CSC room at Waterloo, among 
>> other places. Anyone else remember this or better yet have a copy?
> 
>     This information *must* be posted! It's vitally important to the
> security of our country (and yours, too!) that we be able to identify
> space aliens wherever they may be.

Not to mention how important it is for the space aliens to know how it is
that we are detecting them so that they can subvert the system. :-)

Roger Ivie
ivie@cc.usu.edu
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:47:41 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Aug16.201123.58191@cc.usu.edu> ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!) writes:
}In article <1992Aug15.215427.5726@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>, rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky) writes:
}> 
}> a. Non-code can't have any bugs in it.
}
}I'll disagree with this one. When's the last time you had to fix a bug by
}_removing_ code. Obviously, most bugs are in the code that isn't there...

One of my major debugging chores included deleting over 1000 lines of dead
and/or useless code from a program, then reformatting it, just so I could
figure out what it was trying to do.  Getting it to actually do it was
something else again, but I did end up with fewer lines of code, net.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Smallest computer (Re: CASIO watch display question)
Date: 22 Aug 1992 19:52:57 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <IISAKKIL.92Aug18001619@vipunen.hut.fi> iisakkil@vipunen.hut.fi (Mika Iisakkila) writes:
>
>OK, time for another thread. What was the _smallest_ computer
>(embedded controllers included in definition) you have ever
>programmed? Anyone ever done a program for a watch?
>
  I once programmed a handheld bar-code reader. It was about twice as thick
as the handheld LCD TI calculaters, and had a "laser gun" scanner attached.
The place where I worked was considering using it to inventory all our PCs.
We ended up not using it because there were too many items without barcodes.
I think that it used a varient of basic.


-- 
Mike Swaim            | "What izzis wunnderful thing? S' Beautiful
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | I think I'll put my tongue on it." -Arthur
Rupp doesn't even know who I am,
 much less care what I think
From: thorinn@diku.dk (Lars Henrik Mathiesen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Indentation
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:50:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

Leaving aside the general desirability of indentation-controlled
scope, there is one thing about the Miranda case that I find
interesting.

What the off-side rule says is that the whole right-hand side (or
alternative) of a declaration has to be indented at least as much as
its first token. (A right-hand side may contain a nested list of
declarations.) Normally, people use this style:

  foo (Obnoxious_long_constructor_name x y) = f x, if x > 0
                                            = f 0, otherwise
                                              where f (Bad_as_well v w) = g v
                                                    g z = (z,y)
  foo a                                     = (a,a)

and then they complain about how the rule forces them to indent
excessively. Perhaps they do this because the manual (and text books
the use Miranda) show no examples of other styles, but they could save
themselves some grey hairs by reading the rule; it turns out that they
are allowed to start the right-hand side at any indentation they like!
So, for large functions I tend to use a style like

  foo (Obnoxious_long_constructor_name x y)
	  = f x, if x > 0
	  = f 0, otherwise
	    where f (Bad_as_well v w) = g v
		  g z = (z,y)
  foo a	  = (a,a)

This also avoids the problem of having to readjust the following lines
when a left-hand side becomes longer --- instant bug if you forget!

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@diku.dk> (Humour NOT marked)
From: Josef Moellers <mollers.pad@sni.de>
Subject: Re: You know you've been hacking too long...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:07:34 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

In <1992Aug16.200331.58189@cc.usu.edu> ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!) writes:

>In article <77775@ut-emx.uucp>, cblandy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Chris Blandy) writes:
>> 
>> There is another interesting phenomenon I have noticed with red color 
>> persistance.  Look at your favorite LED clock/watch/etc at night and move your
>> eyes slowly up-down/back-forth.  The numbers seem to actually move less than
>> the clock itself!

>Another fun thing to do is look at a CRT or LED while eating crunchy stuff.
>Or get things vibrating in front of a CRT; I whacked some tweezers like a
>tuning fork and held them in from of a TV one day.

The last is a very different phenomenon:
Even TV screens have a less-than-infinite afterglow. So, when You move an
object in front of a TV screen fast enough, it will be like using a
stroboscope. You can try this just by moving Your fingers at arm length
between the TV and Your eyes.
-- 
| Josef Moellers		| c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG  |
|  USA: mollers.pad@sni-usa.com	| Abt. STO-XS 113	   | Riemekestrasse   |
| !USA: mollers.pad@sni.de	| Phone: (+49) 5251 835124 | D-4790 Paderborn |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: john@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (John West)
Subject: Re: Bogosort
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:57:24 GMT

fstuart@eng.auburn.edu (Frank Stuart) writes:

>I've never found a better algorithm than bogosort for best case as its
>best case is always O(1) (when it 'guesses' right on the first try).  :>

Are you *sure* of that? Bogosort involves a shuffle and an order check,
both O(n) at the best of times. And you never quote best case times for
these things, since they are never meaningful (the intelligent form of
bubblesort has a best case of O(n) too). Always quote the average time.
(Bogosort and its friends are unique in the worst case - it may never
finish)
Of course, when you're best case is O(n!), as one algorithm I've recieved...

John West
-- 
For the humour impaired: Insert a :-) after every third word
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson)
Subject: Re: Your co-worker may be an alien
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:02:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.061659.22323@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.043726.22001@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>>
>I guess you came to invade Earth, but you forgot your speech so you became
>a driving instructor from France who consumes mass quantities of things and
>toss sensor rings onto honed cones.
>
>I remember the SCTV routine where people had cabbage leaves on the backs of 
>their necks and were controlled by Zontar.
>
>Wasn't there a movie about Zontar starring John Agar, the guy who was in all
>those other SF movies like the Brain from Planet Arous, or the Mole People?
>
>cjl

Zontar, The Thing from Venus, 1966 is an uncredited remake of It Conquered
the World, 1956. You're right, John Agar and it was produced by
Larry Buchanan (best known for Mars Needs Women, 1966).


--
 ___________________________________________________________________________ 
|wats@nyx.cs.du.edu |   You know you're getting old when: Halley's comet    |
|   Bruce Watson    |    is due back and you say, "Oh, no, not again!"      |