 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> C data types can be real fun once you're leaving the safety of
>> mainstream PC architecture :-P
>
> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing
> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely
> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.
That's what Ada is for.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing
>> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely
>> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.
>
> That's actually its strength...
Huh? How do you come up with that as a strength?
I would far rather say "I want an integer with a range of 0 to 1,000,000"
than try to find the project-specific typedef du jour that says the same thing.
> Not commonly known, C99 also specifies that <stdint.h> shall contain
> typedefs for various integers to be used in case a particular size is
> desired:
>
> - intN_t / uintN_t (e.g. int8_t) for exact size:
Yeah, works great until you use a compiler that doesn't support it, or a
project written to work on a compiler that doesn't assume you have support
for it. Then you have to pick out each typedef one at a time, because C only
took 30 years to decide on how to name an integer in a portable way.
>> It doesn't even seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're
>> going to get; it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...
>
> Oh yes, it does: <types.h> gives you all you need to know about your
> int, short, long etc.
Except that's the utterly wrong bass-ackwards way to do it. I don't want you
to tell me what sizes I'm allowed to use, and then have me write code to
instruct the compiler as to which I want. I want to tell you what my program
requires and have the compiler generate the f'ing code it needs to.
I am just glad that given the PDP-8 was segmented we didn't wind up with two
different kinds of "while" statement: one with a body that fit in a short
jump and one with a body that fit in the range of a long jump, along with a
header file telling us how many bytes can fit in a short jump.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> The oxide layer also doesn't flake off like, say, iron oxide. So no
> >> fresh metal is exposed.
> >
> > Unless you expose it to mercury, then it flakes off as fast as it forms.
> Let us hope the rain doesn't contain any mercury...
I think that if it does, we have bigger problems than electric wires
losing their covering layers...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>>> That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with
>>> the outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.
>>
>> And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with
>> the outside world... strange choice, that.
>
> I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have
> a very limited interface to the outside world.
I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface
to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that
you're talking.
The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to
tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.
> <float.h> does the same for floating-point types, by the way.
A) Assuming it's there, and B) assuming it tells you the information you
need in a way you can use it portably. Pick out the best type given an
arbitrary requirement on precision and accuracy and range, and know you got
it right for all compilers. Go for it. (Indeed, it even assumes a specific
floating point representation.)
And where's <decimal.h>. Oh, I forgot, C's type system sucks and doesn't
handle fixed-point. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> pit-lane refuelling fires must have been fun!
Yes. THe official hand signal a driver uses to indicate he's on fire is to
run around in circles waving his hands up and down over his head. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Another film thoroughly worth missing - although at least parts of it
> > made sense.
> What you have to realize is this was a special effects movie. It was the
> first time they had realistic zero-G effects. The first use of matte
> paintings (where you could see in through the windows of a spaceship that's
> actually just a model, for example), and so on.
> Watch it again with that in mind, and you realize why they spend 20 or 30
> seconds of screen time just filming a floating pen.
What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
which simply isn't there.
It's a kind of anticlimax.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)
:)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have
> > a very limited interface to the outside world.
> I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface
> to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that
> you're talking.
> The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to
> tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.
I think the iPhone blurs the distinction between "embedded system" and
just portable computer.
How do you define "embedded system"? I'd say the iPhone is more a portable
computer. It's very small in physical size, but that alone doesn't make it
"embedded".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all.
Possibly true. I believe the book may have retconned a meaning into it, and
the sequels definitely are based on the ending of the movie/book. But the
story in the *movie* was definitely secondary to the special effects.
> It's a kind of anticlimax.
It did end poorly. Indeed, it probably would have been more satisfying to
just end it with "My god, it's full of stars", and cut out the bits after
the pyrotechnics reflected in the helmet entirely.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/04/09 10:58, Warp wrote:
> What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
> writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
> expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
> No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
> purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
> to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
> which simply isn't there.
>
> It's a kind of anticlimax.
Well, it's all about expectations. In a sense, it "makes sense" that it
doesn't make sense. Not everything in the universe was designed to be
intelligible to humans.
I suppose I could sympathize, though. I feel that way about many movies
(Robert Rodriguez, some of Tarantino's work, most of the Coen brothers'
movies). Not from the unintelligible aspect, but from the "let's throw
in some randomness/weird stuff and everyone will think it's cool/deep"
sense.
--
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
