xscott

29 ms·

361.
by xscott 4y ago
> EAX is not available in addresses. Is this a relevant correction? If there is a point, ignore the following. You seem to like the ATT syntax, which I avoid whenever I can. However, if there isn't a specific point, and we're
362.
by xscott 4y ago
This part is telling: > If a signed operation would naturally produce a value that is not within the range of the result type, the behavior is undefined. The author had hoped to make this well-defined as wrapping (the operations produce
363.
by xscott 4y ago
Heh. I see we've gotten to the point where you switch from arguing the point to questioning my qualifications. Gross. I guess that means I should return the insult: Showing a few examples of ugly formatting doesn't prove that c
364.
by xscott 4y ago
Helping people cooperate is a virtue. You're confusing the means with the ends, and it's very likely that the OP I first responded to above does not find the Lisp-consistent style very readable, so it didn't enable his coope
365.
by xscott 4y ago
> discussed since the early 1960s. I've taking part in such discussions myself since the mid 80s. You have me beat, if being older is winning. But I was lurking on comp.lang.lisp before web browsers were a thing too... > Lisp do
366.
by xscott 4y ago
I'll be eager to read that when you're done. I doubt I'll agree with your thesis, but still :-) I just went and skimmed the forward from an early version of "The C Programming Language" book [0]. There's cert
367.
by xscott 4y ago
I've thought a lot about the restrict keyword since a month ago when you and I argued about this in the context of intentionally adding UB to Rust. I think you're wrong to conclude that UB was some kind of goal for "restric
368.
by xscott 4y ago
Again, so dramatic with the explanation point. :-) You do know your posting history is readable to all of us, right? It's very clear that your game is to post a 1 or 2 line snipe to try and antagonize people. You do you, but I'
369.
by xscott 4y ago
It's not obvious unless you read and think about the assembly, but bonzini's point was that using a 32 bit signed int (which is not allowed to overflow) means the compiler can cleverly promote it to use register RAX as an index wi
370.
by xscott 4y ago
Well, you've successfully found examples of C code that I hate to look at. Those are all various shades of awful in my opinion. And again, I'm not attacking you or your style. I'm sure all 6 or 7 of you from comp.lang.lisp
371.
by xscott 4y ago
> Any reasonable person would look at the standard and conclude there is no other implicit intent than to describe a standard. That's complete nonsense. If there wasn't intent, it would just be random words making random rules
372.
by xscott 4y ago
> but these mass shootings are a new thing. Look at the list before 2000, going back to the early 1900s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... Then normalize that by the US population over
373.
by xscott 4y ago
> Or for overflow, "x[i] = 0;" cannot be compiled to "movl [x+RAX*4], 0" if i is an "unsigned int". This is another pet peeve of mine. Why does almost every justification about UB and signed overflow involv
374.
by xscott 4y ago
> But, it turns out, it basically isn't. In the Lisp world there is a tremendous consensus about it; nearly everyone does it in nearly an identical way to everyone else. Yes, and that's self selecting. If someone hates that st
375.
by xscott 4y ago
Without a doubt, C programmers have different styles. And there's disagreement about what to do when an expression gets too long. However, almost no C programmer would stack and hang their closing curly braces the way Lisp programmers
376.
by xscott 4y ago
It really seems like the compiler writers have gone insane in the last decade or so. Any reasonable person would look at the standard and conclude the intent is to describe what is required to write super-portable programs. Yes, you could
377.
by xscott 4y ago
You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. > Lisp [...] indentation styles. They make code more readable and writable. This is a matter of opinion, and you're free to ignore the majority or programmers who don&#x
378.
by xscott 4y ago
I think I must be really bad at communicating, because you aren't responding to any point I was trying to make. Let me try again :-) I think Racket, Scheme, and some Lisps are conceptually elegant, but they don't read well to peo
379.
by xscott 4y ago
> I can look at blurry C code [...] I'm kind of curious how much of this is the problem with parens, and how much of this is the conventions that Lisp programmers seem to mostly adopt. For instance, here's the concise 99-bottl
380.
by xscott 4y ago
Yeah, in that same year I was using "LPC" in an LPMUD called "Lost Souls". I think that's a precursor to Pike, but I'm not certain about the family tree. I had learned Basic when I was young, and my coursework
381.
by xscott 4y ago
Or Fourier coefficients :-) Or pretty much anything where the index/subscript is related to the math itself. Math textbooks and papers tend to use 1-based subscripts when it doesn't matter. It's hard to come up with examp
382.
by xscott 4y ago
I'm certain there is room for a better C, but simple is in the eye of the programmer. I would argue that Scheme is obviously simpler, but most people don't want to write system software in that. I suspect "simple enough&quot
383.
by xscott 4y ago
> Hare aims to be successful within its niche for the programmers that find its ideas compelling Honest question, what are the compelling ideas? I really don't mean that with any snark. I haven't read through everything on th
384.
by xscott 4y ago
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I think you draw wild conclusions from faulty logic.
385.
by xscott 4y ago
No, I don't agree with what you said in your post, and you make a lot of invalid proofs by contradiction. The first pass of your optimizer took a valid program and made an invalid one. That should be the end of the article, but then
386.
by xscott 4y ago
Python doesn't have block scope, but most people don't seem to notice: def foo(): if False: x = 123 print("x is visible out here:", x) That will generate an error because `x` is &quo
387.
by xscott 4y ago
My friend and I keep a link to the following because of our similarly neurotic tendencies :-) https://github.com/timvieira/justified-variables
388.
by xscott 4y ago
By the way, I'm kind of surprised you didn't use 4-letter names for your stub section at the bottom. How can you suffer the inconsistency in such an otherwise consistent grammar? :-)
389.
by xscott 4y ago
> I do actually think about this sort of thing quite a bit Forgive me for being abrasive above. > I’m firmly of the belief that C style type syntax is never going to not be confusing Yeah, C is going to stay C. No fixing that. The b
390.
by xscott 4y ago
Where the core type goes is orthogonal to the notation for affixes (array, function, pointer). Put the type last if you like :-)

More ›