Faster for() loops?

[Bob]

Don't know about majority, personally when I see a post that hard to
make sense of I'll just skip it and jump to next one...

Tom

Agreed. Life is too short to waste time un-mangling the conversation.

I have already kill-filed Joe Butler. (yes, I know that's is a rude thing to
say - it's part of my point, here) I have no idea how many more of the 100s
or 1000s who read c.a.e and c.l.c have also done so.

Oddly, the first post I see in this thread from him he has snipped and
bottom posted (unfortunately, without proper attribution for what he was
responding to). It is only his later posts that flaunt the etiquette of
these groups.

Bob

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Top-posting is posting new text *above* any quoted text; if there is
no quoted text, it's not top-posting (or at best it's a degenerate
case that could as easily be called bottom-posting or middle-posting).
What you're describing is, or should be, simply posting a new article.

My point exactly.

 

[Michael N. Moran]

Let's put this into perspective.

Althought I don't know how to verify this, I suspect many 100s, perhaps
1000s, of people read these posts.

Only 2 or 3 people told me not to top post. That's 3 out of 1000? 3 out of

Make that 4. I suspect that many others controlling themselves
and just waiting for this recurring flamefest to die.

Who knows why you cannot simply comply with the customs
of these groups. They are among the best usenet has to
offer.

<sigh>

--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the key."
The Eagles, "Already Gone"

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1

 

[Paul Marciano]

It amazes me how some people can claim to speak for the whole group
with no documentation at all. I, for one, appreciate top-posting when
it is appropriate.

Indeed. Having just read the thread it has only just dawned on me
(after 18 years reading USENET) what "top posting" is. I always
thought it was posting a reply to the first message in a thread instead
of replying to the specific one you were answering - something that
would throw anyone off the trail... especially with threadded
newsreaders.

But now it appears it's something so small - the order of text within a
message. My God... how anal some people are. Ok, that's unfair, but
only just.

I can see how a top-posting may be harder to speed-read than a
bottom-posting but kill files? Abuse? Posting nagging comments to the
thread without actually furthering the discussion?

You know, people are clever. They can figure out messages. I don't
see how your personal quests do anything but make you feel important.


I don't know. This thread amazes me. It simply amazes me.

 

[Keith Thompson]

It amazes me how some people can claim to speak for the whole group
with no documentation at all. I, for one, appreciate top-posting when
it is appropriate.

[...]
I can see how a top-posting may be harder to speed-read than a
bottom-posting but kill files? Abuse? Posting nagging comments to the
thread without actually furthering the discussion?

Take a look at the context in groups.google.com. One poster (initials
JB) was asked not to top-post. He made a top-posted followup. He was
reminded again. He replied with personal abuse, and has continued to
do so.

Most of us don't killfile posters for top-posting. People are
killfiled for being rude and abusive, especially when they do so in
response to good advice.

If you joined this thread already in progress, I can see how you might
think we're heaping abuse on top-posters. That's not what's going on.

 

[David Brown]

Let's put this into perspective.

Althought I don't know how to verify this, I suspect many 100s, perhaps
1000s, of people read these posts.

Only 2 or 3 people told me not to top post. That's 3 out of 1000? 3 out of
10,000? Who knows. That suggests to me that the vast majority of people
don't give a damn. Probably, like me, the vast majority are easily able to
deal with all the forms of posting and it is, therefore, not an issue for
them.

I understand that top-posting annoys some people. For me, when someone
who's only contribution is to butt in with something along the lines of
"space corp. directive one ex delta nine has been violated", that is
infinitely more annoying than any other person's posting style.

These groups have a high proportion of lurkers who seldom or never post,
a fair number who post semi-regularly, and a core who have been here for
years and contribute regularly for the benefit of all. It's often these
core posters that ask for usenet rules of courtesy to be followed - they
put a lot of time and effort into helping people here, and all they ask
in return is a little politeness. Personally, I can't see any reason
not to follow conventions - you say you understand that top-posting
annoys people, yet you continue to do it.

The only input 'Default User' (prick) gave at that point was, "You need to
get the other point, the one about not top-posting". If Default User had
any sense, he would have realised that I had chosen to ignore the advice
about top-posting, that it was not the first time that I had been told and,
therefore, it was a pretty pointless exercise to step in at that point.

Sincere regards to everyone.

Since you seem to have lost track of the history here, I'll summarise
it. A poster ("Flash Gordon") replied to your post with useful
information, along with a request that you follow usenet conventions to
make the thread easier for everyone. It's only when you completely
ignored that request that you got a curt reply - and you responded with
a personal insult. That's what got this thread rolling.

If you are on the phone to someone, and they ask you to speak a bit
louder, would you ignore the request? If they asked you a second time,
would you call them a "prick" ? If you are visiting someone's house, do
you put your feet on the table just because you do it at home? Or do
you light up a cigarette without asking, because that's your "personal
style" ? No, any time you interact with other people, you are polite
and respectful, and follow the conventions already established. Usenet
is nothing special in this regard.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Paul Marciano wrote:

Indeed. Having just read the thread it has only just dawned on me
(after 18 years reading USENET) what "top posting" is. I always
thought it was posting a reply to the first message in a thread instead
of replying to the specific one you were answering - something that
would throw anyone off the trail... especially with threadded
newsreaders.

Yet you bottom post anyway. Probably because you have just followed the
convention because that is the normal and polite thing to do.

But now it appears it's something so small - the order of text within a
message. My God... how anal some people are. Ok, that's unfair, but
only just.

Since the posts won't get read by a number of skilled people otherwise
it is useful advise, as well as the long standing practice.

I can see how a top-posting may be harder to speed-read than a
bottom-posting but kill files? Abuse? Posting nagging comments to the
thread without actually furthering the discussion?

No, my initial reply contained one or two lines about posting style and
many lines of reply to the actual message. I was possibly a little short
in that one line but it was not kill filing or abuse and nor was it a
post not forwarding the discussion. I believe the same applies to most
if not all posts I have made where I have requested that people not top
post.

You know, people are clever. They can figure out messages. I don't
see how your personal quests do anything but make you feel important.

No, we do it because we are not prepared to put in the effort to deal
with the mess top-posting makes of a thread and would prefer that people
follow long standing conventions than that they were ignored and
received no assistance.

I don't know. This thread amazes me. It simply amazes me.

It amazes me that people who defend top posters assume that those
requesting newcomers follow the long standing convention of bottom
posting assume that all we ever do is complain about peoples posting
style and abuse them for it without bothering to check.

 

[Robert Scott]

..These groups have a high proportion of lurkers who seldom or never post,
a fair number who post semi-regularly, and a core who have been here for
years and contribute regularly for the benefit of all. It's often these
core posters that ask for usenet rules of courtesy to be followed - they
put a lot of time and effort into helping people here, and all they ask
in return is a little politeness. Personally, I can't see any reason
not to follow conventions...

Conventions are standards that are agreed to by all or most of the
participants. The prohibition against top-posting is not one of them,
except in the mind of a few zelots. You are free to express your
opinion that you think top-posting is impolite, but when you try to
assign any authority to that opinion, don't be surprised if someone
like me calls you on it.

...If you are on the phone to someone, and they ask you to speak a bit
louder, would you ignore the request? If they asked you a second time,
would you call them a "prick" ? If you are visiting someone's house, do
you put your feet on the table just because you do it at home? Or do
you light up a cigarette without asking, because that's your "personal
style" ?

All these analogies are of one-on-one interactions. Usenet involves
many-to-one interactions. One person's request for what he thinks is
politeness has to be weighed with what others in the group think.
Just because one person is pissed whenever he sees top-posting that
does not mean everyone in the group, or even a majority of the group,
is similarly pissed. I just don't care. But I do care when people
who are self-appointed Internet cops try to make people feel like they
have done something wrong when in fact their crime was minimal or
non-existent.


-Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan

 

[Rich Walker]

Let's put this into perspective.

Althought I don't know how to verify this, I suspect many 100s, perhaps
1000s, of people read these posts.

Only 2 or 3 people told me not to top post. That's 3 out of 1000? 3 out of
10,000? Who knows. That suggests to me that the vast majority of people
don't give a damn. Probably, like me, the vast majority are easily able to
deal with all the forms of posting and it is, therefore, not an issue for
them.

The vast majority of long-term Usenet readers have lost whatever faith
in the educability of the human race that they might ever have had.

So when another person starts top-posting and insisting that they have
some divine right to ignore long-standing protocols that have developed
to ease communication in these groups, we just make use of the scoring
features on our news-reading programs.

Those who don't use news-readers with scoring appear to use killfiles
instead.

You'll never hear them complain because they can't hear you talk
anymore.

There *is* a reason long-standing cultures develop protocols for
communication, and it's not just to annoy others.

cheers, Rich.

 

[David Brown]

Conventions are standards that are agreed to by all or most of the
participants. The prohibition against top-posting is not one of them,
except in the mind of a few zelots. You are free to express your
opinion that you think top-posting is impolite, but when you try to
assign any authority to that opinion, don't be surprised if someone
like me calls you on it.

As I said before, I can't speak for the group, but as a long-term reader
I can say what I see as a rough summary of opinions expressed here (in
c.a.e., at least). Of course, I can't summarise un-expressed opinions
of people who don't care one way or the other.

And again, it's not so much the top-posting itself that is impolite.
There are other groups where top-posting is considered the norm, and
receives no objections - just as there are probably groups where html
posting or SMS language is considered normal. It's the arrogant
disrespect for common conventions, and the "I don't care what others
think, I'll make my own rules" attitude that is impolite.

All these analogies are of one-on-one interactions. Usenet involves
many-to-one interactions. One person's request for what he thinks is
politeness has to be weighed with what others in the group think.

The personal insult was a personal post to a single person, making the
analogies valid (IMHO, of course). But if you prefer, replace the phone
call or the house visit with a town-hall public meeting. We are still
talking about conversations between real people who dislike being
name-called.

Just because one person is pissed whenever he sees top-posting that
does not mean everyone in the group, or even a majority of the group,
is similarly pissed. I just don't care. But I do care when people

No one claims that everyone in the group, or the majority in the group,
get annoyed by top-posting. But (based on this thread, and countless
others before it), the majority of those *who express an opinion*
dislike top-posting.

who are self-appointed Internet cops try to make people feel like they
have done something wrong when in fact their crime was minimal or
non-existent.

Remember, the "crime" in question was not top-posting - it was
deliberate, repeated top-posting after receiving a polite request to
stop it, followed by a personal insult, although it's still minor in the
grand scheme of things.

 

[Lanarcam]

(snip)

But now it appears it's something so small - the order of text within a
message. My God... how anal some people are. Ok, that's unfair, but
only just.
(snip)

You know, people are clever. They can figure out messages. I don't
see how your personal quests do anything but make you feel important.


I don't know. This thread amazes me. It simply amazes me.

Gulliver would perhaps have called that the battle of
top postians vs bottom postians

 

[Dave Hansen]

Conventions are standards that are agreed to by all or most of the
participants. The prohibition against top-posting is not one of them,
except in the mind of a few zelots. You are free to express your
opinion that you think top-posting is impolite, but when you try to
assign any authority to that opinion, don't be surprised if someone
like me calls you on it.

FWIW (very little, I suspect, I'm not sure why I'm bothering)...

I for one don't find top-posting "rude" per se, but I do find failure
to trim quoting "rude." IME, top-posters are the most egregious
offenders -- if they can't be bothered to put their comments in
context, they surely can't be bothered to trim irrelevent quotes.

I do find top-posts harder to read, and am more likely to skim and
skip them. That's really the choice every poster has to make. If the
post is hard to read, fewer people will put the effort into reading
it. If you don't want people to actually read your post, top-posting
is a good way to discourage them.

I am most reluctant to respond to top-posts, because the flow of the
conversation is all messed up, and it's usually not worth the effort
to reformat. So if you want the last word, perhaps its better to top
post.

Finally, I don't plonk posters, I plonk threads. I was hoping for a
little more useful content out of this one, but it's probably in vain.
I've held on longer than I normally do, and I won't be here much
longer.

Regards,

-=Dave

 

[Flash Gordon]

Conventions are standards that are agreed to by all or most of the
participants. The prohibition against top-posting is not one of them,
except in the mind of a few zelots.

Most posts are *not* top posted, and this includes yours, therefore it
has been implicitly agreed upon by the majority of participants.

Had you checked the history of comp.lang.c you would find that this has
been the case for a long time, and also that the people who advocate
top-posting are *not* in general long time participants and that almost
every post by a long time participant in comp.lang.c on the subject has
been against top-posting and in favour of bottom and middle posting.

> You are free to express your
opinion that you think top-posting is impolite, but when you try to
assign any authority to that opinion, don't be surprised if someone
like me calls you on it.

Feel free, but it is still true that the majority of the regulars on
comp.lang.c have only posted messages against top-posting and for
bottom/middle posting.

All these analogies are of one-on-one interactions. Usenet involves
many-to-one interactions. One person's request for what he thinks is
politeness has to be weighed with what others in the group think.

And the majority of the regulars in comp.lang.c consider top posting to
be impolite.

Just because one person is pissed whenever he sees top-posting that
does not mean everyone in the group, or even a majority of the group,
is similarly pissed. I just don't care. But I do care when people
who are self-appointed Internet cops try to make people feel like they
have done something wrong when in fact their crime was minimal or
non-existent.

Most of the regulars do not respond because they agree with the posts
regulars (do I count as a regular yet?) or semi-regulars make against
top posting.

So far I have not seen any of those more knowledgeable than me from
comp.lang.c post in favour of top posting, and the posts from those
comp.lang.c regulars that have participated in this sub-thread have all
been against it.

 

[Walter Roberson]

Althought I don't know how to verify this, I suspect many 100s, perhaps
1000s, of people read these posts.

Only 2 or 3 people told me not to top post. That's 3 out of 1000? 3 out of
10,000? Who knows. That suggests to me that the vast majority of people
don't give a damn.

I, for one, didn't see a need to post a "Me too!" signifying agreement
with the people who asked you not to top-post, as my -assumption- was
that you were a reasonable person who would be able to learn upon
hearing an idea once instead of having to have it repeated multiple
times. Was that a misjudgement on my part??

Probably, like me, the vast majority are easily able to
deal with all the forms of posting and it is, therefore, not an issue for
them.

"the vast majority" don't read literally hundreds of technical
messages every day and try to keep them mentally straight so they
can give the right advice to the right person. "the vast majority"
don't spend hours every day doing free technical research and
consulting for other people.

 

[Paul Marciano]

Gulliver would perhaps have called that the battle of
top postians vs bottom postians

True.

Forgive me for further reducing the signal to noise ratio in this
thread, but I did want to add a few more things.

I don't bottom post due to conforming with policy, I do so because...
well... it's good style. Question... answer. Quote... response.

I'm not defending top posters. I don't know them - they may all be
assholes for all I know.

I'm certainly not attacking individuals. I took a quick look at
previous posts by the anti-top-posters here and you're all very cool,
knowledgable people. If anything I'm attacking the message, not the
messenger.


What I see is a technical thread deteriorate into a style war, for top
posting vs. bottom posting is mearly a matter of style and, like those
who wear super baggy grunge jeans, some people just don't have it.

I agree that top posting is bad style, but make the point and move on.
It's helpful to point out the style faux pas, but to keep on and on and
on...


IT'S LIKE GETTING UPSET BECAUSE PEOPLE TYPE MESSAGES IN CAPITALS.
Don't do that - it's shouting. Well.. it's not actually shouting is
it? It's just poor style, like misusing, punctuation.


I bottom post. I prefer vim to emacs. I use both Windows and Linux.
I use both Linux and BSD. I respect the GPL but prefer the BSD
license. I agree with copyrights but disagree with software patents.
I like my coffee white and my cola black. People who can only program
in BASIC are ok.

People are different. If you can't accept the differences at least try
to tolerate them. If you can't bring yourself to tolerate them...
because... well... just God dammit why can't you just get a clue and
bottom post like everyone else... well... please be gentle whilst
trying to educate the unwashed.


(if you're still reading this... wow... you need to find a hobby).


Regards,
Paul.

 

[Default User]

Robert Scott wrote:

Conventions are standards that are agreed to by all or most of the
participants. The prohibition against top-posting is not one of them,
except in the mind of a few zelots. You are free to express your
opinion that you think top-posting is impolite, but when you try to
assign any authority to that opinion, don't be surprised if someone
like me calls you on it.

And how many regulars from comp.lang.c have come out in favor of
top-posting? Exactly none. This has been hashed out so many times that
most feel no need to chime in.

We (c.l.c) don't presume to speak for comp.arch.embedded, of course.





Brian

 

[Default User]

David Brown wrote:

And again, it's not so much the top-posting itself that is impolite.
There are other groups where top-posting is considered the norm, and
receives no objections - just as there are probably groups where html
posting or SMS language is considered normal. It's the arrogant
disrespect for common conventions, and the "I don't care what others
think, I'll make my own rules" attitude that is impolite.

Right. If a person is a jerk about something like this, he's likely
going to a jerk down the line about other stuff. HE is the one who
wants help, yet can't bring himself to behave in a vaguely polite
manner.

Why should any of us bother with him? I for one won't, as mentioned he
immediately went into the killfile.




Brian

 

[Steve at fivetrees]

People are different. If you can't accept the differences at least try
to tolerate them. If you can't bring yourself to tolerate them...
because... well... just God dammit why can't you just get a clue and
bottom post like everyone else... well... please be gentle whilst
trying to educate the unwashed.

Well said - my feelings entirely.

(if you're still reading this... wow... you need to find a hobby).

Ah. Erm. Hmmm. Ooops. Touché.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> In article <[email protected]>,

>
> I, for one, didn't see a need to post a "Me too!" signifying agreement
> with the people who asked you not to top-post, as my -assumption- was
> that you were a reasonable person who would be able to learn upon
> hearing an idea once instead of having to have it repeated multiple
> times. Was that a misjudgement on my part??

In general I ignore all articles that are toppostings and all articles
that do not quote anything from the article responded to.

 

[John Hudak]

If your counting bytes, all I can say is that you better make sure your
project does suffer from 'requirements creep'! While it *may* be an
interesting exercise to find the most efficient compiler, coding style
in the form of the for loop in this thread, will also impact the
efficiencies. I would bet there are plenty of other areas to save space
(i.e., how many useless libraries are being linked in?-a compiler issue,
or, what architectural changes should be made to your design such as
getting rid of large amounts of shared variables-do they really need to
be shared?). OTOH, if you are in the $10 retail produce area then
saving $0.20 over the next processor in the line may be worth all the
extra engineering time. Somehow, after living thought many sides of
this problem, throwing hardware at it is usually the best approach. Just
a personal opinion from experience, your mileage and situation may vary.....
John

OK, point taken. Although, when working with very small memories, it can
make all the difference if a byte can be saved here and there. Afterall, 50
such 'optimisations' could amount to 10% of the total memory available. I'm
not necessarily suggesting this should be done from day 1, but have found it
useful just to get a feel for what the compiler works best with.