C++ is complicated and C is bloated.

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by CoreyWhite, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. CoreyWhite

    CoreyWhite Guest

    So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    C++ but at least has more power than C & is very easy to learn from
    the manuals. I'm also buying books on C++, and books about algorithms
    for C. It isn't easy to learn it though, and I have been trying to
    learn unix, linux, and C++ since day 1. Even when I first turned on a
    windows machine I fantasized about running my own unix server. Now I
    pay a good rate every month for an account on a linux shell box, with
    webspace. And I have an iMac that runs UNIX, but can also handle all
    of the artistic things you could only do on windows before. There is
    more software available for iMac's than there is for linux, and the
    operating system is better, much better hardware too. I can't afford
    to buy an iMac supercomputer network, or a leased line from an ISP, so
    I'm not going to be the next YouTube, MySpace, or Google, but I can at
    least learn how to code perl, cgi, and C++. I know the ins and outs
    of the shell, a bit about what's running under the hood, I know how to
    use Vi and Emacs, and I know how to get around my system administrator
    when I need to run programs that think they need root. There is a lot
    more I need to learn, but what's so fun about it is they don't teach
    it to you in school. School is just there to inspire you, and you
    have to get your hands dirty to learn about it. Just get a linux
    machine and learn the tricks of the trade, buy the books on unix from
    Orielly (Hopefully FreeBSD instead of Linux). You don't even need an
    iMac at this point.

    But where on earth can I find a book that demonstrates how to make
    tight compact algorithms with vectors, strings, lists, maps, and
    containers in general with C++? I need to learn to use CONTAINERS,
    and LOW LEVEL CONTROLS, and Understand ITERATORS & POINTERS. Once you
    understand all of that the object oriented model of classes and
    templates, and structures, and all of that falls into place. But I
    need to learn by example, and compare what I'm learning to the old
    bloated way of doing it in C. Actually come to think of it C++ isn't
    that complicated, but it has just taken me years to understand the
    basics. Hopefully I'll even be writing C++ backends for websites with
    CGI, and maybe even one day will code my own webserver that doesn't
    even need CGI as a middle man.
    CoreyWhite, Mar 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    CoreyWhite <> wrote:
    >So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    >C++ but at least has more power than C


    C and C++ and perl are all Turing Complete -- any deterministic
    calculation can be expressed and computed in any of them (given
    enough time and memory.) As far as computing theory is concerned,
    none of them are more powerful than the other. If you aren't
    using computing theory as your metric for which language is more
    powerful, then you had best be more specific about what it
    means for a language to have certain amounts of power.

    >& is very easy to learn from
    >the manuals.


    As a perl programmer for a number of years, I can say with confidence
    that if you are finding perl easy to learn, then you don't understand
    it yet! perl has a lot of hidden subtleties in the corner cases of its
    many operators. perl is not defined by any theory or by any formal
    specification, and not defined by its documentation: perl is defined
    in such cases by what the perl implementation actually does (whether it
    makes sense to do it or not.) When I say "is defined", I'm not speaking
    loosely: I mean that Larry Wall has said specifically that it is the
    implementation that defines the language.

    If you are finding perl very easy to learn, search for perl "golfing"
    contests, where the goal is to produce a specific output with
    the shortest possible program. See if you can understand any
    of the winning entries.

    (Don't misunderstand me: I'm not putting perl down.)
    --
    Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft
    Walter Roberson, Mar 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CoreyWhite

    santosh Guest

    CoreyWhite wrote:
    > So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    > C++ but at least has more power than C & is very easy to learn from
    > the manuals.


    What's meant by "power" is not carved into stone. It's context
    dependent.

    > I'm also buying books on C++, and books about algorithms
    > for C. It isn't easy to learn it though, and I have been trying to
    > learn unix, linux, and C++ since day 1.


    I agree that learning C and C++ is not a walk in the park, but it's
    exciting and rewarding in it's own way.

    > Even when I first turned on a
    > windows machine I fantasized about running my own unix server. Now I
    > pay a good rate every month for an account on a linux shell box, with
    > webspace. And I have an iMac that runs UNIX, but can also handle all
    > of the artistic things you could only do on windows before. There is
    > more software available for iMac's than there is for linux, and the
    > operating system is better, much better hardware too.


    This group is about ISO C. Do you have a C related question or
    comment?

    > I can't afford
    > to buy an iMac supercomputer network, or a leased line from an ISP, so
    > I'm not going to be the next YouTube, MySpace, or Google, but I can at
    > least learn how to code perl, cgi, and C++. I know the ins and outs
    > of the shell, a bit about what's running under the hood, I know how to
    > use Vi and Emacs, and I know how to get around my system administrator
    > when I need to run programs that think they need root. There is a lot
    > more I need to learn, but what's so fun about it is they don't teach
    > it to you in school. School is just there to inspire you, and you
    > have to get your hands dirty to learn about it. Just get a linux
    > machine and learn the tricks of the trade, buy the books on unix from
    > Orielly (Hopefully FreeBSD instead of Linux). You don't even need an
    > iMac at this point.


    This would be more appropriate in comp.unix.programmer or
    comp.programming.

    > But where on earth can I find a book that demonstrates how to make
    > tight compact algorithms with vectors, strings, lists, maps, and
    > containers in general with C++? I need to learn to use CONTAINERS,
    > and LOW LEVEL CONTROLS, and Understand ITERATORS & POINTERS. Once you
    > understand all of that the object oriented model of classes and
    > templates, and structures, and all of that falls into place. But I
    > need to learn by example, and compare what I'm learning to the old
    > bloated way of doing it in C.


    Much of what goes on "behind the scenes", when you use C++'s fancy
    features would be comparable to what a C programmer would do. C and C+
    + are not "bloated", particular pieces of code written by poor
    programmers are.

    <snip>
    santosh, Mar 30, 2007
    #3
  4. CoreyWhite

    hlubenow Guest

    So you like strings, lists and vectors.
    And you like Perl, because dealing with strings and lists is so easy there.
    So what if I said, you could have similar string-lists in C too ?
    You can ! Just read about "linked lists" and write your own library.
    Or you could use mine :).

    Or look here:
    http://www.pronix.de/comment/site-1038/open-1406/site-1.html

    Anyway: C is difficult, but it's rather cool to have little, fast, compiled
    stand-alone applications, you can pass to users.

    H.
    hlubenow, Mar 30, 2007
    #4
  5. On Mar 30, 6:30 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:

    Try the borland enviroment...You can get a free version for
    educational
    purposes.... I found this a good one for learning c++ and c.

    > So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    > C++ but at least has more power than C & is very easy to learn from
    > the manuals. I'm also buying books on C++, and books about algorithms
    > for C. It isn't easy to learn it though, and I have been trying to
    > learn unix, linux, and C++ since day 1. Even when I first turned on a
    > windows machine I fantasized about running my own unix server. Now I
    > pay a good rate every month for an account on a linux shell box, with
    > webspace. And I have an iMac that runs UNIX, but can also handle all
    > of the artistic things you could only do on windows before. There is
    > more software available for iMac's than there is for linux, and the
    > operating system is better, much better hardware too. I can't afford
    > to buy an iMac supercomputer network, or a leased line from an ISP, so
    > I'm not going to be the next YouTube, MySpace, or Google, but I can at
    > least learn how to code perl, cgi, and C++. I know the ins and outs
    > of the shell, a bit about what's running under the hood, I know how to
    > use Vi and Emacs, and I know how to get around my system administrator
    > when I need to run programs that think they need root. There is a lot
    > more I need to learn, but what's so fun about it is they don't teach
    > it to you in school. School is just there to inspire you, and you
    > have to get your hands dirty to learn about it. Just get a linux
    > machine and learn the tricks of the trade, buy the books on unix from
    > Orielly (Hopefully FreeBSD instead of Linux). You don't even need an
    > iMac at this point.
    >
    > But where on earth can I find a book that demonstrates how to make
    > tight compact algorithms with vectors, strings, lists, maps, and
    > containers in general with C++? I need to learn to use CONTAINERS,
    > and LOW LEVEL CONTROLS, and Understand ITERATORS & POINTERS. Once you
    > understand all of that the object oriented model of classes and
    > templates, and structures, and all of that falls into place. But I
    > need to learn by example, and compare what I'm learning to the old
    > bloated way of doing it in C. Actually come to think of it C++ isn't
    > that complicated, but it has just taken me years to understand the
    > basics. Hopefully I'll even be writing C++ backends for websites with
    > CGI, and maybe even one day will code my own webserver that doesn't
    > even need CGI as a middle man.
    J.R's death and resurrection show., Mar 30, 2007
    #5
  6. CoreyWhite

    Flash Gordon Guest

    hlubenow wrote, On 30/03/07 19:59:

    Please provide enough context so that your post stands on its own,
    including the attribution saying how you are replying to and attribution
    lines for any other quoted material.

    > So you like strings, lists and vectors.
    > And you like Perl, because dealing with strings and lists is so easy there.
    > So what if I said, you could have similar string-lists in C too ?
    > You can ! Just read about "linked lists" and write your own library.


    They still would not have the convenience of strings in Perl.

    > Or you could use mine :).
    >
    > Or look here:
    > http://www.pronix.de/comment/site-1038/open-1406/site-1.html


    Firstly you are casting the result of malloc. Don't do that in C (and
    don't use malloc in C++).

    Secondly, you are using malloc without having included stdlib.h, this
    invokes undefined behaviour and DOES cause programs to fail on modern
    architectures. Without the cast the compiler would be OBLIGED to provide
    at least one diagnostic.

    Thirdly, you are using a type node that is not defined, so the code is
    incomplete.

    > Anyway: C is difficult, but it's rather cool to have little, fast, compiled
    > stand-alone applications, you can pass to users.


    Plenty of languages can give you that.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Flash Gordon, Mar 30, 2007
    #6
  7. "santosh" <> writes:
    > CoreyWhite wrote:

    [stuff]
    >
    > This group is about ISO C. Do you have a C related question or
    > comment?


    Trolls rarely do. Please don't feed this one.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Mar 30, 2007
    #7
  8. CoreyWhite wrote:
    > And I have an iMac that runs UNIX, but can also handle all
    > of the artistic things you could only do on windows before. There is
    > more software available for iMac's than there is for linux, and the
    > operating system is better, much better hardware too.


    More software for the imac? I trialed a mac a while back for about 3
    months and spent most my time downloading linux software through fink.
    Most mac software seems to be shareware crap, why would I pay for a
    basic app when I can get a free software program at no cost and it is
    also free for me to do what I want with it.

    Another thing about the mac is that all the binary downloads are twice
    the size it needs to be because they generally have power pc and intel
    binaries in the one file.

    As for better hardware linux will run pretty much anything including the
    imac. I am in fact typing this from a macbook with linux as the only os
    I use (I do have a 5 gb mac os x partition I never use but maybe one day
    I will test compiling some stuff on it for cross platform testing).

    Mac is pretty good but it doesn't feel like a unix machine to me. Sure
    you have bash and gcc and vim and can install a lot of unix apps but
    that doesn't make it feel unixy enough for me.

    FreeBSD is pretty good I used it before on a couple of my desktops but
    it never seems to support all the hardware I want on my laptops like
    wireless cards etc.

    Kind Regards,
    Anthony Irwin
    Anthony Irwin, Mar 31, 2007
    #8
  9. CoreyWhite

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:30:20 +0000 (UTC), -cnrc.gc.ca
    (Walter Roberson) wrote in comp.lang.c:

    > In article <>,
    > CoreyWhite <> wrote:
    > >So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    > >C++ but at least has more power than C


    **** PLEASE DON'T FEED TROLLS *****

    Many of us kill-filtered this troll long ago, and would not see him at
    all if people like you and Nick Keighley did not rise to the bait and
    reply.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
    http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
    Jack Klein, Mar 31, 2007
    #9
  10. CoreyWhite

    Alex Buell Guest

    On 30 Mar 2007 10:30:49 -0700, I waved a wand and this message
    magically appears in front of CoreyWhite:

    > ven one day will code my own webserver that doesn't
    > even need CGI as a middle man.


    Oh, do please go away, you're wasting everyone's time! Can't you just
    troll the Perl newsgroups instead?
    --
    http://www.munted.org.uk

    Fearsome grindings.
    Alex Buell, Mar 31, 2007
    #10
  11. CoreyWhite

    Army1987 Guest

    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:eujkvs$a0f$...
    > C and C++ and perl are all Turing Complete -- any deterministic
    > calculation can be expressed and computed in any of them (given
    > enough time and memory.)

    Even Brainfuck is Turing complete.
    Now, write a Brainfuck compiler in Brainfuck, write the kernel for an OS in
    Brainfuck and compile it with the compiler which you wrote.
    (You can use the Brainfuck interpreter which was in a recent IOCCC entry to
    run the first version of the compiler, compiling the second version of it.)

    Or just write a Brainfuck program which compares two files, and prints "1"
    to stdout if they are bytewise equal, and "0" otherwise.

    Computing isn't all about calculations. Have you ever heard of input/output?
    Army1987, Apr 1, 2007
    #11
  12. CoreyWhite

    ais523 Guest

    On Apr 1, 12:05 pm, "Army1987" <> wrote:
    > "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:eujkvs$a0f$...> C and C++ and perl are all Turing Complete -- any deterministic
    > > calculation can be expressed and computed in any of them (given
    > > enough time and memory.)

    >
    > Even Brainfuck is Turing complete.
    > Now, write a Brainfuck compiler in Brainfuck, write the kernel for an OS in
    > Brainfuck and compile it with the compiler which you wrote.
    > (You can use the Brainfuck interpreter which was in a recent IOCCC entry to
    > run the first version of the compiler, compiling the second version of it.)
    >
    > Or just write a Brainfuck program which compares two files, and prints "1"
    > to stdout if they are bytewise equal, and "0" otherwise.
    >
    > Computing isn't all about calculations. Have you ever heard of input/output?


    (alt.magick and comp.lang.c++ removed from NG line, as this is
    probably off-topic in those newsgroups)

    It's doubtful whether C is in fact Turing-complete. Because
    sizeof(void*) has to be finite, this means that it's only possible to
    get a finite amount of storage using C, unless you use register
    variables (which need not have addresses). You can only get an
    infinite amount of register-variable storage using recursion, and you
    can't pass an infinite number of such variables from one invocation of
    a function to another (not even using varargs). So I suspect any
    implementation of C is in fact only a push-down automaton, rather than
    fully Turing-complete.
    --
    ais523
    ais523, Apr 1, 2007
    #12
  13. CoreyWhite

    santosh Guest

    ais523 wrote:
    > On Apr 1, 12:05 pm, "Army1987" <> wrote:
    > > "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:eujkvs$a0f$...> C and C++ and perl are all Turing Complete -- any deterministic
    > > > calculation can be expressed and computed in any of them (given
    > > > enough time and memory.)

    > >
    > > Even Brainfuck is Turing complete.
    > > Now, write a Brainfuck compiler in Brainfuck, write the kernel for an OS in
    > > Brainfuck and compile it with the compiler which you wrote.
    > > (You can use the Brainfuck interpreter which was in a recent IOCCC entry to
    > > run the first version of the compiler, compiling the second version of it.)
    > >
    > > Or just write a Brainfuck program which compares two files, and prints "1"
    > > to stdout if they are bytewise equal, and "0" otherwise.
    > >
    > > Computing isn't all about calculations. Have you ever heard of input/output?

    >
    > (alt.magick and comp.lang.c++ removed from NG line, as this is
    > probably off-topic in those newsgroups)
    >
    > It's doubtful whether C is in fact Turing-complete. Because
    > sizeof(void*) has to be finite, this means that it's only possible to
    > get a finite amount of storage using C, unless you use register
    > variables (which need not have addresses). You can only get an
    > infinite amount of register-variable storage using recursion, and you
    > can't pass an infinite number of such variables from one invocation of
    > a function to another (not even using varargs). So I suspect any
    > implementation of C is in fact only a push-down automaton, rather than
    > fully Turing-complete.


    It's Turing complete in the sense that any computation that can be
    done with a Turing machine can be done with C. Whether all such
    calculations are practical is not relevant.
    santosh, Apr 1, 2007
    #13
  14. CoreyWhite

    Default User Guest

    ais523 wrote:


    > (alt.magick and comp.lang.c++ removed from NG line, as this is
    > probably off-topic in those newsgroups)


    If you had carried that thought through, and realized that it was a
    stupid troll, then you could have saved many electrons from pointless
    activity.




    Brian
    Default User, Apr 1, 2007
    #14
  15. CoreyWhite

    Old Wolf Guest

    [OT] Turing completeness of C (was: Perl troll's latest rubbish)

    On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "ais523" <> wrote:
    > It's doubtful whether C is in fact Turing-complete. Because
    > sizeof(void*) has to be finite, this means that it's only possible to
    > get a finite amount of storage using C


    You could have a pointer pointing to an array of 1000 pointers,
    each of which point to 1000 pointers, each of which point to
    4000000000 bytes.

    X: When you need more memory, create an array of 1000 pointers, each
    of which point to one of the structures described in the previous
    paragraph.

    goto X;
    Old Wolf, Apr 2, 2007
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    santosh <> wrote:
    >ais523 wrote:
    >> It's doubtful whether C is in fact Turing-complete. Because
    >> sizeof(void*) has to be finite, this means that it's only possible to
    >> get a finite amount of storage using C,


    >It's Turing complete in the sense that any computation that can be
    >done with a Turing machine can be done with C.


    Allocatable memory is not necessary for a Turing Machine, except as
    a method to simulate the indefinitely-long Turing Machine tape. If,
    though, one steps back to the model of the Turing Machine as
    continually doing I/O, one can simply impliment the tape in terms
    of a rewritable stream (fopen's "rb+" mode) and move forward and
    move backward operations (fseek's SEEK_CUR).

    For any particular CHAR_BIT one could encounter the difficulty
    that a Turing Machine may define more than UCHAR_MAX different
    symbols -- but then for any given Turing Machine, one could group
    together adjacent unsigned char until the aggregate size was enough
    to support the number of different symbols defined for the machine.
    That works until you start running into Turing Machines that
    require so many different symbols that one tape cell exceeds the
    largest filesize... but filesize is an implementation limit, not
    a C limit.

    Any particular implementation of C will have filesystem limits
    and thus limits on the number of different memory cells available;
    but again as noted above, that's an implementation problem.

    One could -probably- build an operating system with a filesystem
    that supported files of indefinite length. The limits would then become
    the amount of installed storage. Robotic implementations could be
    designed which built and added on more storage continually; the limits
    would then become factors such as available space and power and
    raw materials needed to build the new storage.

    So any -existing- computer cannot run an indefinitely large Turing
    Machine... but exactly the same problem occurs for all real computer
    languages. There isn't even a real Turing Machine that could
    accept an indefinitely large computation -- but the C language gets
    you as close to that as can be gotten with any real hardware.
    Limitations are in the implementation, not in the language.

    --
    If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. -- Henry Spencer
    Walter Roberson, Apr 2, 2007
    #16
  17. CoreyWhite

    Guest

    On Mar 30, 10:30 am, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
    > So I'm reading books about perl, which may not be quite as powerful as
    > C++ but at least has more power than C & is very easy to learn from
    > the manuals. I'm also buying books on C++, and books about algorithms
    > for C. It isn't easy to learn it though, and I have been trying to
    > learn unix, linux, and C++ since day 1. Even when I first turned on a
    > windows machine I fantasized about running my own unix server. Now I
    > pay a good rate every month for an account on a linux shell box, with
    > webspace. And I have an iMac that runs UNIX, but can also handle all
    > of the artistic things you could only do on windows before. There is
    > more software available for iMac's than there is for linux, and the
    > operating system is better, much better hardware too. I can't afford
    > to buy an iMac supercomputer network, or a leased line from an ISP, so
    > I'm not going to be the next YouTube, MySpace, or Google, but I can at
    > least learn how to code perl, cgi, and C++. I know the ins and outs
    > of the shell, a bit about what's running under the hood, I know how to
    > use Vi and Emacs, and I know how to get around my system administrator
    > when I need to run programs that think they need root. There is a lot
    > more I need to learn, but what's so fun about it is they don't teach
    > it to you in school. School is just there to inspire you, and you
    > have to get your hands dirty to learn about it. Just get a linux
    > machine and learn the tricks of the trade, buy the books on unix from
    > Orielly (Hopefully FreeBSD instead of Linux). You don't even need an
    > iMac at this point.
    >
    > But where on earth can I find a book that demonstrates how to make
    > tight compact algorithms with vectors, strings, lists, maps, and
    > containers in general with C++? I need to learn to use CONTAINERS,
    > and LOW LEVEL CONTROLS, and Understand ITERATORS & POINTERS. Once you
    > understand all of that the object oriented model of classes and
    > templates, and structures, and all of that falls into place. But I
    > need to learn by example, and compare what I'm learning to the old
    > bloated way of doing it in C. Actually come to think of it C++ isn't
    > that complicated, but it has just taken me years to understand the
    > basics. Hopefully I'll even be writing C++ backends for websites with
    > CGI, and maybe even one day will code my own webserver that doesn't
    > even need CGI as a middle man.


    I have observe this difficulty too. From my physical science back
    grond I see all OOP languages (and C++ is the most OOP) as committee
    programming languages, for large software houses. I see a single
    programmer as one who can not manage the inherent reference bugs in
    OOP languages, without out side help. JAVA, and Object Pascal sought
    to minimize this problem with single inheritance, but outside
    management is needed for any project of more than a few objects. This
    applies to all levels of code application, and server and network
    coding can have this problem where you can not even see the errors --
    they are just out there. All of Microsoft's software projects suffer
    this problem. Good luck.

    April 1, 2007


    David Ashmore
    , Apr 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Re: [OT] Turing completeness of C (was: Perl troll's latest rubbish)

    "Old Wolf" <> writes:
    > On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "ais523" <> wrote:
    >> It's doubtful whether C is in fact Turing-complete. Because
    >> sizeof(void*) has to be finite, this means that it's only possible to
    >> get a finite amount of storage using C

    >
    > You could have a pointer pointing to an array of 1000 pointers,
    > each of which point to 1000 pointers, each of which point to
    > 4000000000 bytes.
    >
    > X: When you need more memory, create an array of 1000 pointers, each
    > of which point to one of the structures described in the previous
    > paragraph.
    >
    > goto X;


    But each byte of each object has to have a distinct address which,
    when converted to void*, must compare unequal to the address of
    every other byte of any object. Thus you can't have more than
    2**(CHAR_BIT * sizeof(size_t) bytes in *all* currently existing objects
    in a program. An implementation can make size_t arbitrarily large,
    but only finitely large.

    But as far as Turing completeness is concerned, you can store as much
    information as you like in files, and a file's size needn't be limited
    to any fixed maximum.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Apr 2, 2007
    #18
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Henrry Pires

    Stange and complicated

    Henrry Pires, Feb 7, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    373
    Karl Seguin [MVP]
    Feb 7, 2006
  2. Mickey Segal
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    374
  3. CoreyWhite
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    601
  4. PKSpence

    Bloated webservice

    PKSpence, Oct 28, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    123
    Henrik G√łttig
    Nov 7, 2005
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    111
    Matt Garrish
    Aug 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page