C compiler question (I hope this is on topic)

B

Ben Bacarisse

Tim Streater said:
spinoza1111 <[email protected]> wrote:

Which Chinese posters is that, then?

Keep your racist slurs to yourself.

This is what he wants: polemic; an argument; a reaction; anything rather
than being ignored. Almost nothing he says is true (most likely
deliberately) and almost all of it is now poisonous and insulting
(definitely deliberate). To get a fix from weary posters here, the
provocation must be ratcheted up.

For a while, getting C wrong was enough to get a rise from people (yes,
myself included). Then he had to start insulting people (look for
"slobs" or "faggots") but even that stopped working. For a while
insulting Seebs's mother seemed worth a try, or having a go at people's
appearance, but that did no produce much reaction, so now he's trying
accusations of racism.

You can't possible care what he thinks of you can you? So, please,
consider just letting it go. There are just enough people who reply (or
reply to replies) for spinoza1111 to get a fix from comp.lang.c but that
*could* be changed...

I am fully aware that even this tangential reply will make him feel good
for a few minutes -- he must be doing something right if that placid,
emasculated, ****** of a convenience store clerk, Ben, has joined in.
It's a cost-benefit thing -- you and the other responders seem like
sensible people so I hazard a final shot.
 
S

Seebs

No, they aren't. They're often incoherent, and they don't seem to have
any clue what they're asking about; so far as I can tell, they don't even
understand that "Turbo C" is a specific program, not a language. Many of
them ask exactly the same questions as others. Most of them claim that
any reply will be appreciated, but they do not in fact show any such
appreciation. I tried writing a few of them, none of them had the courtesy
to write back.

If I helped them, and they claimed any replies would be appreciated, I figure
they do. If the only responses they get to a question are requests for
clarification, then failure to reply shows that the question was insincere.
And he doesn't owe them a reply either.

This too.

As usual, Nilges is assuming everyone else is like him. Since he's amazingly
bigoted (and yet dishonest about it; he calls people "faggots" then claims
he never did any such thing, even though the Google Groups archive clearly
shows it), he assumes everyone else is, too.

Furthermore, what the #!@# is an "Islamic" name? The names of most of the IUT
posters looked sort of like Indian names to me, and India's most famous for
Hindus and Buddhists. The usual expectation is that Americans will be biased
against *Arabic* names. So Nilges not only projects bigotry, he can't be
bothered to get the details right.

Some day, Nilges is going to get a detail right, and I'm gonna be at risk
of a heart attack from the shock.

-s
 
S

Squeamizh

Some day, Nilges is going to get a detail right, and I'm gonna be at risk
of a heart attack from the shock.

What pleasure do you derive from these lame comebacks of yours? If I
were spinoza, I would probably be laughing my ass off daily by the
same group of idiots who keep feeding me. Can you just not help
yourself? Do you think you're somehow doing something honorable by
pointing out for the 1,001st time that spinoza is a damned moron?
 
I

ImpalerCore

Chad a écrit :






The object doesn't know anything, nor the computer.
Only people can know something, and this, I know:

Depends on your perspective, which is whether you believe that people
are just the sum of their parts, or is there something more. This is
often phrased as the relationship between body and soul. The idea is
whether your actions can be wholly defined by the machinations of the
body. Can the act of typing out this sentence be purely described as
a sequence of physical/chemical reactions? Or is there something
intangible that supersedes the laws of physics that allows us to
experience what we call our existence? The problem is completely
intractable at the current time, and will continue to be in our
lifetime, so the choice of what you believe is up to you. I suppose
that if I die and still retain consciousness in some form, I suppose
that would answer that question (I wouldn't suggest attempting to make
that observation though).
The compiler takes the text of your program, and translates it into
an equivalent that, when run in an appropiated printed circuit like the
computer that is running in your box, would produce the same effects you
specified in the input program.

In your program you specified:

"Put the value of 5 in a local variable of type char"

        char x;
        x = 5;

If you take a compiler like lcc-win for instance, you will see that the following instructions are
generated from your program:

         .line   4
;    5   char x;
;    6   x = 5;
         .line   6
         movb    $5,-1(%ebp)

The compiler generated a move byte instruction (movb) with the
immediate value of 5 to a memory location at 1 byte less than the value
contained in the frame pointer EBP.

In the prologue of the function, the compiler reserved several
byte locations that can contain the values of the local variables.
The place at -1 (%ebp) is reserved for your character
variable "x".

Then, the compiler generated an instruction that will move 5 into it.

Very simple, and neither the computer, nor the variable, nor anything
"knows" what they are doing, in the same sense that your car doesn't
really know where it is going: it is YOU that knows where YOU are going
and you instruct the car to go there (you "drive" it).

You drive a computer by telling it step by step where it should go. The
computer (like a car) doesn't KNOW anything, and if you tell it to
do nonsense it will do it with the same lack of resistence that your
car will accept that you drive it into a wall without ever complaining
about it.

People have a different kind of circuit than a computer. People know
things, people are even able to build circuits: we are the first circuit
that is able to build circuits. Computers and other circuits that WE build
aren't able to reproduce or do anything without OUR circuit to guide
them, they are MACHINES.

I find it funny that one of the common themes in science fiction and
comics is that building self-replicating autonomous robots is often
thought to be a very bad idea. If we are just "robots" in the
materialistic sense, what does that say about us?
Besides being unable to know something, machines are made out of parts.
You can take your car or your computer apart, then rebuild it, and they
will go on working as before. Our circuit however, can't be taken apart
like that. If you try to take it apart it will stop working and
decompose immediately, instead of working for a few years still as other
circuits that aren't taken apart do.

Well, if that were the case, lots of Star Trek fans would be quite
disappointed.
Still, if you go to the basics of our circuit, the brain, we see that
many of its parts are "machine like". For instance we have an interpreter
called "ribosome", that reads our source code and interprets each codon
into proteins at roughly 50-60 codons per minute. It takes single stranded
source code in one side, and outputs fully folded proteins/enzymes, whatever
that is specified in the source code using 20 building blocks called
amino-acids.

The ribosome is made out of two parts, and if you take them apart and then
rebuild the original ribosome again, the newly built ribosome will go on working
as before, like a machine.

Does the ribosome KNOW what it is doing?

Does the ribosome understand the codons it is interpreting?

I don't believe that the ribosome itself has underlying intelligence.

I think the more fundamental question is why should any particular
sequence of atoms mean anything. Obviously the universe has a set of
arbitrarily defined properties. For example, adding a single oxygen
molecule to two hydrogen molecules produces something that has vastly
different physical properties. <rhetorical>Why is this the case? Do
you believe that it's just the way things are, or is there some
creative presence that defined them to be that way? If you extend
that to life, why does some particular strand of DNA have to mean
anything? Why isn't it just a pile of mud? said:
Unlikely since it doesn't realize when it introduces an error. If it
misreads a codon and puts the wrong amino-acid in the sequence of the
protein it is building it will produce the wrong output.

In the same vein we have a text editor, for instance. It is BECAUSE
your text editor that you are still alive. Even if the copying mechanism
of your source code is very faithfull, sometimes it does make mistakes

Those mistakes would accumulate if there wasn't for your friend the text
editor that proof reads the copy of the source code and corrects the errors
the copying mechanism introduced.

Does the text editor KNOW the text?

Well, a modern text editor will underscore in red any word that is not
in the dictionary. Somehow our text editor knows about the syntax of
the source code and is able to diagnose a wrong copy, mark it as wrong
and call the repair enzymes to fix the typos.

But then, what is KNOWING???

Does your text editor KNOW english when it says that "ariund" is wrong and
it should be "around" instead?

No. Knowing english would mean that you can WRITE english text and that you
use it to communicate with your peer circuits hanging around in comp.lang..c.

(Even if you aren't very strong in grammar, as you say, I wouldn't doubt that
you KNOW english).

So, to KNOW what it is doing, the text editor would have to produce NEW
source code, i.e. new features of the circuit it is specifying.

But in time frames of millions of years we see that NEW features appear,
without any doubt.

Six million years ago, there wasn't any circuit like the one you have in your
head. It is a COMPLETELY NEW circuit, that nature had NEVER invented till....
well, till 6 million years ago.

Interesting notion. Let me pose this question. Is there a natural
environment that exists that allows a sequence of atoms to coalesce
into the properties inherited by life?

For example, let's say that I have a calculator. I atomize it and put
it in a pile. I can subject it to any "natural" occurring force,
gravity, radiation, electromagnetism. Now obviously it is possible to
create a calculator back from its components, but does the natural
occurring environment have the tools needed to put it together? What
is the underlying physics force or system of equations that describes
why the calculator is a possible end state? If you don't believe that
it is possible, why should it matter how much time you allocate to it
if the environment can't support the end state?

Now obviously humans can make calculators, and they are relatively
simple in today's terms. But does the "natural" environment have the
capability to create the pieces needed to create the calculator
(semiconductors, LCD displays, transistors) without some directed
outside intervention? I.E. How long are you going to wait for sand to
become a semiconductor?

Put in another way, I can ask you to make gold out of lead, but unless
you can produce an environment that allows that conversion to take
place, it doesn't matter how much time I give you. If you don't have
the tools to create that environment, but you still observe that lead
was indeed turned into gold, then you have evidence that something
beyond the your knowledge of laws of physics is at work. Some people
will say that it's some undiscovered law of physics that hasn't been
observed or explained yet, while others will believe that something
supernatural indeed did happen. What you decide to believe is up to
you.
Was it the text editor that wrote the new code?

Because there IS new code in our source code. True, we share a lot of source
code with the monkeys and other animals, but there is a tiny but very
significant portion of our source code that is COMPLETELY NEW.

If the physical properties of molecules can be vastly changed by
adding one atom to the makeup...
One of the measures of instability of source code is the number of
repeated copies of whole genes.

You know. You are writing a new specialization of some software, you
copy and paste a routine and start hacking around.

Well, "nature" does the same. In species where a rapid evolution is happening,
a LOT of genes are duplicated genes with some modifications, where you can
"see" the hacker writing new code. And, as you would expect, humans are
champions in the number of duplicated genes they have.

Another proof that we are evolving rapidly.

But WHO is writing the NEW code???

The text editor?

Is the text editor rearranging our source code, tinkering with it?

Or is it something ELSE?

WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON?

How does the character "x" know that it should have 5 as value?

Well, my answer is:

Because the system's driver DESIGNED the system that way for his OWN
purposes that the poor character "x" doesn't have the slightest idea.

Neither the character "x", that exists for a fleeting microsecond
and receives its value to disappear instantly afterwards, (the main program
reaching its last statement right afterwards) nor the computer where it
is running, that will be able to run several billions of similar programs
before he, too, is discarded by the user and thrown away at the
discharge of old computers.

No, neither the character "x" nor the computer know anything. They are
just instantiations of a program, designed by you.

But YOU TOO, you are going to reach your end statement sooner or later,
as you well KNOW, to the contrary of character"x" and his computer home.

And surely, as anything else in the universe the writer of the human program
will ALSO reach its end statement someday... Yes, it will be
probably in a billion years from now, when the aging sun will start
expanding into its red giant phase and will evaporate all oceans of this earth
eliminating all life from its surface.

Then, the writer will disappear, together with its creations.

Not a very happy ending to the story. Strange that some combination
of atoms would care about such ideas. As for myself, I have found
hope in the promises of Jesus Christ.
And the sun too, after its red giant phase, will explode and
disappear from view, leaving a white cinder star, follwoed by
some giant planets, wandering aimlessly in the eternal darkness.

But in a fleeting micro-second THERE WAS a character "x" that
received its value because for a fleeting century there
was a circuit that built circuits because he liked that. And he
liked that maybe because he was programmed to, by  the unknown
and invisible hacker that wanted for some unknown purpose in this
world full of ignorance a being that built circuits and asked
himself:

WHAT DO *I* KNOW?

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

WHERE DO WE CAME FROM?

It's definitely a strange existence we live, isn't it?

Best regards,
John D.
 
S

spinoza1111

No, they aren't.  They're often incoherent, and they don't seem to have

No, they are general and because you lack academic preparation in
computer science, you cannot answer them.
any clue what they're asking about; so far as I can tell, they don't even
understand that "Turbo C" is a specific program, not a language.  Many of

It's not for you to judge questions.
them ask exactly the same questions as others.  Most of them claim that
any reply will be appreciated, but they do not in fact show any such
appreciation.  I tried writing a few of them, none of them had the courtesy
to write back.

This is pretty thick from a person who deletes email, sent to avoid
flame wars, unread.
If I helped them, and they claimed any replies would be appreciated, I figure
they do.  If the only responses they get to a question are requests for
clarification, then failure to reply shows that the question was insincere.


This too.


As usual, Nilges is assuming everyone else is like him.  Since he's amazingly
bigoted (and yet dishonest about it; he calls people "faggots" then claims
he never did any such thing, even though the Google Groups archive clearly
shows it), he assumes everyone else is, too.

Furthermore, what the #!@# is an "Islamic" name?  The names of most of the IUT
posters looked sort of like Indian names to me, and India's most famous for
Hindus and Buddhists.  The usual expectation is that Americans will be biased
against *Arabic* names.  So Nilges not only projects bigotry, he can't be
bothered to get the details right.

The questions come from Bangladesh. This is a predominantly Moslem
country that was part of the original Pakistan. It fought a civil war
with Pakistan in the early 1970s and became an independent country.

You are unprepared for answering questions on C and appear here to be
if possible even more unprepared.

The poster names are Islamic. They are discriminated against because
of this or because they are "foreign" by the sort of ignorant people
who attacked Sikhs after Sep 11.
Some day, Nilges is going to get a detail right, and I'm gonna be at risk
of a heart attack from the shock.

You keep repeating canards without having the academic preparation in
computer science or general knowledge to back your claims up, and I
have complained to Paul Manning of Springer about your conduct. It is
defamatory and it is going to land you in court.
 
S

spinoza1111

This is what he wants: polemic; an argument; a reaction; anything rather
than being ignored.  Almost nothing he says is true (most likely
deliberately) and almost all of it is now poisonous and insulting
(definitely deliberate).  To get a fix from weary posters here, the
provocation must be ratcheted up.

Perhaps. But the starter situation is that the leading "regs" aren't
qualified in C or computer science, and they abuse people with foreign
names. It pleases me to "get attention" by standing up for other
people, and since most people post from uncaring corporations in which
they are forced to compete with rather than cooperate with their
fellow human beings, this is unusual.

You have been right only on details, and, in recent months, you're
getting less right.

For a while, getting C wrong was enough to get a rise from people (yes,

I haven't "gotten C wrong". I've simply refused to accept a wrong
picture of C which produces crap code. I've coded better C than the
regs...without knowing as much as they do, since the important skill
is independent of a programming language.

myself included).  Then he had to start insulting people (look for
"slobs" or "faggots") but even that stopped working.  For a while

Yes, "slobs" and "faggots" who make a specialty of starting shit. I
finish it. I think it's far worse to cause a guy like Schildt long
term anguish by using dulcet tones and a falsely scholarly style based
on no real education.
insulting Seebs's mother seemed worth a try, or having a go at people's

Her postings are in the public domain, and she assaults people who are
trying to get their children a public education that is a human right.
 
S

spinoza1111

What pleasure do you derive from these lame comebacks of yours?  If I
were spinoza, I would probably be laughing my ass off daily by the
same group of idiots who keep feeding me.  Can you just not help
yourself?  Do you think you're somehow doing something honorable by
pointing out for the 1,001st time that spinoza is a damned moron?

I am laughing my ass off. We now know that Seebach believes that
Bangladesh is part of India and that most Indians are Hindu or ...
Buddhist.

Which of course is to be ignorant of the fact that even inside India,
there are many Muslim people and very few Buddhists; although Buddhism
was born in India and flourished under Ashoka in the third century BC
it is not today a major religion, the Mughal dynasty having turned the
north towards Islam.

The IUT questions are probably a research project meant to establish
that "Americans do not know the basics of computer science and
programming".
 
J

jacob navia

ImpalerCore a écrit :
Depends on your perspective, which is whether you believe that people
are just the sum of their parts, or is there something more. This is
often phrased as the relationship between body and soul. The idea is
whether your actions can be wholly defined by the machinations of the
body. Can the act of typing out this sentence be purely described as
a sequence of physical/chemical reactions? Or is there something
intangible that supersedes the laws of physics that allows us to
experience what we call our existence? The problem is completely
intractable at the current time, and will continue to be in our
lifetime, so the choice of what you believe is up to you. I suppose
that if I die and still retain consciousness in some form, I suppose
that would answer that question (I wouldn't suggest attempting to make
that observation though).

Well, as you have noticed, a computer is not just the (bare) machine.
After you open the box, install the CDROM, the disk, the RAM,
you need something else:

SOFTWARE.

Software can't exist without some material support, let's call it hardware
to be traditional.

HARDWARE exists, is subject to gravity laws, you can touch it. Software
is more complex to describe since it can exist in several computers at the
same time, can replicate, and even if it is tied to electrical circuits
it is not just a property of any electrical circuit.

You can conceive a software-less computer, and the bare board when arrives
from the computer shop is just that.

Software is just as elusive as life itself: you do not see any weight increase
when you install the operating system in the computer.

Just a change in the machine's behavior.

Software can exist in a latent state, for instance in an USB key. If you examine
the key, nothing moves, everything looks completely dead.

But when you plug it in, the usb light goes on, and data flows from the
key into some other machine.

Viruses and spores are similar. They are just software, ready to wake
up if the right environment is found.

jacob
 
C

Chad

Well, sort of.  Some information about the type is implicit in the
generated machine code, but the type itself is not represented and
may not be determinable.

For example, this:
    int x = 5;
and this:
    long y = 5;
may result in identical machine code if int and long happen to have
the same size.

As Seebs pointed out, the constant 5 is of type int.  The rules of
the language say that, in an assignment, the RHS (right hand side)
expression is evaluated and the result is *converted* to the type
of the LHS and then copied.

So, at least conceptually, the int value 5 is converted from int
to char, and then the result of the conversion is stored in x.
All the information about what expression is of what type and what
conversions and other operations are required is determined at
compile time, when all the type information is still available.

In practice, the conversion from int to char is likely not to
show in the generated code; depending on the target architecture,
there might be a single move-byte instruction with a literal 5 as
its source and the address of x as its target.  As long as the final
result is the same, the compiler may collapse multiple operations
into something simpler.

One other question. Say I have the 'static' keyword before 'char x'.
Like in the following..

#include <stdio.h>


int main(void)
{
static char x;
x = 5;


return 0;



}

How does 'x' know about the modifier 'static' at run time? Is there
corresponding assmembler for 'static' that is generated at compile
time? Or is there something else?
 
C

Chad

No, they are general and because you lack academic preparation in
computer science, you cannot answer them.

What is your definition of academic preparation in computer science?
Holding a B.S in Computer Science from a University that will accept
anyone? Holding a B.S in Computer Science from a prestigious
university? Having scored over 800 on the CS portion of the GRE?
Having scored, on the first time around, an 80% on the Comprehensive
Exams? Having scored, the first time around, a 90% on both the
Comprehensive and Qualifying Exams?
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chad said:
One other question. Say I have the 'static' keyword before 'char x'.
Like in the following..

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
static char x;
x = 5;
return 0;
}

How does 'x' know about the modifier 'static' at run time? Is there
corresponding assmembler for 'static' that is generated at compile
time? Or is there something else?

The "static" keyword affects how memory for x is allocated.
Without "static", x will be allocated in a way that causes it to
be automatically deallocated when the enclosing function returns,
typically on "the stack". With "static", it's allocated in some
location that persists for the lifetime of the running program.
(In this case, the lifetime is very nearly the same, but main is,
for most purposes, treated as just another function.)

Get out of your head the idea that x "knows" anything. It doesn't
(unless you consider storing the value 5 to be a kind of knowledge).
The compiler has information on x, including its type, its size,
which statements and expressions refer to it, where it should be
stored, and so forth. It obtains some of this information from the
C source code, and builds other information from the rules for the
language and the decisions the compiler's authors chose to make.
Most of that information is discarded after the compiler has
done its job of generating code.

The compiler defines what x is (a particular memory location of a
particular size) and generates code that acts on it.

It might be instructive to take two versions of your program
above, one with "static" and one without, and compile them both
with whatever option your compiler uses to generate assembly code.
Use the lowest available optimization level so the compiler doesn't
eliminate x and the assignment altogether.
 
S

Seebs

As always, Nilges is just making stuff up. The question "what is the
difference between an array and a string in Turbo C" is not a "general"
question.
What is your definition of academic preparation in computer science?

You came in late. Nilges spent weeks arguing that I was unable to comment
on C because I had AP'd out of the first-year CS courses, thus missing them,
and was an ivory tower intellectual as a result. (Nilges apparently thinks
that AP classes somehow cover NOTHING of the material in the courses they
replace; given his history, all we can infer is that he probably failed to
get into the AP program and thus hates it on principle and believes all bad
things about it to be a priori knowledge.) Eventually, I pointed out that
this was implausible, because I'd never taken CS classes, so now he claims
that I have no "academic preparation in computer science".

You'll note that nothing about me has changed, but his belief about me has
changed instantaneously from "seebs is an ivory tower academic who does
graduate-level computer science but has no practical experience" to "seebs
has no academic background at all". It's really an astonishing demonstration
of just how completely pathological narcissism overrides any kind of data
processing or evaluation of the world.

-s
 
S

spinoza1111

As always,Nilgesis just making stuff up.  The question "what is the
difference between an array and a string in Turbo C" is not a "general"
question.


You came in late.  Nilgesspent weeks arguing that I was unable to comment
on C because I had AP'd out of the first-year CS courses, thus missing them,

This is a lie. I never claimed that you AP'd out of anything. Instead,
you told us that you did not major in CS and have never taken a
university-level class in CS.

It does appear that you and your Mom tried to game the AP system so
that you would not have to be in classes where your personality
defects would not be apparent. Your Mom wants resources taken away
from minority students so that primarily white students can avoid
integrated classrooms. But it appears that you took AP classes in
computer science and failed them, and majored in psychology in order
to get a high GPA.
and was an ivory tower intellectual as a result.  (Nilgesapparently thinks
that AP classes somehow cover NOTHING of the material in the courses they
replace; given his history, all we can infer is that he probably failed to
get into the AP program and thus hates it on principle and believes all bad
things about it to be a priori knowledge.)  Eventually, I pointed out that
this was implausible, because I'd never taken CS classes, so now he claims
that I have no "academic preparation in computer science".

You'll note that nothing about me has changed, but his belief about me has
changed instantaneously from "seebs is an ivory tower academic who does
graduate-level computer science but has no practical experience" to "seebs

I never thought you to be an ivory tower academic. Since the beginning
of this exchange, when you deleted unread an offer to discuss the
Schildt issue offline and spare this ng a flame war, I have thought
you were a nasty little ****.
 
S

spinoza1111

As always,Nilgesis just making stuff up.  The question "what is the
difference between an array and a string in Turbo C" is not a "general"
question.


You came in late.  Nilgesspent weeks arguing that I was unable to comment
on C because I had AP'd out of the first-year CS courses, thus missing them,
and was an ivory tower intellectual as a result.  (Nilgesapparently thinks
that AP classes somehow cover NOTHING of the material in the courses they
replace; given his history, all we can infer is that he probably failed to
get into the AP program and thus hates it on principle and believes all bad
things about it to be a priori knowledge.)  Eventually, I pointed out that

I did not take any AP "classes". I applied to graduate school and was
accepted and completed the work with a near straight A average.

You have told us that you majored in psychology. You have not
described passing AP exams. If you have, you need to be aware that
they only apply to the basics. Based on what your Mom has posted about
AP, it appears to me that you tried and failed to "game" the AP system
in order to avoid attending classes with minority students and
professors whom you seem to hate as a class.

Furthermore, your lack of academic preparation is evident in your
idiotic speculations elsethread about parentheses and in your claim in
CTCN that Schildt was wrong to mention stacks in discussing the C
runtime.
 
C

Chad

As always, Nilges is just making stuff up.  The question "what is the
difference between an array and a string in Turbo C" is not a "general"
question.


You came in late.  Nilges spent weeks arguing that I was unable to comment
on C because I had AP'd out of the first-year CS courses, thus missing them,
and was an ivory tower intellectual as a result.  (Nilges apparently thinks
that AP classes somehow cover NOTHING of the material in the courses they
replace; given his history, all we can infer is that he probably failed to
get into the AP program and thus hates it on principle and believes all bad
things about it to be a priori knowledge.)  Eventually, I pointed out that
this was implausible, because I'd never taken CS classes, so now he claims
that I have no "academic preparation in computer science".

You'll note that nothing about me has changed, but his belief about me has
changed instantaneously from "seebs is an ivory tower academic who does
graduate-level computer science but has no practical experience" to "seebs
has no academic background at all".  It's really an astonishing demonstration
of just how completely pathological narcissism overrides any kind of data
processing or evaluation of the world.

I don't mean to defend Nilges, but there might be some vague truth to
his assertion that 'AP class somehow cover nothing the material in the
courses they replace'. A few years ago I had a room mate that attended
UC Berkeley as a Biology major. He had told me that in 12th grade, it
only took him 30 minutes to do the AP Calculus exam. He said he got a
5 out of 5 and then told me that AP Calculus exam didn't prove
anything. He made similar comments to both the AP English and AP
Chemistry exams. That's enough off topic rambling from me.
 
S

spinoza1111

I don't mean to defendNilges,

Of course you don't, since the dynamics of this group is based on the
childish (and ultimately Fascistic) creation of people-with-cooties
who infect any friends with cooties in a caricatured transitive
relationship...the psychological origins of which are partially in the
primitive-regressive response to disease: the syphilis panic producing
Nazi talk, the AIDs panic reviving it.
but there might be some vague truth to
his assertion that 'AP class somehow cover nothing the material in the
courses they replace'. A few years ago I had a room mate that attended
UC Berkeley as a Biology major. He had told me that in 12th grade, it
only took him 30 minutes to do the AP Calculus exam. He said he got a
5 out of 5 and then told me that AP Calculus exam didn't prove
anything. He made similar comments to both the AP English and AP
Chemistry exams. That's enough off topic rambling from me.

I haven't seen where Seebach has claimed to have taken the AP exam in
computer science, but an examination won't give you the BS in computer
science, it will only allow you to skip the 101 class. Seebach's
discussions elsethread about parentheses and his claim that Schildt
erred in using the concept of stack to explain runtime make it clear
that he's never been forced to write even a small compiler-
interpreter, which remains a skill that separates the men from the
boys. He was unqualified to pass judgement on Schildt.

It's clear from Seebach's psychotic and infantile attacks on Schildt
that Seebach has a deep problem with listening to a mentor, possibly
relating to a dysfunction in his relationship with his own father. His
Mom seems to be a strong and in her screwed up Tea Bag way a smart
woman based on her public blog. But boys need their fathers to learn
that compassion which makes them fit members of civil discourse...who
don't spew lies about other people. There's a curious absence. I can
only speculate that it results from that form of twisted feminism
which "empowers" women by silencing male mentors, teachers, and here,
computer authors.

Seebach seems to be without listening skills, and to name this absence
fashionably as ADD. Schildt may have reminded him of professors who
talked on and on, not always getting the details right, while Seebach
tuned out. Unable to muster the focus and work ethic to do a genuine
tech review of Schildt, Seebach prefers to find random errors without
the slightest ability to classify the errors he claims to have found.
This is an after the fact justification of Seebach's inadequacy as a
listener.

I was rather upset myself in my first computer class over the fact
that the textbook covered the IBM 7094 and not the IBM 1401, and I
felt discriminated against, somewhat, as a Gentile in a predominantly
Jewish math milieu. However, at the time, no Mommy was mollycoddling
me. Instead, I had a low draft number and was hanging on to a student
deferment, and I realized it was time to **** or walk. Therefore, I
acquired the IBM 1401 reference manual at the IBM "retail shop" on the
Chicago river and taught myself machine and assembler language
programming.

At this point, the professor tried to introduce Fortran as the next
step; but the compiler had a bug, so we were expected to schlep up to
Science Research Associates and again overcome the resistance of a
bunch of computer operators to run our programs. But by that time I
and most of the student body were on strike, and I decided to skip
Fortran for the time being (a year later, I found the bug in the
compiler and then learned Fortran). This aporia earned me a B in this
era of NO grade inflation.

In fine, although we were inhaling, and marching, and protesting, we
were more mature than the current generation; Tom Wolfe remarked upon
the fact that French students of that era would spend the day throwing
tear gas back at police in Paris, but then go home to a bourgeois
dinner with their parents. We were more mature because it was **** or
walk. Whereas many American white kids graduate with an unusable BA
and move back in with Daddy and Mommy, or perhaps preferably with a
divorced Mommy who is unable to throw them out, not being backstopped
with Godzilla-Dad anymore.

It appears to me that WHITE students in Amerikkka today are molly-
coddled. For example, when I worked at Princeton, merely
matriculating, and doing a minimum amount of work, outside the hard
science, computer science, and math, meant straight As. I was treated
with undeserved awe on an Outward Bound expedition because the other
patrol members thought that even being employed was "getting into
Princeton", and they'd applied and been rejected.

I hardly wanted to put my five years with Princeton on my resume,
because many headhunters would call me thinking I had a Princeton
degree, and I was proud to have graduated from Roosevelt because
unlike Princeton, its senior class had never voted Hitler "most
admired" and unlike Princeton, Roosevelt never discriminated; whereas
Princeton would not admit Paul Robeson and even in recent years has
discriminated against Asian males.

But a friend told me, just be honest about the relationship, and if
people want to make a mistake in your favor, let it be.

The white students of wealthy background at Princeton were with
significant exceptions, a pretty arrogant lot. Some of them carried a
sign at the Princeton p-rade of 1989 reversing the Princeton slogan
"Princeton in the Nation's Service": the p-rade sign said, "The Nation
in Princeton's Service, Wall Street here we come".

The computer science majors were an exception, as were the women
English majors. In general, the students from poor and lower-middle
class backgrounds on scholarship with jobs in Info Centers were a
bunch of stars in my view. The problem was the children, grand-
children, and great-gc of arrogant wealthy alumni, and the children of
celebrities. They treated Princeton as a nonstop party, and deaths
resulted including the deaths of two undergraduates inveighled into
climbing the chapel.

The sense of white entitlement reaches down on the social scale and it
is found in "advanced placement" and parents who complain vociferously
when their Little Darlings get a B. Whereas our friends at IUT in
Bangladesh have to WORK. They take hours standing on public transit to
get to school. In many Asian universities, the professor does not
admit latecomers. And they can probably define "C" accurately.

Whereas American programmers master one or two languages...and spend
the rest of their careers speaking out of ignorance about paradigms
they don't want to learn, and stabbing their coworkers in the back.
The result, is that many of them wind up driving cabs after a career
typically not more than ten years. For consolation, they turn to the
Fascism of the Tea Baggers.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,770
Messages
2,569,584
Members
45,075
Latest member
MakersCBDBloodSupport

Latest Threads

Top