R
Richard Tobin
Peter Seebach once claimed that he is a conforming C
implementation
In that case you'll need this:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.misc/msg/eea39956fab3db26
-- Richard
Peter Seebach once claimed that he is a conforming C
implementation
In that case you'll need this:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.misc/msg/eea39956fab3db26
-- Richard
Richard Heathfield said:Bartc said:
Nevertheless, a computer is not, strictly speaking, required for a C
implementation....it would be perfectly possible,
albeit unwieldy, to implement C on a model railway, using nothing but
normal track (and, I think, three different kinds of points). It sounds
utterly bizarre, but it is nevertheless true.
I give up. How does it work?
Richard Heathfield said:2) a Turing machine can be implemented on a model railway (given the
existence of three particular kinds of points).
I did _not_ know that. That is really freaking cool, and I guess that
goes a long way towards explaining why the world's very first,
original hackers, were model railway clubbers, and why their
fascination with railroad switches translated so smoothly to computer
hacking.
Bartc said:My C99 spec doesn't seem to mention the word 'Computer' anywhere either
Richard Heathfield said:IIRC Peter Seebach once claimed that he is a conforming C
implementation (although it's a somewhat suspect claim since his
conformance documentation doesn't seem to be available).
Thus you say, and thus it must be true? If you believe the above statementRichard said:Yes you can. With a debugger. or in your head - SOMETIMES.
Garbage.
Ye gods, you're an arrogant arse. So if I give you a printout of say
300,000 lines of C, are you telling me you can "read it" and point out
all thebugs? No. You could not. Even the mighty you.
You appear to by lying or twisting the truth in order to slander Jacob
and his product. Why is this?
There is NO equivalence between reading code and debugging it.
None whatsoever. Equivalence that is. Reading does not mean
simultaneous debugging.
Clearly you need to be able to read code to debug it. But reading code
does not mean you are able debug it properly without other tools.
Eric said:It appears to me that the biggest topic of dispute is Mr. Heathfield's
definition of "reading" up to approximately 2,000 lines of code. I would
like to present my views on this topic, and then hopefully the primary
parties will present their views thereafter.
First of all, I believe that Jacob Navia and Richard (I am not certain of
the last name) believe that merely reading code does not instill within them
the ability to debug it. To them, then, reading it may be like reading a
newspaper: They read some parts here and understand it, they read some parts
there and understand it, but debugging it without a special tool (a
debugger) would be like single-handedly trying to change the political slant
of a newspaper. (Yeah, I know, I'm kind of stretching it here... just bear
with me, please.)
On the other hand, it would appear that Richard Bos and Richard Heathfield
view the reading of code to be more akin to reading a really good book: They
get so in depth with it, that they are able to truly understand all of its
intricacies and dependencies, and are thus able to see when something
doesn't "make sense" (like, for example, when a character that was in one
area suddenly appears to be in another area -- the author goofed and forgot
who was where).
Is this accurate? I look forward to your responses.
Thank you, Jacob, for your rapid reply. You present your side of thejacob navia said:I doubt that anyone with a normal brain can read and understand
more than 1500-2000 lines of code (foreign code, i.e. code that
you read for the first time), and be able to find complex problems
with it.
You can find obvious one, and maybe (if you are very good) subtle ones.
For the difficult bugs however, a toold like a debugger is essential.
The limitations of the brain are obvious here. In software, only
brains introduce bugs when building software, never the machines,
and almost never the compilers/linkers, etc.
Why?
Because the only circuit that can write software is the human circuit.
All errors go to that circuit then.
The problem with it, as I have stated several times in this discussion,
is that it can't do what machines routinely do: executing thousands
of times the same calculation without any problems, quickly and
without errors.
Why do bugs exist?
Because the human mind is like that: error prone. And it has
a lot of difficulties in following and executing symbollically
all possibilities of a program.
That is why bugs appear.
Obviously, I doubt greatly that people can just read more than
2000 lines of C and find a significant error inside.
First of all, I believe that Jacob Navia and Richard (I am not certain of
the last name) believe that merely reading code does not instill within
them the ability to debug it. To them, then, reading it may be like
reading a newspaper: They read some parts here and understand it, they
read some parts there and understand it, but debugging it without a
special tool (a debugger) would be like single-handedly trying to change
the political slant of a newspaper.
On the other hand, it would appear that Richard Bos and Richard Heathfield
view the reading of code to be more akin to reading a really good book:
They get so in depth with it, that they are able to truly understand all
of its intricacies and dependencies, and are thus able to see when
something doesn't "make sense" (like, for example, when a character that
was in one area suddenly appears to be in another area -- the author
goofed and forgot who was where).
Thank you, Jacob, for your rapid reply. You present your side of the
discussion logically. I concur that there is a limit to how much the human
mind can follow, although I am certain that there are many others who can do
more, and more accurately, with their minds than I currently can with my own
mind. And I agree, the human mind can indeed be error prone.
I eagerly await a response from the opposing side in this discussion.
-- Eric Johnson
'document' isn't defined in 9899, so I hope it is in 2382, and I sureSure it is, just ask him for it. It is verbal, though, rather than
hardcopy.
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.