“Maxim S. Shatskih” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >tabs versus spaces.
>
> Spaces. With this, the code looks the same regardless of the editor’s settings
> on a particular desktop.
>
> GNU code uses tabs and assumes the tab width of 8. So, opening a GNU source
> file in MSVC, where the default is tab width 4, leads to funny results.
Never say never, as the proverb goes.
Once you’re back to Linux, you’re using the $#%^* tabs like everybody
else and don’t tweet - or you’ll be shown the mother of Kuzma. duh.
(sorry I couldn’t resist)
–PA
True enough, Maxim.
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> exception of ‘Extreme Programming;’
Well, this is PM’s menace, not the developers menace
+1, Maxim.
mm
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> would agree with, if that is in fact what he is saying. I don’t use
> references much myself, except in the case of overloaded operators,This is for what references were invented.
> which I don’t use much either and are for all practical purposes
> unusable with out them, because they do not declare the intent or lack
> there of to modify an argument,Correct.
UpdateStructure(&S);
is better then
UpdateStructure(S);
> considered from either a risk or reward point of view. For example,
> using cout over printf().cout is one of the worst C++ features, so, I always use printf even in C++
code.Using left shift operator for printing seems brain damage for me.
Just as an aside, didn’t APL originally require a special keyboard? My
father used to ride to work on the train with Ken Iverson, and I seem to
recall a story about this.
Just wondering,
mm
Prokash Sinha wrote:
While we are at it, Peter, here is my thoughts
I don’t completely throw away the idea of functional programming.
Sure, for kernel mode we are so used to advanced(structured) assembly (
ie., C) that I will have hard time conceptualizing the use of functional
language in this environment, but again I don’t know enough to throw the
idea completely.In the research environment, sure they would like to do something new,
different, … But we all know, if something is really slick, it would
fly sooner or later.Functional programming’s main promise ( as I understood a quarter of a
century ago ) is to have a provably correct program synthesis. In plain
words, I write programs that would/could be verified for its
correctness. This is certainly a good thing. Lot of these languages have
either lack of expressiveness or difficult to express anything complex.
And in earlier try, lot of them were interpretive.IIRC, there is a similarity between turing model and corresponding
categorie theory for functional languages. And category theory is a
branch of field theory, and it in turn is a branch of abstract algebra.
In the last 20 years there are a lot of advance in these areas specially
triggered towards functional programming. There the main emphasis is to
have an automatic proof method… This is a big thing for lot of
programming areas. And the attack to this is not from kernel programming
or user programming point of view, rather the proof of correctness is
the angle of attack. And there are people who also does try to design
machine architecture based on problem domain or language domain. An
example is Belle ( the chase machine has quite a few HW level
optimization for search techniques – that I read a while ago ).On the pragmatic side –
- I would surely like to see automatic ( static) complexity analysis of
a piece of code- Automatic proof of correctness of a piece of code.
Perhaps, there is a lot of advances already in those area, I would not
ever be able to be part of it. But I would love to see that comes
forward and be used by commercial software…This has its place
Finally, if anyone is thinking to buy a good book on programming
“Beautiful Code” is one to look at!-pro
----- Original Message ----- From:
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:20 PM
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] c++
>
>
>>
>>
>> Oh, no!! Not a Functional Programming Language. I almost brought
>> this up during the previous discussion of APL (another Functional
>> Programming Language), but I was busy being stern.
>>
>> I am sooooooo sick of hearing about Haskell and Erlang and F# from
>> folks in the Digital Signal Processing area. “Well, Erlang is a great
>> language, especially when coupled with OTP and it runs across many
>> different platforms” – YEAH… if you disable multiprocessor support
>> it’ll even run on Windows.
>>
>> Arrrrgh!! I’m entirely convinced that people really just wanna do
>> something DIFFERENT. It doesn’t need to be better.
>>
>> Well, except C#… which is clearly an improvement over C++, given
>> that C++ is very obviously shit. That’s my story, and…
>>
>> Peter
>> OSR
>>
>> (OTOH, I like the idea of writing drivers in Postscript even better
>> than the idea of writing drivers in C#. This’ll let us write the
>> documentation, and just interpret the driver at runtime. Clearly the
>> wave of the future.)
>>
>>
>> —
>> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>>
>> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
Looking at this thread, Peter, it appears that some might want to
consider taking Scott’s advice about spending some time in the Northeast.
mm
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
I was in Doron’s office yesterday, and he suggested that we stick to discussing more important topics… such as whether you prefer to indent code with tabs versus spaces. I see the wisdom of his recommendation. Am I the only one?
I’ll start: I think tabs are “of the devil” and anybody who uses tabs is either stupid, an MVP, or hasn’t searched the archives before posting. I’d like to know what product they’re working on so I can avoid ever installing it on my system.
And for those of you who think spaces are less efficient (multiple characters to process instead of just one tab character), you may have a point. But there was a paper a number of years back that said this wasn’t true (unfortunately, it was written in Tagalog and I lost the citation – there are so few really GOOD Tagalog web sites, anyhow).
Kainin mo iyan,
Peter
OSR
Martin,
Originally IBM made special terminals (both tty like and crt’s) that
had a custom keyboard and character set for APL. The couple of times I got
exposed to APL, I remember the pain of trying to get time on one of a few
terminals.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Just as an aside, didn’t APL originally require a special keyboard? My
> father used to ride to work on the train with Ken Iverson, and I seem to
> recall a story about this.
>
> Just wondering,
>
> mm
Thanks, Don. This must have been one seriously expensive keyboard,
especially considering the time.
Thanks,
mm
Don Burn wrote:
Martin,
Originally IBM made special terminals (both tty like and crt’s) that
had a custom keyboard and character set for APL. The couple of times I got
exposed to APL, I remember the pain of trying to get time on one of a few
terminals.
Martin,
It’s not just the keyboard ( of course the key board has the prints for all
the alphabet special for APL, but there was also a ROM chip that you have
had to plug-in to the mother board of a PC, and that was back when industry
had to have a heavy lifting from 8086 to 80186 ).
Before that what Don said was the method to use it, but I was not exposed to
that env.
-pro
----- Original Message -----
From: “Martin O’Brien”
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] c++
> Just as an aside, didn’t APL originally require a special keyboard? My
> father used to ride to work on the train with Ken Iverson, and I seem to
> recall a story about this.
>
> Just wondering,
>
> mm
> Prokash Sinha wrote:
>> While we are at it, Peter, here is my thoughts 
>>
>> I don’t completely throw away the idea of functional programming.
>>
>> Sure, for kernel mode we are so used to advanced(structured) assembly (
>> ie., C) that I will have hard time conceptualizing the use of functional
>> language in this environment, but again I don’t know enough to throw the
>> idea completely.
>>
>> In the research environment, sure they would like to do something new,
>> different, … But we all know, if something is really slick, it would
>> fly sooner or later.
>>
>> Functional programming’s main promise ( as I understood a quarter of a
>> century ago ) is to have a provably correct program synthesis. In plain
>> words, I write programs that would/could be verified for its correctness.
>> This is certainly a good thing. Lot of these languages have either lack
>> of expressiveness or difficult to express anything complex. And in
>> earlier try, lot of them were interpretive.
>>
>> IIRC, there is a similarity between turing model and corresponding
>> categorie theory for functional languages. And category theory is a
>> branch of field theory, and it in turn is a branch of abstract algebra.
>> In the last 20 years there are a lot of advance in these areas specially
>> triggered towards functional programming. There the main emphasis is to
>> have an automatic proof method… This is a big thing for lot of
>> programming areas. And the attack to this is not from kernel programming
>> or user programming point of view, rather the proof of correctness is the
>> angle of attack. And there are people who also does try to design machine
>> architecture based on problem domain or language domain. An example is
>> Belle ( the chase machine has quite a few HW level optimization for
>> search techniques – that I read a while ago ).
>>
>> On the pragmatic side –
>>
>> 1) I would surely like to see automatic ( static) complexity analysis of
>> a piece of code
>> 2) Automatic proof of correctness of a piece of code.
>>
>> Perhaps, there is a lot of advances already in those area, I would not
>> ever be able to be part of it. But I would love to see that comes forward
>> and be used by commercial software…
>>
>> This has its place
>>
>> Finally, if anyone is thinking to buy a good book on programming
>> “Beautiful Code” is one to look at!
>>
>> -pro
>> ----- Original Message ----- From:
>> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:20 PM
>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] c++
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, no!! Not a Functional Programming Language. I almost brought this
>>> up during the previous discussion of APL (another Functional Programming
>>> Language), but I was busy being stern.
>>>
>>> I am sooooooo sick of hearing about Haskell and Erlang and F# from folks
>>> in the Digital Signal Processing area. “Well, Erlang is a great
>>> language, especially when coupled with OTP and it runs across many
>>> different platforms” – YEAH… if you disable multiprocessor support
>>> it’ll even run on Windows.
>>>
>>> Arrrrgh!! I’m entirely convinced that people really just wanna do
>>> something DIFFERENT. It doesn’t need to be better.
>>>
>>> Well, except C#… which is clearly an improvement over C++, given that
>>> C++ is very obviously shit. That’s my story, and…
>>>
>>> Peter
>>> OSR
>>>
>>> (OTOH, I like the idea of writing drivers in Postscript even better
>>> than the idea of writing drivers in C#. This’ll let us write the
>>> documentation, and just interpret the driver at runtime. Clearly the
>>> wave of the future.)
>>>
>>>
>>> —
>>> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>>>
>>> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>>> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>>
>>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Thanks, Pro.
mm
Prokash Sinha wrote:
Martin,
It’s not just the keyboard ( of course the key board has the prints for
all the alphabet special for APL, but there was also a ROM chip that
you have had to plug-in to the mother board of a PC, and that was back
when industry had to have a heavy lifting from 8086 to 80186 ).Before that what Don said was the method to use it, but I was not
exposed to that env.-pro
----- Original Message ----- From: “Martin O’Brien”
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] c++
>
>
>> Just as an aside, didn’t APL originally require a special keyboard?
>> My father used to ride to work on the train with Ken Iverson, and I
>> seem to recall a story about this.
>>
>> Just wondering,
>>
>> mm
>> Prokash Sinha wrote:
>>> While we are at it, Peter, here is my thoughts
>>>
>>> I don’t completely throw away the idea of functional programming.
>>>
>>> Sure, for kernel mode we are so used to advanced(structured) assembly
>>> ( ie., C) that I will have hard time conceptualizing the use of
>>> functional language in this environment, but again I don’t know
>>> enough to throw the idea completely.
>>>
>>> In the research environment, sure they would like to do something
>>> new, different, … But we all know, if something is really slick,
>>> it would fly sooner or later.
>>>
>>> Functional programming’s main promise ( as I understood a quarter of
>>> a century ago ) is to have a provably correct program synthesis. In
>>> plain words, I write programs that would/could be verified for its
>>> correctness. This is certainly a good thing. Lot of these languages
>>> have either lack of expressiveness or difficult to express anything
>>> complex. And in earlier try, lot of them were interpretive.
>>>
>>> IIRC, there is a similarity between turing model and corresponding
>>> categorie theory for functional languages. And category theory is a
>>> branch of field theory, and it in turn is a branch of abstract
>>> algebra. In the last 20 years there are a lot of advance in these
>>> areas specially triggered towards functional programming. There the
>>> main emphasis is to have an automatic proof method… This is a big
>>> thing for lot of programming areas. And the attack to this is not
>>> from kernel programming or user programming point of view, rather the
>>> proof of correctness is the angle of attack. And there are people who
>>> also does try to design machine architecture based on problem domain
>>> or language domain. An example is Belle ( the chase machine has quite
>>> a few HW level optimization for search techniques – that I read a
>>> while ago ).
>>>
>>> On the pragmatic side –
>>>
>>> 1) I would surely like to see automatic ( static) complexity analysis
>>> of a piece of code
>>> 2) Automatic proof of correctness of a piece of code.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, there is a lot of advances already in those area, I would
>>> not ever be able to be part of it. But I would love to see that comes
>>> forward and be used by commercial software…
>>>
>>> This has its place
>>>
>>> Finally, if anyone is thinking to buy a good book on programming
>>> “Beautiful Code” is one to look at!
>>>
>>> -pro
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From:
>>> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:20 PM
>>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] c++
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, no!! Not a Functional Programming Language. I almost brought
>>>> this up during the previous discussion of APL (another Functional
>>>> Programming Language), but I was busy being stern.
>>>>
>>>> I am sooooooo sick of hearing about Haskell and Erlang and F# from
>>>> folks in the Digital Signal Processing area. “Well, Erlang is a
>>>> great language, especially when coupled with OTP and it runs across
>>>> many different platforms” – YEAH… if you disable multiprocessor
>>>> support it’ll even run on Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Arrrrgh!! I’m entirely convinced that people really just wanna do
>>>> something DIFFERENT. It doesn’t need to be better.
>>>>
>>>> Well, except C#… which is clearly an improvement over C++, given
>>>> that C++ is very obviously shit. That’s my story, and…
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>> OSR
>>>>
>>>> (OTOH, I like the idea of writing drivers in Postscript even better
>>>> than the idea of writing drivers in C#. This’ll let us write the
>>>> documentation, and just interpret the driver at runtime. Clearly
>>>> the wave of the future.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —
>>>> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>>>>
>>>> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>>>> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>>>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>>>
>>>
>>
>> —
>> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>>
>> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> Just as an aside, didn’t APL originally require a special keyboard?
Actually, I don’t think that you can use APL on a modern general-purpose kbd either. Certainly, due to the magic of UNICODE you must be able to configure fonts regardless of your kbd type, but typing APL characters on a normal general-purpose QWERTY must be just a nightmare - it must be the same experience as using QWERTY for typing in Arabic…
Anton Bassov
> Once you’re back to Linux, you’re using the $#%^* tabs like everybody else and
don’t tweet - or you’ll be shown the mother of Kuzma.
What do you mean by “mother of Kuzma”??? Do you mean GNU compiler is going to take off
the shoe and start hitting the table, promising to show you the one, i.e. do things the way
some well-known character did in the United Nations back in 1960s???
Anton Bassov
Can I recommend my practice of typing my inflamed response then deleting it
before sending? Good for the psyche and forum congestion. M this time is
an exception.
Wrong thread, but obviously that was directed at me… I’ve replied to Mike
off-list,
if anyone else cares too - email your grievances to me off-list - if you
care too. I
promise I’ll be nice…
My apologies for polluting everyone’s inbox - I was indeed being an ass the
other
morning.
It’s hard to be nice when your an asshole…
Best wishes to almost everyone,
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: “Mike Kemp”
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ntdev] c++
> Can I recommend my practice of typing my inflamed response then deleting
> it
> before sending? Good for the psyche and forum congestion. M this time
> is an exception.
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
There is a lot to be said for this practice.
I can honestly say that I delete more postings to this list than I send. By quite a large margin, in fact. This includes some really long, and even some technical, ones.
Peter
OSR
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Once you’re back to Linux, you’re using the $#%^* tabs like everybody else and
>> don’t tweet - or you’ll be shown the mother of Kuzma.
>
> What do you mean by “mother of Kuzma”??? Do you mean GNU compiler is going to take off
> the shoe and start hitting the table, promising to show you the one, i.e. do things the way
> some well-known character did in the United Nations back in 1960s???
>
> Anton Bassov
Anton, I mean only the linuxoidal coding style.
The compiler by itself is ok. It wasn’t noticed wearing shoes and does not enforce any particular coding style by itself (though
it has some great features that make code written to this compiler
easy visible). The rest is the history and offtopic…
–PA
I’m sort of glad to learn that I’m not the only person who does this,
perhaps not as often as I should.
mm
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
There is a lot to be said for this practice.
I can honestly say that I delete more postings to this list than I send. By quite a large margin, in fact. This includes some really long, and even some technical, ones.
Peter
OSR
> Anton, I mean only the linuxoidal coding style. The compiler by itself is ok.
What does annoy me about it is a coding style of GNU assembly - I find writing
“movl $var,%eax/n” instead of simply “mov eax,var”, i.e. in the reverse order of arguments, really abominable (I don’t even mention $ and % prefixes, as well as /n on every line)…
Anton Bassov
Dan Kyler wrote:
It depends on what you mean. I prefer to indent my code by pressing the TAB
key, which causes my editor to insert space characters. It gets really fun
when one developer’s editor is set to tabs and another’s is set to spaces.
Please help me write a file system upper filter driver to change all the
tabs to spaces in every file that I write. My boss says that’s the only
way it can be done, so that’s what I need. Oh, and I have to have a
solution by Friday, so a pointer to working and fully commented code is
needed or else I will be fired.
Thanks in advance!
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Also very difficult to read, unless of course you learned it first, I
suppose. But even in that case, as you pointed out, the AT&T syntax is
a little verbose, and differs from the Intel manual, which I think is
pretty bizarre, as assembler is not usually where one expects to find
language design at a tool level. I suppose whoever first implemented
gas preferred it, which for most of us, I think at least, turned out to
be unfortunate.
mm
xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:
> Anton, I mean only the linuxoidal coding style. The compiler by itself is ok.
What does annoy me about it is a coding style of GNU assembly - I find writing
“movl $var,%eax/n” instead of simply “mov eax,var”, i.e. in the reverse order of arguments, really abominable (I don’t even mention $ and % prefixes, as well as /n on every line)…Anton Bassov
xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:
> Anton, I mean only the linuxoidal coding style. The compiler by itself is ok.
>What does annoy me about it is a coding style of GNU assembly - I find writing
“movl $var,%eax/n” instead of simply “mov eax,var”, i.e. in the reverse order of arguments, really abominable (I don’t even mention $ and % prefixes, as well as /n on every line)…
But that is only because you are used to the Intel/MASM syntax. Had you
“grown up” using the AT&T syntax with many other processors, there
wouldn’t be anything annoying at all about it. And, indeed, you would
be able to read 80x86 assembly code written in that style and have a
pretty good idea what it did, even if you had never seen the 80x86
instruction set before.
Many participants of this list have lost the distinction between “things
that are bad because I don’t like them” and “things that are inherently
bad”.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.