Access to a ridiculous computer? :-D

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Of course they do not see anything wrong.

--

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT F :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================

fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchinson

 

[Philip Potter]

Of course they do not see anything wrong.

Talking about wiring is allowed TO THEM. If I speak about
something like generic functions in C, or any "heresy" like
that, OFF TOPIC is immediately sent to me...

They started a thread about English poetry that lasted for a week.
(Around October or September last year). When I protested
they made a point in going ON and ON.

Jacob, you're smarter than this.

This subthread was started by me and Tomas. None of the members of "The
Clique" listed above have had anything to do with this subthread except
Mark McIntyre, who complained that it was offtopic.

There is no evidence in this subthread to support your argument of
hypocrisy. (There is also very little evidence to support your argument
of a "Clique".)

Phil

 

[Flash Gordon]

Philip Potter wrote, On 07/01/08 13:17:

This subthread was started by me and Tomas. None of the members of "The
Clique" listed above have had anything to do with this subthread except
Mark McIntyre, who complained that it was offtopic.

Also some of the "clique" deliberately took the conversation to email on
the basis that it was off topic. Eventually I would have complained
about it continuing here, but I was beaten to it.

 

[Keith Thompson]

True. However do you realize that this, and many other of your
posts, are multi-posted. The postings are something like 1 second
apart (in this case).

Since rr.com is under a UDP, I'm posting through aioe.org.
Occasionally I accidenally post something through rr.com; when I
realize my mistake (usually *just* after I post the message), I post
again through aioe.org. A lot of sites, including aioe.org, aren't
seeing posts from rr.com (unless something has changed recently).

I'll try (a) not to post through rr.com and (b) if I forget, to
mention the problem in the aioe.org post.

 

[Reagan Revision]

You know, it's the mindblowing, breathtaking, pisstaking hypocrisy of
this group that's the real killer.

If someone outside The Clique posts something heretical - perhaps they
assume their C implementation uses a call stack - then it isn't long
before HeathField's attack dogs (usually the insufferable Falconer or
the tragic Default Luser, sometimes Psycho Mackintyre or Martin "send
the men in white coats to pick me up in an" Ambuhlance, sometimes others
too) respond with a barrage of "OT - not C - not portable - I hope your
mother dies in agony you worthless piece of crud" posts.

But here we have a huge subthread, started, developed and kept going by
The Clique. Let's examine its subject. Oh, amateur electrics. (flicks
through the precious C Standard) Nope, current, wiring, plugs, cables,
none of them are their in N7342, or in N334124, or indeed in N2342141.
So where are all the messages saying "Cabling is an implementation
detail - take the discussion to a group for your platform"?

The amazing thing is that I think The Clique really are completely
unself-conscious about this - they just don't realize there's any
hypocrisy in what they're doing.

Congratulations, you just graduated from c.l.c. They're language and OS
bigots. When they say take the discussion to a group that doesn't have a
religiously-small notion of C, they're telling you to **** off. It's code
like southern "we'll pray for you."

Believe it or not, there are places on the net that discuss C a lot better
than here, where Chuck thinks he's management. As New England just voted
for McCain, he probably isn't even a jerk among his native tits.
--

"We are being told that a competent, trustworthy president is someone
who brandishes his religion like a neon sign, loads a gun and goes out
hunting for beautiful winged creatures, and tries to imitate a past
president who, by the way, never shot a bird or felt the need to imitate
anybody."

~~ Patti Davis Is Not Flattered by GOP Candidates' Pale Imitations of
Her Father

 

[Nick Keighley]

Believe it or not, there are places on the net that discuss C a
lot better than here [...]

where? even if it isn't "a lot better" it may be
interesting.

 

[David Thompson]

Possibly you could use one of the emulators at simh.trailing-edge.com.

"SIMH implements simulators for:

* Data General Nova, Eclipse
* Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-1, PDP-4, PDP-7, PDP-8, PDP-9, PDP-10, PDP-11, PDP-15, VAX

<snip>

PDP-10 in particular has 36-bit word, and although the (then) hardware
(now emulation) supports _any_ size byte, the obvious choice for C to
be >= 8 and pack (i.e. divide) into words is 9-bit. The heyday of real
-10s occurred before C was standardized, and I don't think there was
ever a confoming C then; as of about 2 years ago there was talk on
alt.sys.pdp10 of work on a gcc port (i.e. backend), but I didn't keep
track of whether it was completed. Even if so, to use it and otherwise
to develop and test your software on an emulated (or real!) -10, you
would need to learn (at least one of) the -10's OS(es), which at best
will take a good bit of your time.

-11 and VAX were mainstream byte machines. (VAX was the first
identified=major locus of unwarranted assumption of homogeneity --
"Not all the world's a VAX".) -1/4, -7/9, and especially -8/15 were so
small they would probably not support a useful C implementation. A
maxed-out 8-bank -8 could just barely fit the single 32KO object
required for nominal conformance to C89, but probably wouldn't be able
to run any program that would today be considered nontrivial and
useful. And that's assuming a crosscompiler; using an indigenous
compiler on one of these machines would be like beating yourself with
hammers just for fun.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net

 

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

<snip>

PDP-10 in particular has 36-bit word, and although the (then) hardware
(now emulation) supports _any_ size byte, the obvious choice for C to
be >= 8 and pack (i.e. divide) into words is 9-bit. The heyday of real
-10s occurred before C was standardized, and I don't think there was
ever a confoming C then; as of about 2 years ago there was talk on
alt.sys.pdp10 of work on a gcc port (i.e. backend), but I didn't keep
track of whether it was completed. Even if so, to use it and otherwise
to develop and test your software on an emulated (or real!) -10, you
would need to learn (at least one of) the -10's OS(es), which at best
will take a good bit of your time.

There is a distribution of TOPS-20 which is available including an emulator
for Linux at http://panda.com/tops-20/ (it isn't simh which is unable to
run TOPS-20 AFAIK). In this distribution, there is a C compiler (KCC)
which is more or less C90.

The gcc port I'm aware is a little older. It is available at
http://pdp10.nocrew.org/ along with the sources of KCC.

Yours,