Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead

[Kenny McCormack]

Anyone with any sense knows that a microprocessor isn't a computer anymore
than a door is a house. Or that a CRT is a TV.

So anyone who disagrees with your personal definition has no sense.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much, yeah.

You should probably be warned that there are a *lot* of people who
don't agree with you.

I've learned to live with it. I'm used to it by now.

I've come across a few who think that a microprocessor is not a
computer.

It's not. It is a component of a computer. Note that a computer may have
more than one microprocessor. (*)

(*) Or, it may have none (certain mainframes...)

 

[Allin Cottrell]

Do you have some hard data to back up this statement? Whenever I look at
some open source project, I see C source code. Exceptionally Fortran or
C++.

Yes, agreed. The only caveat is that this is in a sense a biased
sample, because you're talking about cases where the source code
is visible, and hence the programming language known. Sadly, a
great deal of code is still invisible and uncheckable, and
written in who-knows-what source language (though one may guess).

Allin Cottrell

 

[Dan Pop]

to C such as compilers and raytracers. Moreover, Java *can* be compiled
directly to native code that runs as fast as any other native code,

You're really naive if you believe this. Just because it's native code
it doesn't mean that it runs necessarily as fast as the native code
generated by a C compiler from a C program solving the same problem.

Java's portability comes at the cost of Java being an overspecified
programming language. If the native behaviour of the underlying
processor doesn't match the Java virtual machine specification, additional
code is required to provide the behaviour of the Java virtual machine.
Then, there are issues related to the bound checking and garbage
collection *required* by Java.

It is highly nonrealistic to expect a language designed on the principle
"the programmer is incompetent and cannot be trusted" to be as efficient
as languages that trust the programmer to know what he's doing. There
are redeeming advantages for Java's approach, but it is sheer foolishness
to believe that it comes at no cost.

and you're confusing the Java language with the Java environment if you
imagine it can't be.

The Java language is defined in terms of the Java virtual machine.
No Java to native code translation device can ignore the specification
of the Java virtual machine.

Dan

 

[jacob navia]

That's not me. That was the other poster's concept.

Indeed -- and note which name is the only available referent for "you"
at that point.

Anyway, my point was that it is difficult to count "computers" and
"systems" and "OSes" without first defining each. Is an embedded
system a "system"? It has one or more microprocessors, and these
days, many of them are programmed in C (and some are even being
done in both Java and C, including high-end car "infotainment"
systems).

As far as I'm concerned, a microwave is not a computer. ...

This fits well with my personal definition of an "embedded system
computer", which is "any time you don't constantly think: there is
a computer in here" when you use it. [/QUOTE]

That is a special purpose system. Not a general purpose system that can
be programmed.

The crux in a computer is that it can be programmed to do any new
task you want by using the processor's instruction set.

This supposes access to the processor instruction set, and a mean
of directing its actions using a programming language.

You could convert the microwave in a computer by adding the
necessary software, but then... it wouldn't be a microwave
oven anymore...

 

[Richard Bos]

Speed comparisons between modern VMs like the Java
HotSpot VM and native code also show

I am not impressed by IndustrhyStones. I _am_ impressed by my own
observations.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

There are CONSIDERABLY more nonobvious computers in the world than there
are personal computers. How many people in the US have mobile phones?
Cars? Microwaves? Digital alarm clocks? Video recorders? DVD players? MP3
players? PDAs? And we've not even started to think about ATMs,

Many ATMs _are_ normal PCs. I've seen a picture of one showing a BSOD.
Ditto, but in person, the information terminals at an airport. I've
forgotten which; statistics say it's probably Schiphol, but my memory
insists that it was an English airport, which means in has to be either
Heathrow or Stansted.

Yes, actually, I _was_ a little worried. If they run the terminals on
Win-BSOD-dows, who knows WTF they run their important systems on?

Mind you, if they're using VB to write vote-counting software, I can
predict the Nov result now:

G Bush -0x80090317
J Kerry -0x8009030D
R Nader Out of Cheese error +++ Redo From Start +++++

Having read comp.risks for the last couple of years, I wouldn't put it
past Diebold.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

No problem. And I won't lose any sleep over it, either.

Keep in mind that if you told the average man on the street that there was
a computer in his microwave, he'd rush home and open the door to remove his
PC from the microwave (and hope that no one turned the microwave on while
the PC was in there).

Keep in mind that to the average man on the street, "my computer" is his
monitor, and his computer is "my diskdrive".

Richard

 

[Mike Wahler]

You sure about that?

Absolutely positive.

As I've tried to make clear, my ego's no in this,

Egos are not relevant to the facts.

but
I'm pretty sure that, counting boxes or counting CPUs,

Not every computer is enclosed in a 'box'.

IBM compatible PCs
(including all the server boxes which are really just overgrown PCs)

Every server is an 'overgrown PC?' Huh? Even a 390? A VAX?

running on x86 chips make up a substantial percentage of the total number
of boxes in the world.

Not every computer is enclosed in a 'box'. Also, I feel that
the use of the word 'box' to indicate a computer is an attempt
to sound 'kewl', which impresses me not.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 60%.

It's not.

Now, if you want to do it by computing power - megaflops or whatever - you
might have a defensible position.

The 'power' of various computers is moot to my assertion. I was
simply talking about the *number* of computers in existence.

I have a typical American house with mostly modern appliances,
and four automobiles. At any given time my 'office' (a converted
bedroom) houses from five to seven PC's, and three or four other
specialized computers which are *not* PC's. There are also several
dozen other computers scattered throughout my house and automobiles.
There's even a computer system that controls when and how long my
garden gets watered, based upon how much Mother Nature has already
done so.

-Mike

 

[Michael Wojcik]

The fact that you put "computer" in quotes proves my point.

It does no such thing. Perhaps you are applying some idiosyncratic
restricted definition of the function of the quotation mark as well?

Anyone with any sense knows that a microprocessor isn't a computer anymore
than a door is a house. Or that a CRT is a TV.

This appears to be your own personal neurosis. You may believe it
applies to "anyone with any sense", of course, though you'd be verging
into outright psychosis.

Not that it matters. This entire discussion boils down to "most
computers are Windows boxes, provided we define 'computers' in a way
which makes that statement true, even though no one else here agrees
it should be defined that way". Since that is tautologically true,
pointless, and stupid, there's really no need to discuss it further.
It fails to support whatever argument you introduced it for - not, I
imagine, that anyone besides you cares.

--
Michael Wojcik (e-mail address removed)

However, we maintain that our mission is more than creating high-tech
amusement--rather, we must endeavor to provide high-tech, high-touch
entertainment with an emphasis on enkindling human warmth.
-- "The Ultimate in Entertainment", from the president of video game
producer Namco

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Many ATMs _are_ normal PCs. I've seen a picture of one showing a BSOD.
Ditto, but in person, the information terminals at an airport. I've
forgotten which; statistics say it's probably Schiphol, but my memory
insists that it was an English airport, which means in has to be either
Heathrow or Stansted.

I don't remember whether I've seen a crashed airport information
display at Heathrow, but I've seen them from time to time at the
Lansing, MI airport, and they're definitely running Windows. I don't
think I've seen a BSOD, but I have seen various Windows system error
dialog boxes.

My cell phone, on the other hand, is not, though it has a complete
Java runtime on it, and a web browser, and all sorts of other
nonsense. (It has yet to crash.)

So there are two more data points which demonstrate pretty much
nothing. Some embedded systems run Windows. Some do not.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Every server is an 'overgrown PC?' Huh? Even a 390? A VAX?

Note the lack of a comma after "boxes". I think he was referring to
the subset of server boxes which are "which are really just overgrown
PCs" (many of them are), not asserting that all server boxes are
overgrown PCs.

Not every computer is enclosed in a 'box'. Also, I feel that
the use of the word 'box' to indicate a computer is an attempt
to sound 'kewl', which impresses me not.

I suspect we can all agree on the following statements:

1. Most non-embedded computer systems are more or less PC-compatible
systems running x86 processors. This includes most desktop and laptop
PCs and many (but by no means all) servers.

2. Most computer systems, embedded or not, are *not* PC-compatibles.
This includes the engine computer(s) in your car and the CPUs in your
keyboard, your mobile phone, your washing machine, and your DVD
player.

I think the only point of disagreement is whether the term "computer"
applies to embedded systems as well as to standalone computers. That
may be an interesting question, but it's off-topic here.

Another question, that's more nearly topical, is how much programming
(C or otherwise) is done for embedded systems vs. non-embedded
systems, where "programming" might be measured in lines of code or in
programmer hours. Certainly the vast majority of the programmers I've
known haven't worked on embedded systems, but my experience is almost
certainly not representative.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Every server is an 'overgrown PC?' Huh? Even a 390? A VAX?

Note the lack of a comma after "boxes". I think he was referring to
the subset of server boxes which are "which are really just overgrown
PCs" (many of them are), not asserting that all server boxes are
overgrown PCs.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I suppose that "that" would have been a better choice of word
than "which". But, still I thought my meaning was perfectly clear.

Interesting, though, how it scans differently if the comma is removed.

I suspect we can all agree on the following statements:

1. Most non-embedded computer systems are more or less PC-compatible
systems running x86 processors. This includes most desktop and laptop
PCs and many (but by no means all) servers.
Exactly.

2. Most computer systems, embedded or not, are *not* PC-compatibles.
This includes the engine computer(s) in your car and the CPUs in your
keyboard, your mobile phone, your washing machine, and your DVD
player.

I think the only point of disagreement is whether the term "computer"
applies to embedded systems as well as to standalone computers. That
may be an interesting question, but it's off-topic here.

Exactly. I think it is perfectly clear in man-on-the-street terms, but
I also understand why it is a point of contention in this NG (see below).

Another question, that's more nearly topical, is how much programming
(C or otherwise) is done for embedded systems vs. non-embedded
systems, where "programming" might be measured in lines of code or in
programmer hours. Certainly the vast majority of the programmers I've
known haven't worked on embedded systems, but my experience is almost
certainly not representative.

I'll bet (no, I don't have any statistics on this) that a large portion of
the new C programming that is happening today *is* in embedded systems
- hence the overwhelming urge here to consider such things "computers".

I can't see much point in doing new development on conventional computers
(aka, "non-embedded systems") in C or other low-level languages, except of
course for things like OSes and device drivers (and any other obvious
exceptions to my generalization). This is not, of course, to say that
learning C isn't a good thing - for any of a number of reasons.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

So there are two more data points which demonstrate pretty much
nothing. Some embedded systems run Windows. Some do not.

Another data point: No reliable embedded system runs Windows.

 

[Alan Balmer]

I'll bet (no, I don't have any statistics on this) that a large portion of
the new C programming that is happening today *is* in embedded systems
- hence the overwhelming urge here to consider such things "computers".

Nah, it's simply because they *are* computers, and always have been,
even before Windows and the 386 were invented ;-)

What we don't understand is your overwhelming urge to claim they are
not computers.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:30:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,

Keep in mind that if you told the average man on the street that there was
a computer in his microwave, he'd rush home and open the door to remove his
PC from the microwave (and hope that no one turned the microwave on while
the PC was in there).

No he wouldn't. Even the average man on the street knows that there are
computers in pretty much everything these days.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Nah, it's simply because they *are* computers, and always have been,
even before Windows and the 386 were invented ;-)

What we don't understand is your overwhelming urge to claim they are
not computers.

Because they are not. See Mark Twain story at bottom (one of my favorites).

(Or, to put it a little succinctly: Back at ya!)

--- Begin Story ---
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Indeed he would. Even the average man on the street knows that there are
microprocessors in pretty much everything these days.

HTH.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:35:03 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,

The fact that you put "computer" in quotes proves my point.

no, it merely proves that the meaning of "computer" is what we're
discussing

Anyone with any sense knows that a microprocessor isn't a computer

Well duh. Neither is an 8088 a computer, or a pentium4. But, connected to a
bunch of other stuff, its what we call a computer.

anymore than a door is a house. Or that a CRT is a TV.

Your illogic baffles me. My only possible response is "my nipples explode
with delight - would you please fondle my buttocks"

 

[Mark McIntyre]

There are CONSIDERABLY more nonobvious computers in the world than there
are personal computers. How many people in the US have mobile phones?
Cars? Microwaves? Digital alarm clocks? Video recorders? DVD players? MP3
players? PDAs? And we've not even started to think about ATMs,

Many ATMs _are_ normal PCs. I've seen a picture of one showing a BSOD.[/QUOTE]

I saw not one but three in the flesh, two weeks ago, in Liverpool Street
station in London.

Yes, actually, I _was_ a little worried. If they run the terminals on
Win-BSOD-dows, who knows WTF they run their important systems on?

I have it on good report that its a little old lady with a really strong
cup of tea.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

Mark McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:

[Not quite what Kenny McCormack quoted him as writing]

You should know better than that.

Interesting that I got to this thread right after another one where ERT
was once again getting roasted for silently modifying his quotes...


dave