Exception Misconceptions

[tanix]

Have you tried peerguardian?

Nope. What is that?

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[LR]

tanix wrote:

I'm sorry for the OT post but I didn't think that I could, in good
conscience, let this pass.

Here is a piece of writing for you.
See if you can beat it:

http://preciseinfo.org/Convert/We_are_here_to_change_the_world_01.html

Like other bigots Anti-Semites write the worst sort of drivel but I
think yours ought to win some sort of award for sheer inanity.

And if I ever talk to you again, remember:
THAT is where we stand.

No, that is where you stand. I prefer to, and will, stand somewhere
else. Somewhere more logical.

Cya.

I very sincerely hope not.

Please don't bother to respond to me as you've been filtered.

LR

 

[Vladimir Jovic]

Nope. What is that?

Uses p2p block list, and you get connections to your computer - you can
block them or do what you like.

 

[tanix]

tanix wrote:

I'm sorry for the OT post but I didn't think that I could, in good
conscience, let this pass.


Like other bigots

BIGOTS? WHO?
You mean YOU?

Anti-Semites

Most of my best friends, I am mean BEST,
are Jews.

Secondly, Jews are not semites.
So, they can not use this ugly trick.

Thirdly, did you read the quotes by JEWS,
and I mean WORLD level figures, the cream of the crop,
the ELITE?

Such as Benjamin Freedman, a millionaire, a Jew,
whom I respect more than most others?

Have you read the QUOTES, and I mean DIRECT QUOTES
by the Jews in top positioins of government in Israel?

Have you read the quotes, and I mean DIRECT QUOTES
from JEWISH "scriptures", not other scriptures,
such as Talmud and Tora?

What is the meaning of "happy holiday of Purim"?

What is the meaning of Kole Nidre "prayer",
the ONLY prayer you are supposed to stand up for
on a day of attonement?

Would you kindly expand on that, mr. mouth foaming?

write the worst sort of drivel but I
think yours ought to win some sort of award for sheer inanity.

Well, most of that "drivel" happens to be QUOTES,
more or less.

Anyway, what is YOUR "problem"?

Blood is at a bolining temperature?
Steam is coming out of your elephant size ears
at at 10 atmosphere pressure?
Your teech are knocking as good that you are about to
break your jawbones?
You need to install the insustrial strenght shock absorbers.
That might help.

Cya.
You know where, right?

No, that is where you stand. I prefer to, and will, stand somewhere
else. Somewhere more logical.



I very sincerely hope not.

Please don't bother to respond to me as you've been filtered.

LR

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

Uses p2p block list, and you get connections to your computer - you can
block them or do what you like.

I see. Well, I have everything I need in my firewall.
These are called rules, and I can have as many as I want.
Takes a couple of mouse clicks to create a new one or modify
and existing one even in the middle of heavy duty attack.
Pretty flexible.

But thanx for your feedback.
If you think it is something really cool and you can post a link
to it, I promise to look at it.


--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

it seems to me it is eficient

Well, Ok. I CAN comprehend that.
The only thing is there are some NASTY memory management
details if you are going to manage your own pools of memory.
I happen to have deal with things like that in the past.

At the moment, my position on everything more or less is this:
use standard, off the shelf, components subsystems, etc.
Do not try to oversmart the O/S. It won't pay at the end.

In a fully multithreaded environment, ESPECIALLY in async mode,
be as careful as you can manage. There is no need to reinvent
the wheel. Some of that code, you may be trying to bypass,
took YEARS to perfect, and there are ALL sorts of reasons
it is as it is. Yes, one of those reasons is backward
compatibility and some things end up being not as efficient
if it was not the case. But overall, you are most shielded
from the revision issues in the O/S, your IDE, language
fashions and you name it.

Basically, your code should work not only today, but
for generations to come on any future version of O/S,
more or less, if at all possible.

Some of the programs I ran were written 15 years ago,
and they are STILL the best I know of. The most flexible,
the most powerful, etc. And YES, they do have bugs,
because they are THAT old, and some things may even
cause crashes of the whole program, just like it happened
a couple of minutes ago.

But...

After looking at PLENTY of other programs that do pretty
much the same kind of things, I still return to them,
and never regretted. It is like a hand in glove.
The porst "portable" way of doing it.
The most intitive way of doing it.
The simpliest way of doing it.
And the list goes on.

Even if I loose my box, I am still in a good shape.
Nothing has been lost. At most a few hours of work.
And that is good enough for a poor guy like me.

don't know, but for my programs the speed is good

Could be. I can not possibly argue that.
We'd have to discuss your program, and I'd have to spend at least
a few hours on it. Sorry, can not afford that at the moment.

i use the malloc found in the K&R book
with some modifications (the ones for find
bouds errors, memory leak, etc)

Well, the interesting thing about C is that it is STILL
the most active group on usenet. The traffic on C groups
is even higher than on C++ group.

And, from what I know, C is probably the REAL "revolution"
in the programming languages and it was the one, used
to create the most long standing operating system.

And, after GENERATIONS, it is still there. Full blast.

That is not only "good" design.
It is MONUMENTAL design.

And with ALL its limitations, you can still rely on it
like you can not rely on anything else in the sw world.

it seems i remember that i wrote something for allow
that malloc function to be fast on stack allocation

p1=malloc(1255);
p2=malloc(4555);
p3=malloc(2555);
.....
free(p3);
free(p2);
free(p1);

has few clock size for free; don't remember if for write
that i change all the malloc function and
structure type heavy

what was a little more hard was to write the realloc function
using what CBFalconer said, in assembly
[ if realloc(alloked+x)
alloked free
-------|__________________________ =>
alloked+ x free
---------------|__________________
]

i wrote all in asm because for these operation
assembly is my language of choice

Hey. I like that stuff. I reminded me Forth experience.
What a fun that was. Did not last that long, but it WAS fun!

:--}

the malloc function ask to the OS memory function some memory
so that memory is for my programme, i not see
nasty special cases if not count issues for aligned data

Well, OK. Let me see if I understand what you are trying
to say.

Are you saying that you want to make a huge memory request
and the try to have your own equivalent of .alloc() functions,
where you get a piece of memory from that original chuck
of memory you allocated?

If THAT is the case, then you are for some nasty surprises,
trying to manage memory by yourself. These things are not
that simple.

Say, for example, you have MANY allocations and deallocations.
Each allocation is not of a fixed size. It can be anything.

So, assume you requested a chunk of memory from your own
memory management system.
Then you requested an arbitrary number of other chunks.
Then, some of them can be released.
So what do you do?
How do you release it?
You have a memory fragmentation problem.
You'd have to keep the lists of free chunks or unallocated
holes in your memory region.

What if you have many free holes, but the block you are
trying to request is bigger than any single hole you have?
Well, you simply conc out, you simply die. Because there
is nothing you can do at that point, unless you keep
merging the ajacent memory regeions during the release phase
and do ALL sorts of nasty memory management things.

It is such a royal headache, I can not even begin to describe it.

The days first all this malloc function,
my little programs for bignums
written in C and assembly and in "C++"
not work at all, the program goes to segfalut one minute yes
the other minute too

after that, no problem, no seg fault, no write out of bound
or memory leak or too much memory used

but my experience is little,
the difficult error i fixed were of the kind
why the big num
(0,0, 0xf78f898f, 0x73893838, 0x893038333, 0x73893838)
* or /
(0xf78f898f, 0x73893838)
have a wrong result

or find who write "out of the array bounds" of
some bignum array of unsigned

for find that i used what i said above
for example
h fname(a,b,c)
{
writeToTheArray("fname");
// in the start of function
// it write its name in a 'rotating' array
// then allocate memory with malloc (in class too)
// for the "fname" function, at the end of that function
// free all array of malloc (checking if some
// out of bound error too); if some out of bound is find
// print the static array of all calls and exit(0);


// and eventually use some function for see
// where is the problem inside the function
// eg
if(!isInThisPlaceAllMemoryWithBoudsOk())
{printf("The error is above here\n"); exit(0);}
}

what it print was one array of the kind
f1||f2||f3+|f0+-fy+-etcetc
and i did know that in f3 there was one error
of some out of bound written array

but it seems now, not so useful because it seems
i do less error and few memory leak, and few wrong array
write

Maaaan. I feel jealous of you. It must be such a fun
to dig into this stuff at the point where you are!

Enjoy the trip.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[James Kanze]

if there is "no way any tool can tell whether there is a leak
or not" that programming language has one all you call
"designed error" because can eat memory more than is
sufficient because all you can not have the controll on memory

Determining whether there is a leak or not is comparable to the
stopping problem. It's been more or less proven that it can't
be computed.

so in the first statemt you say:
"there's no way any tool can tell whether there is a leak or
not" in the other you say "I've worked on a fairly large
number of applications which didn't leak."

so do how you can be sure?

After the code has run five or more years in a low memory
environment, you can feel pretty sure.

But yes, there's a strict sense that you can never been 100%
sure.

Note that I'm not against using tools. The fact that they can't
find 100% of the leaks doesn't mean that they're without value.
(On the other hand, typically, the tools I've used, like
Rational Rose, have shown that dangling pointers are more of a
problem than leaks.)

if pass some of your programs with some "leak print at end"
program possibily find some leak (or you OS-compiler allow to
see if one program has some leak (not free all memory) )

for my little programs in my enviroment i'm sure for the
memory of the malloc wrapper (not for the memory released from
"new" (i never use it but should be used from the compiler or
for static object if i rember well))

Note that some of the programs are very inaccurate. (This does
not hold for valgrind or Rational Rose, which are careful to
document exactly what they've found, and what it might or might
not mean.)

possibily the leak is small and/or in some corner case

Possibly. Or possibly, we used good design, and careful design
and code review, and there really aren't any leaks.

[...]

are you sure is it good for think less?

Who said anything about thinking less?

are you sure is it good for not doing formal
correct memory allocation-deallocations?

It's certainly good to have less lines of code to write and
to debug. And to be able to use the time that would be
otherwise required for those lines of code to do something else,
like more intensive testing, or adding a feature.

 

[James Kanze]

Well, flip some bits in Visual Studio IDE and you'll get a
dump of ALL your memory leaks when the program terminates.

Except that from what little I've seen of it, it reports a lot
of things as leaks that aren't, and missing some important
leaks.

 

[James Kanze]

On Dec 20, 7:06 am, James Kanze <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

It might make sense to learn one of those C++ GUI libs since
then the filtering could be done in a thread.

In this particular case, I think a separate process would be
preferable. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't learnone of
those C++ GUI libs. In case I get a different job, where
threads would be more appropriate.

 

[tanix]

[...]

My first reaction to your description is that you obviously need
two processes: one doing the filtering, and another to manage
the GUI.

Correct. Except not processes, but threads I would think

And the reason for it is that you don't want your GUI thread
to lock up because of some processing hang in other threads.

Your GUI MUST be, AT ALL TIMES, responsive.
No matter what happens.

Has nothing to do with "small footprint".
But sorry, I have not much time to really dig into this stuff.

Cya.

In this particular case, I think a separate process would be
preferable. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't learnone of
those C++ GUI libs. In case I get a different job, where
threads would be more appropriate.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[James Kanze]

"James Kanze" <[email protected]>

I don;t see much difference between my comment and yours -- we
do similar things (proper design and match it in code) and
have the same result (no leaks).

But I don't claim that there's any one coding solution that will
solve all my problems. The only thing I'm objecting to in your
posting is "*JUST* use a manager[...]". That's not a silver
bullet; if proper design says to use a manager or a smart
pointer for some things, then it is good. But we don't want to
see the tail wagging the dog. And even the ultimage memory
manager, garbage collection, doesn't result in no leaks.

I said "manager" that is *like* a smart pointer. string,
vector, list is a manager, and is not a smart pointer. I
certainly agree that stts on a regular program would find ust
a few smart pointers compared to anything else.

Something got garbled in your last sentence, and I'm unable to
parse it. But in practice, I find that with proper OO design,
*in* *C++*, you really don't need a manager, a smart pointer, or
garbage collection that often. Most objects which can't manage
themselves have value semantics, and aren't allocated on the
heap to begin with. (Of course, applications may vary, and I've
seen applications where extensive use of smart pointers was
justified. It's just not a general rule.)

But safe coding have consistent manager usage, replacing "raw"
stuff. Just like you wrote before, that dynamic allocation is
not left in a raw pointer, but put in a smart one, and
.release() it at return or transferuing to another manager.
Even if it looks like done "immediately" with just one line
between. ;-)

Not usually. First, C++ uses a lot less dynamic allocation to
begin with than languages like Java. And secondly, it's usually
preferable (albeit not always possible) to ensure that your
objects are fully capable of managing themselves before
returning from the constructor.

[...]

Yeah, we discussed it a few weeks ago. This has nothing to do
with coding or any language -- a flaw in design/reqs that will
hit in any possible implementation.

Yes. I mention it because one poster suggested that memory
leaks were impossible in Java, because of garbage collection.
And because early versions of Swing had just such a leak. (Note
that competent Java programmers don't make such dubious claims.
And that Sun did recognize it as a leak.)

To start with the memory footprint starts as 2-3x as big.

Yes. For a lot of applications, it really doesn't matter. From
what he's described, however, I think that it would in this one.
In which case, garbage collection probably isn't appropriate.

Actually did anyone heard a reporting firewall implemented in
java?

I think I've seen one. It tends to occupy over a GB, and takes
90% of the CPU.

[...]

One of my current project picked java UI with Swing because it
has auto-layout. What sounds like a cool idea when you must
issue the app in a dozen languages. And you can just have a
ranslation table for the UI strings, the rest will work.

Well, in practice it wasn't all that bright, and the auto
property turned to create a big deal of issues when translated
stuff had a different size...

Handling different languages is difficult, regardless of the
language. But I found that the "auto-layout" in Java simplified
the task. (Admittedly, I ended up writing a couple of custom
layout managers. But it wasn't that big a job.)

[...]

That keeps me generally sceptic wrt GUI portability. Without
a big deal of manual work at the QA dept and coding too...

Like everything, it requires up front design.

 

[James Kanze]

James Kanze <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Well, about 90% of total market from what I know.

Our markets may not be the same, or perhaps we have different
definitions of a "good JVM". And Sun has, I believe, made
considerable progress. But when I was working in Java, about
the only implementation I'd have considered passably good was
the one for Windows; the others (including the one for Solaris)
were really very basic interpreters, with really excessive
runtime overhead. And in the markets I've worked in in the
past, Windows is a non-runner.

Well, THEORETICALLY, it can happen even without using
exceptions. In reality, it is just a joke.

It's no joke. It's an everyday reality. Most of the phone
switches and transmission systems go back to a time before
exceptions, and they work. Year in, year out, without
interruption.

For one thing, without exceptions your code becomes a huge
pile of spegetti code and I know what I am talking about.

Apparently not, because I've worked on very large code bases,
without exceptions, and without any spaghetti. Exceptions do
make certain things easier, but you can live without them.

Sorry. I can not agree with you on this one.
I think you are somehow predisposed AGAINST exceptions.

Not at all. But I was programming long before they were
generally available, and we still managed to write robust and
maintainable applications.

 

[tanix]

"James Kanze" <[email protected]>

I don;t see much difference between my comment and yours -- we
do similar things (proper design and match it in code) and
have the same result (no leaks).

But I don't claim that there's any one coding solution that will
solve all my problems. The only thing I'm objecting to in your
posting is "*JUST* use a manager[...]". That's not a silver
bullet; if proper design says to use a manager or a smart
pointer for some things, then it is good. But we don't want to
see the tail wagging the dog. And even the ultimage memory
manager, garbage collection, doesn't result in no leaks.

:--}

Not true. Well THEORETICALLY true.
But I have not seen it in practice, at least in my code.

But...

You are making some progress and I do appreciate it.

Cya.

I said "manager" that is *like* a smart pointer. string,
vector, list is a manager, and is not a smart pointer. I
certainly agree that stts on a regular program would find ust
a few smart pointers compared to anything else.

Something got garbled in your last sentence, and I'm unable to
parse it. But in practice, I find that with proper OO design,
*in* *C++*, you really don't need a manager, a smart pointer, or
garbage collection that often. Most objects which can't manage
themselves have value semantics, and aren't allocated on the
heap to begin with. (Of course, applications may vary, and I've
seen applications where extensive use of smart pointers was
justified. It's just not a general rule.)

But safe coding have consistent manager usage, replacing "raw"
stuff. Just like you wrote before, that dynamic allocation is
not left in a raw pointer, but put in a smart one, and
.release() it at return or transferuing to another manager.
Even if it looks like done "immediately" with just one line
between. ;-)

Not usually. First, C++ uses a lot less dynamic allocation to
begin with than languages like Java. And secondly, it's usually
preferable (albeit not always possible) to ensure that your
objects are fully capable of managing themselves before
returning from the constructor.

[...]

Yeah, we discussed it a few weeks ago. This has nothing to do
with coding or any language -- a flaw in design/reqs that will
hit in any possible implementation.

Yes. I mention it because one poster suggested that memory
leaks were impossible in Java, because of garbage collection.
And because early versions of Swing had just such a leak. (Note
that competent Java programmers don't make such dubious claims.
And that Sun did recognize it as a leak.)

To start with the memory footprint starts as 2-3x as big.

Yes. For a lot of applications, it really doesn't matter. From
what he's described, however, I think that it would in this one.
In which case, garbage collection probably isn't appropriate.

Actually did anyone heard a reporting firewall implemented in
java?

I think I've seen one. It tends to occupy over a GB, and takes
90% of the CPU.

[...]

One of my current project picked java UI with Swing because it
has auto-layout. What sounds like a cool idea when you must
issue the app in a dozen languages. And you can just have a
ranslation table for the UI strings, the rest will work.

Well, in practice it wasn't all that bright, and the auto
property turned to create a big deal of issues when translated
stuff had a different size...

Handling different languages is difficult, regardless of the
language. But I found that the "auto-layout" in Java simplified
the task. (Admittedly, I ended up writing a couple of custom
layout managers. But it wasn't that big a job.)

[...]

That keeps me generally sceptic wrt GUI portability. Without
a big deal of manual work at the QA dept and coding too...

Like everything, it requires up front design.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

[...]

Java's portability is
limited to machines which have a good JVM.

I don't know what is "good JVM".

Yes, the JVM as released by microsoft a way back,
that supported JDK 1.1 or 1.2 from what I recall
was not "good JVVM". Just WAy too many bugs.

Our markets may not be the same, or perhaps we have different
definitions of a "good JVM". And Sun has, I believe, made
considerable progress. But when I was working in Java, about
the only implementation I'd have considered passably good was
the one for Windows;

Correct. Performance wise, MVM runs 2 times faster than
JVM from Sun for me, and that REALLY counts. The difference
on big jobs is days and nights.

the others (including the one for Solaris)
were really very basic interpreters, with really excessive
runtime overhead. And in the markets I've worked in in the
past, Windows is a non-runner.

It's no joke. It's an everyday reality. Most of the phone
switches and transmission systems go back to a time before
exceptions, and they work. Year in, year out, without
interruption.

Yep. No argument there. Except those apps are infantile
by todays standards.

If you tell me I have to write my code WITHOUT exeptions,
I won't take your job offer. Sorry.

Period.

There is no ifs and buts on this one for me.

I do not know why some claim the exception mechanism
is so inefficient even in cases where there are not
exceptions, but that is another matter.

I can only guess that if you want to get TOO sophosticated
and assure that you can unwind the stack even considering
the on heap allocations and things like that, and,
as a result, have to save all sorts of things prepairing
to run the exceptions bound code, may be.

Who knows?

Apparently not,

Apparently yes.
I just wrote too much code to make such a statement.
It is simply inevitable.

because I've worked on very large code bases,
without exceptions,

Again, this is a general purpose statement that does not
prove anything.

Either you do test of your return codes,
or you don't.

If you decide to do, and your logic runs to check all the
codes, then your code size and the amount of spagetti
is probably at least 30% bigger.

With exceptions, you do not check ANY return code
more or less. Clear to a 5 year old what it means.

and without any spaghetti. Exceptions do
make certain things easier, but you can live without them.

You can live without anything except water for more than
3 days and food for more than 40 days and things of that level.

This is the LAW, and not philosophy:

You MUST use exceptions to take care of your error conditions
in more cases than not.

Not at all.

Yes you are. I have seen some of your posts.
It seems like a matter of principle to you.
I just don't understand what could possibly be a reason
for it.

But I was programming long before they were
generally available,

Understood. No problems with that one.
"It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks".

An old dog knows at least one thing: how to survive.
That is why he is an OLD dog.
Otherwise, he'd be dead by now, like most of other
dogs he knew.

If something works for you, you don't need to forever
chase the "fasion". Who cares what color of trousers
they think are MUST nowadays?

You have your trousers that are comfortable
and you don't feel restricted by this never ending
fashion trip.

So, why would you want to run to some store and
waste some money on something totally useless,
just because they say on the idiot box that the latest
fasihion is this and that?

You are fine as you are.
Your code runs like a tank.
Someone invents some fasion grade goubledy gook.
Do you run to the store like a zombie, just because
everybody else is running?

I don't.

In fact, I appreciate that time.
Because these zombies are busy, crawling on the top
of each other, waiting since last night when the store
opens so they can get their zombification machine
called Sony Playstation v. whatever.

At that time, you can have a break from this madness.
Because everyone is so busy running for that latest
version of zombification machine, that no one has any
time to even bother about you.

Cool.

and we still managed to write robust and
maintainable applications.

Well. I am not saying it is not possible in PRINCIPLE.
I am saying it is a royal pain on the neck.

In fact, I will make this claim:

If you do NOT use exceptions, you are just a lazy bum.
That is ALL there is to it.

Enjoy, you old wolfe.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[Vladimir Jovic]

James Kanze wrote:

[snip]

It's certainly good to have less lines of code to write and
to debug. And to be able to use the time that would be
otherwise required for those lines of code to do something else,
like more intensive testing, or adding a feature.

Or in another words:

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it.

(forgot who said it)

 

[tanix]

BIGOTS? WHO?
You mean YOU?


Most of my best friends, I am mean BEST,
are Jews.

Secondly, Jews are not semites.
So, they can not use this ugly trick.

Thirdly, did you read the quotes by JEWS,
and I mean WORLD level figures, the cream of the crop,
the ELITE?

Such as Benjamin Freedman, a millionaire, a Jew,
whom I respect more than most others?

Have you read the QUOTES, and I mean DIRECT QUOTES
by the Jews in top positioins of government in Israel?

Do you know who Lord Yehudi Menuhin is?
Well, probably the most famous violinist of the 20th century,
in case you don't. A JEW.

Quote:

As famed violinist Lord Yehudi Menuhin told the French newspaper
Le Figaro in January 1988:

"It is extraordinary how nothing ever dies completely.
Even the evil which prevailed yesterday in Nazi Germany is
gaining ground in that country [Israel] today."

For it to have any moral authority, the UN must equate Zionism
with racism. If it doesn't, it tacitly condones Israel's war
of extermination against the Palestinians.

--- Greg Felton,
Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism

End of quote.

Quote:

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this
and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear:

Don't worry about American pressure on Israel.
We, the Jewish people,
control America, and the Americans know it."

--- Israeli Prime Minister,
Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.

End of quote.

Quote:

Listen to the Jewish banker, Paul Warburg:

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not.
The only question is whether that government will be achieved
by conquest or consent."

(February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).

End of quote.


Quote:

http://preciseinfo.org/Convert/zzPoslanie_Voina_51_Translated.
html#World_jew_authorities_about_jews

End of quote.

Quote:

http://preciseinfo.org/Convert/We_are_here_to_change_the_world_01.
html#Time_for_entertainment_yet

Time for entertainment yet?

Here, enjoy.

Just to put things in perspective, here is some interesting quote:

Nuremberg judges in 1946 laid down the principles of modern international law:

"To initiate a war of aggression ...
is not only an international crime;

it is the supreme international crime
differing only from other war crimes
in that it contains within itself
the accumulated evil of the whole."

Rings the bell yet? What were those wars, started by the evilest empire of
all, ruled by the members of the satanist death cult, worshipping scull,
called Skull and Bones, both presidents of their country? Both descendants of
one of the most ferocious Freemasons on record, Prescott Bush, who made his
fortune on managing finances for the Adolph Hitler during the WWII?

Let us start with Golda Meir. Do you know who she is? Well, in case you don't,
she is like Ronald Reagan. You know of that one, hopefully, don't you?

Here it comes, directly from the most famous mouths of your so called leaders
and those, you trust your lives with.

"There was no such thing as Palestinians,
they never existed."

--- Golda Meir,
Israeli Prime Minister, June 15, 1969

"How can we return the occupied territories?
There is nobody to return them to."

--- Golda Meir,
March 8, 1969.

Listen to the Jewish banker, Paul Warburg:

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not.
The only question is whether that government will be achieved
by conquest or consent."

(February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).

Can you imagine THIS kind of arrogance?
To say things like this even before the "Senate"?

December 31, 1999 -- Washington Monument sprays colored light
into the black night sky, symbolizing the
birth of the New World Order.

1996 -- The United Nations 420-page report
Our Global Neighborhood is published.

It outlines a plan for "global governance," calling for an
international Conference on Global Governance in 1998
for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary
treaties and agreements for ratification by the year 2000.

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

--- Rabbi Ya’acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of
mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein
(Cited in the New York Times, 1994-02-28)

Mind you, that is the RELIGIOUS teaching!

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation,
and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its
Arab population."

--- David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1963, 1948-05,
to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael
Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"The Palestinians would be crushed like grasshoppers ...
heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

--- Israeli Prime Minister
(at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers
New York Times April 1, 1988

"[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs."

--- Menahim Begin,
speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk,
"Begin and the Beasts".
New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles,
the more you give them meat,
they want more"....

--- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel
at the time - August 28, 2000.
Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive.
Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria.
The weak point is Lebanon, for the Muslim regime is
artificial and easy for us to undermine.

We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will
smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan;

Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said,
Alexandria and Sinai."

--- David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1963,
to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography,
by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment
for making it happen, such as a war."

--- David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1963,
writing to his son, 1937

"In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to
the Arabs: Get out! If they don’t agree, if they resist, we shall
drive them out by force."

--- Professor Ben-Zion Dinur, Israel’s First Minister of Education,
1954, from History of the Haganah

"When we have settled the land,
all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be
to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."

--- Raphael Eitan,
Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces,
New York Times, 14 April 1983.

Ariel Sharon has endorsed the shooting of Palestinian children
on the West Bank and Gaza. He did so during a visit earlier this
week to an Israeli De fence Force base at Glilot, north of Tel Aviv.

"If they can hold a weapon, they are a target", the instructor
is quoted as saying.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a
Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer
before killing him."

--- Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006,
magazine Ouze Merham in 1956.
Disputed as to whether this is genuine.

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for
Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them,
to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull
the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so
that they will be forced to run to us crying.

Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there,
I don’t care."

--- Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006,
daily Davar, 1982-12-17.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no
one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel
on trial."

--- Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006, to a U.S.
commission investigating violence in Israel. 2001-03-25 quoted
in BBC News Online.

End of quote.

Have you read the quotes, and I mean DIRECT QUOTES
from JEWISH "scriptures", not other scriptures,
such as Talmud and Tora?

What is the meaning of "happy holiday of Purim"?

Quote:
Happy and joyful holiday Purim

12. Another point about morality, related to the Jewish holidays.
Most of them take their origin in the Torah.

Take, for example, the most beloved by adults and children, happy and joyous
holiday of Purim.

On this day, Jew is allowed to get drunk untill his nose goes blue.

Over 500 years before Christ, in Persia, the Jews conducted the pogroms
[huntdowns and mass murder] of the local population, men, women and children.

Just in two days, they have destroyed 75 thousand unarmed people, who could
not even resist the armed attackers, the Jews. The Minister Haman and his ten
sons were hanged.

It was not a battle of soldiers, not a victory of the Jews in a battle, but a
mass destruction of people and their children.

There is no nation on Earth, that would have fun celebrating the unlawful
massacres, knowing that before hand.

Ivan, the hundred million, you know what the Jews have on the tables on that
day ?

Tell him, a Jew.

On the festive table, triangular pastries, called homentashen, which
symbolizes the ears of minister Haman, and the Jews eat them with joy.

[How about THAT for breakfast!]

Also on the table are other pies, called kreplah (Ibid), filled with minced
meat, symbolyzing the meat of Haman's body, also being eaten with great
appetite.

If some normal person comes to visit them on that day, and learns what it all
symbolyzes, then he would have to run out on the street to get some fresh air.

This repulsive celebration, with years, inoculates their children with
bloodlust in their heards and minds, hatred and suspicion against the Russian,
Ukrainian and other peoples.

Why do not Ukrainians begin to celebrate similar events, that occurred in
Ukraine in the 17th century.
At that time Jews have made a bargain with the local gentry for the right to
collect taxes from the peasantry.

They began to take from the peasants six times more than pans took
[Before that bargain.
Talking about some serious, 600% inflation in one day here.].

One part of it they gave to pans, and the other 5 parts kept for themselves.
The peasants were ruined.

The uprising against the Poles and Jews was headed by Bohdan Khmelnytsky.
[recognized as one of the greatest national heroes in the history of Ukraine.]

Today, Jews are being told that tens of thousands of Jews were destroyed.

If we take the example of the Jews, the Ukrainians should have a holiday and
celebrate such an event, and have the festive pies on the table:
"with ears of the Jews"
"with meat of the Jews".

Even if Ukranian wanted to do so, he simply could not do it.
Because you need to have bloodthirsty rotten insides, without love for people
around the world and nature.

End of quote.

What is the meaning of Kole Nidre "prayer",
the ONLY prayer you are supposed to stand up for
on a day of attonement?

Would you kindly expand on that, mr. mouth foaming?


Well, most of that "drivel" happens to be QUOTES,
more or less.

Anyway, what is YOUR "problem"?

Your blood is at a boiling temperature?

Steam is coming out of your elephant size ears
at at 10 atmosphere pressure?

Your teeth are knocking so good that you are about to
break your jawbones?

You need to install the insustrial strenght shock absorbers.
That might help.

Cya.
You know where, right?

Yep. That is what ALL the cowards and liars do.
But I know people like you too well.
You are lying.
I did NOT filter me out.
You are going to eat every single bit of it,
being cunning liar as you are.
So...

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

James Kanze wrote:

[snip]

It's certainly good to have less lines of code to write and
to debug. And to be able to use the time that would be
otherwise required for those lines of code to do something else,
like more intensive testing, or adding a feature.

Or in another words:

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it.

(forgot who said it)

Well, true to some extent.
The argument though is this:

If you write a "good code", you won't have to debug it as much.
If your design is "correct", then you don't have to debug it much.

And again, remember what Denis Ritchie said about logging
(not a literal quote)

People get lost in the local scope with debuggers and can not
see the forest from the trees. They keep looking at the values
of local variables and small things like that and end up spending
10 times more time on debugging.

Instead, he proposed to use a well designed logging system.
That way, you can identify problems with your code probably
10 times as fast as with debuggers.

What an insight!

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

BIGOTS? WHO?
You mean YOU?
Most of my best friends, I am mean BEST,
are Jews.
Secondly, Jews are not semites.

[/QUOTE]

They are Khazars, the Turko-Finnic tribes,
that never stepped with their toe on the "holy lands".
Their king adopted Jeudoism and, as a result,
they became "Jews".

And here is the real kicker:

"We need a program of psychosurgery and
political control of our society. The purpose is
physical control of the mind. Everyone who
deviates from the given norm can be surgically
mutilated.

The individual may think that the most important
reality is his own existence, but this is only his
personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.

Man does not have the right to develop his own
mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great
appeal. We must electrically control the brain.
Some day armies and generals will be controlled
by electrical stimulation of the brain."

-- Dr. Jose Delgado
(MKULTRA experimenter who demonstrated a
radio-controlled bull on CNN in 1985)
Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University
Medical School.
Congressional Record No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[James Kanze]

<a65d3221-02ca-4a18-907f-9027cce07...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, James
Kanze <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Yep. No argument there. Except those apps are infantile
by todays standards.

They were a good deal more complex than anything I've seen
written recently.

If you tell me I have to write my code WITHOUT exeptions, I
won't take your job offer. Sorry.

It would depend on the context. If they had a good reason for
not using exceptions, then OK. Otherwise, no.

I do not know why some claim the exception mechanism is so
inefficient even in cases where there are not exceptions, but
that is another matter.

Memories of early compilers?

I can only guess that if you want to get TOO sophosticated and
assure that you can unwind the stack even considering the on
heap allocations and things like that, and, as a result, have
to save all sorts of things prepairing to run the exceptions
bound code, may be.

I'm not sure which side of the issue you're looking at above.
From the language point of view, it's clear what has to be done,
and techniques exist (and are used in most compilers) which have
0 overhead (or almost) in the case when an exception isn't
thrown. From the programmer's point of view: if you have to
write any special handling in C++, you're not writing idiomatic
C++. But one of the more frequent errors I've seen in Java is a
missing finally block, when there are things that have to be
cleaned up, and the author didn't think about exceptions.

Who knows?

Apparently yes.

I've worked on some very large projects without exceptions, and
the code was not at all a pile of spaghetti. It was, in fact, a
lot cleaner than a lot of code I see today, with exceptions.

I just wrote too much code to make such a statement. It is
simply inevitable.

So inevitable that it doesn't take place.

I'm tempted to say the opposite. Exceptions are just another
tool. A very convenient and effective one in specific cases,
but still just a tool. If you can't write clean code without
them, then you can't write it with them. Like any tool, they
don't change your native ability; all they do is make some
things (that you could do anyway) easier and less effort.

Again, this is a general purpose statement that does not
prove anything.

It's the exception that disproves your claim. (Obviously, I
can't post the code here, because it was propriatory. And
because it was several million lines of code, which would make
for a pretty large posting.)

Either you do test of your return codes, or you don't.

If you decide to do, and your logic runs to check all the
codes, then your code size and the amount of spagetti is
probably at least 30% bigger.

That's only if you don't know how to write code.

With exceptions, you do not check ANY return code
more or less. Clear to a 5 year old what it means.

Yes. That you're not handling a lot of errors the way they
should be. There aren't that many errors which warrent
exceptions. Most should be processed immediately.

[...]

Yes you are. I have seen some of your posts.

Then you know that I'm not against exceptions. That I use them
when appropriate.

[...]

Well. I am not saying it is not possible in PRINCIPLE.
I am saying it is a royal pain on the neck.

It's more effort, that's for sure. But there are a lot of
other things with even more impact.

In fact, I will make this claim:

If you do NOT use exceptions, you are just a lazy bum.

Or you're working in a context where they aren't appropriate,
for some reason. (On a really small embedded system, for
example.) But I do use exceptions. I also use return codes,
assertion failure, and deferred error checking (as in iostream
or IEEE floating point). I have more than one tool in my tool
kit, and I use which ever one is most effective for the job at
hand.

 

[tanix]

<a65d3221-02ca-4a18-907f-9027cce07...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, James
[...]

Well, THEORETICALLY, it can happen even without using
exceptions. In reality, it is just a joke.
It's no joke. It's an everyday reality. Most of the phone
switches and transmission systems go back to a time before
exceptions, and they work. Year in, year out, without
interruption.

Yep. No argument there. Except those apps are infantile
by todays standards.

They were a good deal more complex than anything I've seen
written recently.

Well, I did not mean it to be an insult. Trust me.
But just to put things in perspective.

The rate of coding is orders of magnitude higher nowadays
and complexities also.

And I will never agree with you on exceptions,
even though it is not a matter of principle for me.
I just saw WAY too many benefits of it and WAY too many cases
where they made things MUCH simpliers, much more predictable,
and much more structured.

My "granularity" argument still stands.
You don't need to get lost in the forest by dealing with
never ending collections of trees in front of you.

I can call it a "granularity benefit", whether it makes sense
for you or not.

It would depend on the context. If they had a good reason for
not using exceptions, then OK. Otherwise, no.

Well, I would simply feel uncomfortable doing ANY job,
unless it is a kernel mode driver, where rules of the game
are quite different.

But I would feel like I am working in "unclean" environment,
and I would intuitively feel horrified with ALL sorts of
crappy code and orders of magnitude more load on my brain
just because I have to deal with every single return code
on every single non significant level.

Once you decide to go with return codes, that's it.
You have to test EVERY SINGLE return code.
You can not make ANY assumptions.
If I EVER find something that does not need to return the
return code, because, for example, I solved it differently,
I immediately rewrite the called routine so it does not
return any return codes, just for the purity of code's sake.

Memories of early compilers?

Well, I am probably not seeing the picture YOU are seeing.

But I am just curious: what is the essense of argument
that the exception processing, under non exception conditions,
can possibly incure a significant enough overhead to even
bother about it?

Is it a memory allocation/deallocation issue?

Sorry to mentioni Java again, but since I started working with
Java as my primary language, I just do not recall a single case
where exceptions were inefficient.

I do keep a constant watch for performance issues, because those
are VERY critical in my case because most of the "jobs" I run
run for hours, if not days. Just saving a couple of hours of
job processing time, it helps quite a bit.

I'm not sure which side of the issue you're looking at above.
From the language point of view, it's clear what has to be done,
and techniques exist (and are used in most compilers) which have
0 overhead (or almost) in the case when an exception isn't
thrown.

That's IT then. That is ALL I want to hear.
In my case, once exception is THROWN, then fine, take ALL the
time you need and use ANY resources you need to make it as
informative as you can manage, if it is a major operation
and user might not know the state of the whole thing and
have to waste hours if not days to recover.

All the other lil exceptions, such as string to number conversion,
simply become a part of the flow. The exception handling overhead
is totally insignificant. Because, first of all, those things
happen EXTERMELY rarely, and if they do, an you have to deliver
a defalut value because your conversion failed, which is slow
enough as it, then it is a totally non issuse. Nothing even worth
mentioning.

From the programmer's point of view: if you have to
write any special handling in C++, you're not writing idiomatic
C++. But one of the more frequent errors I've seen in Java is a
missing finally block,

Well, that is true. I do agre on this one.
I do try to keep an eye on these kinds of things for vast majority
of cases and never let it slide.
Actually, I use the "finally" quite extensively,
because I need to keep a good handle on my memory allocations/
deallocations issues. Cause I may end up holding hundreds of
gigs of memory unnecessarily for unnecessarily long periods of
time.

when there are things that have to be
cleaned up, and the author didn't think about exceptions.

Well, that comes as a skill. Sooner or later they will learn,
or loose their job. THEN they WILL learn for sure.

I've worked on some very large projects without exceptions, and
the code was not at all a pile of spaghetti. It was, in fact, a
lot cleaner than a lot of code I see today, with exceptions.

Well, to tell you the truth I am not prepaired to argue this
point right now. It seems to me to be self evident.

Just a simple fact:

Do you have MORE logic in your program if you use return codes?
Or LESS?

How much MORE logic do you have?

Well, I estimate AT LEAST 30% of your code, if not 300% for the
sake of artument, has to handle that code. Otherwise you are
just a fool that created codes that are useless since you are
not using them.

I could probably spend a few minutes of my time to give you
a pretty typical piece of code with exceptions and the same
exact code without exceptions.

It'll look like night and day in terms of code clarity
and the size of that code.

But I am getting too much wrapped up into this "exceptions"
or "no exceptions" trip. I AM wasting too much time and
energy on it.

Why do I even need to try to prove anything to someone,
who thinks otherwise?

Stoopid of me indeed.

So inevitable that it doesn't take place.

:--}

Yep, I know your style by now.
Enjoy.

Cya.

I'm tempted to say the opposite. Exceptions are just another
tool. A very convenient and effective one in specific cases,
but still just a tool. If you can't write clean code without
them, then you can't write it with them. Like any tool, they
don't change your native ability; all they do is make some
things (that you could do anyway) easier and less effort.

Again, this is a general purpose statement that does not
prove anything.

It's the exception that disproves your claim. (Obviously, I
can't post the code here, because it was propriatory. And
because it was several million lines of code, which would make
for a pretty large posting.)

Either you do test of your return codes, or you don't.

If you decide to do, and your logic runs to check all the
codes, then your code size and the amount of spagetti is
probably at least 30% bigger.

That's only if you don't know how to write code.

With exceptions, you do not check ANY return code
more or less. Clear to a 5 year old what it means.

Yes. That you're not handling a lot of errors the way they
should be. There aren't that many errors which warrent
exceptions. Most should be processed immediately.

[...]

Yes you are. I have seen some of your posts.

Then you know that I'm not against exceptions. That I use them
when appropriate.

[...]

Well. I am not saying it is not possible in PRINCIPLE.
I am saying it is a royal pain on the neck.

It's more effort, that's for sure. But there are a lot of
other things with even more impact.

In fact, I will make this claim:

If you do NOT use exceptions, you are just a lazy bum.

Or you're working in a context where they aren't appropriate,
for some reason. (On a really small embedded system, for
example.) But I do use exceptions. I also use return codes,
assertion failure, and deferred error checking (as in iostream
or IEEE floating point). I have more than one tool in my tool
kit, and I use which ever one is most effective for the job at
hand.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.