Some language not implemented in C?

[Keith Thompson]

Right, I couldn't have guessed. ;-)

Well, in theory it could have been. A C compiler could have been
written in C and hand-translated into assembly, then used to bootstrap
itself. (I vaguely recall something like that being done for some
other language, perhaps Pascal, but I don't remember the details.)

 

[pdpi]

Jython is not written in C.

Also, the Pugs implementation of Perl 6 is written in Haskell.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

1) What is "Jython"?
2) What is it written in?

Would it hurt to use google?[/QUOTE]

This is a converational medium. Do you handle your RL conversations
like that? Someone asks you a question, and you direct them to Google?

 

[Keith Thompson]

I found most other languages are implemented in C, such as Java,
Python, etc...
could you give me something not?

English isn't implemented in C.

 

[Keith Thompson]

How about Java?

Off-topic here.

 

[Keith Thompson]

other than "asm" and "cpu hex code"

Please capitalize your sentences, Nick Keighley.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Languages can be implemented in any language.

Interesting.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Pop11, Prolog, Standard ML, and Common Lisp all have not-implemented-in-C
implementations.

Many SmallTalks.

BBC Basic.

Algol W.

Algol 68.

Not really on-topic here.

 

[Keith Thompson]

What do you have against C?

Don't feed the trolls. I recommend a killfile.

 

[cr88192]

Don't feed the trolls. I recommend a killfile.

oddly, on my usenet server, you are like the only person posting in this
thread...

 

[cr88192]

cr88192 said:


The article is a forgery. It was not posted by Keith Thompson, but
by someone who appears to be obsessed with Keith Thompson,
presumably through envy of Keith's ability to act civilly and with
consideration for others. "I don't like your behaviour", the
reasoning goes, "and therefore I will do my best to trash your name
and to make the newsgroup as unusable as I possibly can".

Check the headers. If the article is posted through an anonymous
remailer, Keith didn't write it. He doesn't need to hide behind a
remailer's skirts.

yes, ok.

odd...

hmm... maybe "I" am fake as well, and so could safely go on an OT "x86 rules
the world" rant, maybe followed by an "English rules the world" rant, and
then maybe "English rules the world via the more covert forces of x86, thus
all must get an 'Intel Inside' logo places somewhere on their body, which in
this case will be correct, and bow down before the great i386 for making all
this possible...", then "the great irony being the chips themselves being
made by IBM"...

then someone asks "what is your name?" and the response is given "D... O...
S... I am a DOS 8088 computer...".

or such...

 

[jameskuyper]

How do you do that?

Other messages that I think are from the real Richard Heathfield
suggest that the one header that can't be forged is Message-ID, and
the forger claims to agree (which does not count as confirmation in my
book).

Knowing little myself about such thngs, I'm not sure how he can be
sure of such things; claim like that always worry me. However,
assuming he's right, the particular re-mailer the forger used for the
message I just checked was reece.net.au, so if your newsreader has the
capability, filtering out messages whose Message-ID header ends in
"@reece.net.au" should do the job -- until he changes remailers. I've
no idea - how many are there? How hard is it to get an account with
one?

I doubt you'll loose many messages worth reading by filtering out re-
mailers.

 

[Flash Gordon]

How do you do that?

Read the instructions for OE, it;s there somewhere even if it isn't
easy. Probably somewhere under the "View" menu.

This clc war is getting beyond a joke.

What makes you think it is a war or that it was ever a joke?
It's vandlism, forgery, and attempt to miss-lead the inexperienced by
posting deliberately false information and many other things, but not a
joke.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jameskuyper said:



He has already done so.

Perhaps he got kicked off for abuse.

Not having investigated the area, I have no idea. The only
legitimate reason I can think of for using a remailer is if your
threat model is a government

There are other legitimate reasons, but they don't apply either.
Unfortunately the remailers (at least some of them) don't prevent people
using forged valid from addresses, something which is not required for
any of the possible legitimate uses.

(and even then, presumably they will
have the resources to track you down anyway).

Depends on how the remailer works and where it is.

In "normal"
democratic countries, I don't see why any legitimate Usenet
contributor would want to use a remailer.

Some people have valid reasons to fear people (rather than governements)
tracking them down. Of course, they don't apply in this case.

Or indeed lose them.

Some might get loose in to the wild...

 

[kid joe]

jameskuyper said:



He has already done so.


Not having investigated the area, I have no idea. The only
legitimate reason I can think of for using a remailer is if your
threat model is a government (and even then, presumably they will
have the resources to track you down anyway). In "normal"
democratic countries, I don't see why any legitimate Usenet
contributor would want to use a remailer.


Or indeed lose them.

Hi Richard,

Im not an expert, but I think the way these remailers work is that the
message gets bounced randomly between lots of nodes coupled together in a
remailer network before eventually popping out of one at random. So its
expected that the domain the message appears to come from, will be
different everytime.

My personal view is that this whole "topicality war" is really just a
misunderstanding. I think that Richard H has a very upper-class british
way of expressing himself, which can seem pompous or arrogant to americans
even when not intended. I think if the forgers could make allowances for
this then we could end all the problems and get back to productive
discussions about C.

Cheers,
Joe

 

[Keith Thompson]

Other messages that I think are from the real Richard Heathfield
suggest that the one header that can't be forged is Message-ID, and
the forger claims to agree

I claimed no such thing. I said that Heathy's website solution is
no worse than using digital signatures or website archives, all of
which raise the bar extremely high on someone who needs to *really*
be Heathy or Kiki. I don't need to *really* be Heathy or Kiki for
my goals. You'll see.

New Message-IDs are trivially forged. Old Message-IDs are not
so trivially forged, for the simple reason that news servers
in their normal flow of operation reject duplicates. I was
assuming Heathy's solution is based on old Message-IDs. If not,
he's stupider than I thought.

 

[James Kuyper]

The fake Keith Thompson wrote:

the usual garbage.

How's the day-job going? Don't your legs get tired with all that bending
over for your clients?

Is that really necessary? You can't be sure that he's got that kind of
job. Even if he does, it's honest work, serving the needs of his clients
- at least it's not telemarketing.

This guy has indicated, in public, that one of his highest aspirations
in life, one that he's devoted a fair amount of his time and attention
to, is being a minor annoyance. Is it necessary, or even possible, to
insult him worse than he's already insulted himself by revealing this
ambition?

 

[James Kuyper]

This guy has indicated, in public, that one of his highest aspirations
in life, one that he's devoted a fair amount of his time and attention
to, is being a minor annoyance.

And I think that's the problem. The guy needs some higher aspirations.
I recommend making lengthy posts to a C newsgroup for a decade.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Check the headers. If the article is posted through an anonymous
> remailer, Keith didn't write it. He doesn't need to hide behind a
> remailer's skirts.

See also the following header lines:

X-Fake-Thompson: true
X-Real-Trolling: true
X-Valid-Website-Addition: false
X-Noise-Generation: true
X-Passive-Aggression: true
X-Thompson-Steaming-Mad: true
X-Valid-Headers: false
X-Valid-Crypto-Sig: false

 

[Eric Sosman]

See also the following header lines:

X-Fake-Thompson: true
X-Real-Trolling: true
X-Valid-Website-Addition: false
X-Noise-Generation: true
X-Passive-Aggression: true
X-Thompson-Steaming-Mad: true
X-Valid-Headers: false
X-Valid-Crypto-Sig: false

Yeah, but he/she/it could discontinue those at any
moment after having gotten us accustomed to them. Looking
for evidence of remailers is probably more reliable.