subroutine stack and C machine model

N

Nick Keighley

On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<[email protected]> wrote:
all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]

You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
to go along with it.

the visual
definition. Furthermore, you've selected an inferior dictionary.

riight. I assumed you'd just rant that dictionaries were a plot by neo-
facist capitalist fast cats to supress the worker and and the
struggling artist. A simple expression of marxist dialetic and
envisioning the class struggle in a post inductrial age. When I taught
nash how to win the Nobel prize we didn't use a ****** dictionary as
neither of us was autistic.

The
OED has two definitions, one relating to visual clarity and the other
linking "clarity" to understanding.

I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)

Its definition of "understanding"

not its definition of "clarity" then?
 
D

Dik T. Winter

>
> That you regard it as unenforceable shows you need to learn
> optimization theory IMO.

Oh. Given:
SUBROUTINE X
REAL A, B
A = F(1.0) + F(2.0)
B = F(1.0)
B = B + F(2.0)
RETURN
END
How is the compiler to decide whether the expression for A is permitted or
not, while the expressions for B are always allowed?
 
T

Tim Streater

Nick Keighley said:
"ALGOL 60 was a language so far ahead of its time that it
was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also
on nearly all its successors".
--C.A.R. Hoare

Mmmm. From a purist language perspective, perhaps. Trouble is, when I
was introduced to Algol during my post-grad CS course in 1968, the
implementation available (on an IBM 7090) expected that you quote every
keyword, and also we were told that Algol itself had no standard I/O
statements (every implementation had its own - I haven't verified this).
So much for portability.

Most of us have to earn our corn in the real world, so we use what's
available. Writing networking software in the '80s to run cross-platform
on the VAX and also under VM/CMS, C was the best choice. To me it had
various drawbacks but like any normal person I just got on with it.
 
T

Tim Streater

Nick Keighley said:
Oh, I just like the quote. And I quite liked Algol-60 when I used it.

As I recall I wrote a trivial program and then moved on to Snobol.
ah, yes

'BEGIN'
I := 1;
'END'

not really Algol-60's fault there. The keywords should be
distinguishable from the identifiers. They used bold in books. Some
implementations used quoting to mark the keywords.

Languages these days don't seem to have this problem.
Now imagine you
have to write that on a "coding pad" for a key-punch operator.

Luxury! Wherever I worked we were our own key-punch operators.
there were no standard i/o statements. It was used a lot for
specifying algorithms, so i/o was not deemed that important. I also
think way back then they weren't sure how to do i/o.

Yes, not so easy then to have references for algorithms. These days
google seems to provide all the answers.
Fortran was pretty nasty in the i/o as well.

Hummm - that's true to some extent but it got the job done.
 
N

Nick Keighley

Mmmm. From a purist language perspective, perhaps.

Oh, I just like the quote. And I quite liked Algol-60 when I used it.

Trouble is, when I
was introduced to Algol during my post-grad CS course in 1968, the
implementation available (on an IBM 7090) expected that you quote every
keyword,

ah, yes

'BEGIN'
I := 1;
'END'

not really Algol-60's fault there. The keywords should be
distinguishable from the identifiers. They used bold in books. Some
implementations used quoting to mark the keywords. Now imagine you
have to write that on a "coding pad" for a key-punch operator.
and also we were told that Algol itself had no standard I/O
statements (every implementation had its own - I haven't verified this).

there were no standard i/o statements. It was used a lot for
specifying algorithms, so i/o was not deemed that important. I also
think way back then they weren't sure how to do i/o. Fortran was
pretty nasty in the i/o as well.

So much for portability.

I'm not sure anyone really considered it. The algorithm was portable,
you just bunged a few extra cards on the end to define the i/o. ;-)
Most of us have to earn our corn in the real world, so we use what's
available. Writing networking software in the '80s to run cross-platform
on the VAX and also under VM/CMS, C was the best choice. To me it had
various drawbacks but like any normal person I just got on with it.

Algol-60 was interesting at the time and still has some interesting
points, but one of the reasons I use the quote is that I don't
entirely agree with it.
 
D

Dik T. Winter

>
> ah, yes
>
> 'BEGIN'
> I :=3D 1;
> 'END'
>
> not really Algol-60's fault there. The keywords should be
> distinguishable from the identifiers. They used bold in books. Some
> implementations used quoting to mark the keywords. Now imagine you
> have to write that on a "coding pad" for a key-punch operator.

The implementation I did use first used underlining, just as in the Revised
Report. (Flexowriter with 7-level punched tape, also just as the RR.)

When you do not distinguish you get something Fortran like that has no
reserved words and where space is insignificant, but it requires a lot
of look-ahead to pars. I.e. given
9999 FORMAT(5
it is not yet known whether that is a FORMAT statement or an assignment
to an element of the array FORMAT. (Many Fortran compilers did it wrong
if an array FORMAT was used...)
 
R

Richard Tobin

not really Algol-60's fault there. The keywords should be
distinguishable from the identifiers. They used bold in books. Some
implementations used quoting to mark the keywords.
[/QUOTE]
Languages these days don't seem to have this problem.

They do, if by "this problem" you mean the problem of distinguishing
keywords from identifiers. They just choose the other approach of
*not* making them automatically distinguishable, with the consequence
that you can't compatibly extend the language with new keywords. Thus
C header files containing identifies such as "new" and "namespace"
cannot be included in C++ programs.

Of course, some languages have it even worse. I remember seeing a
Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like

30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$

-- Richard
 
B

bartc

Languages these days don't seem to have this problem.

They do, if by "this problem" you mean the problem of distinguishing
keywords from identifiers. They just choose the other approach of
*not* making them automatically distinguishable, with the consequence
that you can't compatibly extend the language with new keywords. Thus
C header files containing identifies such as "new" and "namespace"
cannot be included in C++ programs.

Of course, some languages have it even worse. I remember seeing a
Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like

30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$[/QUOTE]

What is the obfuscation?
 
R

Richard Tobin

Of course, some languages have it even worse. I remember seeing a
Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like

30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$
[/QUOTE]
What is the obfuscation?

See! It works!

The second line is a comment, as is any line beginning "REM", because
of Basic's keyword parsing.

-- Richard
 
K

Kenny McCormack

What is the obfuscation?

See! It works!

The second line is a comment, as is any line beginning "REM", because
of Basic's keyword parsing.[/QUOTE]

Hah! Yes, I should have spotted that.
We used to do things like that all the time, back in the day.

Also, I certainly don't remember any keyword (functionality) of "remove"
in BASIC, but I assumed that it must have been present in the flavor you
were using. I don't think BASIC was ever standardized...
 
R

Richard Tobin

Also, I certainly don't remember any keyword (functionality) of "remove"
in BASIC

You're right, there wasn't any. The program I'm remembering had
several other fake keywords, such as REMEMBER and REMERGE.

-- Richard
 
K

Kenny McCormack

You're right, there wasn't any. The program I'm remembering had
several other fake keywords, such as REMEMBER and REMERGE.

Yeah, that's what we used to do. Write things like:

REMEMBER to do this...

I also have a vague memory of it working like that in DOS batch,
but current testing reveals that it doesn't do it in either Windows
CMD.EXE or in DOSBox. I don't have quick access at the moment to a real
DOS machine to test it...
 
S

spinoza1111

all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]
You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.
clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
to go along with it.

No, I used the OED.
riight. I assumed you'd just rant that dictionaries were a plot by neo-
facist capitalist fast cats to supress the worker and and the
struggling artist. A simple expression of marxist dialetic and
envisioning the class struggle in a post inductrial age. When I taught
nash how to win the Nobel prize we didn't use a ****** dictionary as
neither of us was autistic.

No, your use of dictionaries is in error. And if you can't spell
"dialectic" don't satirize Marxist writings. You look like a fool.
 
S

spinoza1111

I think there may a bit of "luck" involved here. I suspect a sample of
C programmers if asked, which order f and g were called in in f() + g
() most would answer "f".  The reason they hardly get bitten by this
is a natural shyness of obscure code. And exploiting multiple

It's obscure not because it's obscure in any common sense or
mathematical way, but because of the limitations of C. C failed to
support common sense, and this is a fault of C.
functions for their value and their side effects might be regarded as
obscure (even if they didn't quite phrase it that way). The best one I
can think of is some sort of stream reader but then you'd have to be
unlucky enough to do arithmatic on the values.

   /* calculate number of entries from start and end */
   num_vals = -(read_val() - read_val());

which would probably cause most people to blink.

   /* calculate velocity from distance and time */
   velocity = read_val() / read_val();

   /* read word */
   word = read_val() << 8 | read_val();

the last one is plausible



"ALGOL 60 was a language so far ahead of its time that it
was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also
on nearly all its successors".
                --C.A.R. Hoare



I've heard it said that both Java and C Hash are both equally
unportable as both both only run on a single platform (their VM)
:)



speak for yourself
I'm not speaking for myself, since I escaped the rat o rama five years
ago.
 
S

spinoza1111

You probably have forgotton about Herb Schildt. Herb was the kind of
red blooded American guy who only needed to bought a Borland compiler
, got himself a copy of the C standard, to write a book about the
infamous C programming language standard, that almost won the him
the Pullitzer price, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize
for economics, too!


But he taught it at Princeton, you fool!


OMG

AvK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I taught it at Princeton, you fool. I didn't get my dick caught
in the wringer coding for some reinsurance firm and I don't post from
East Jesus. I also read more than you in all fields, and I'm better
looking as well.
 
S

Seebs

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.

Its definition, singular? Or does it have multiple ones?
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.

There are multiple definitions. You don't get to assert that a specific
one is the only possible one.

Anyway, this was already resolved: When text is clear, you develop accurate
knowledge of the *meaning of the text* -- not necessarily of the world.

The statement "elephants are always green" is quite clear, and it does lead
to justified true belief -- the justified true belief that the meaning of
the statement is that, for all e such that e is an elephant, e has the
attribute of being green. It does not, as it happens, describe the world
correctly, but that doesn't preclude the development of justified true belief
about the *statement*.

-s
 
C

Colonel Harlan Sanders

On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <[email protected]>
all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]
You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.
clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
to go along with it.

No, I used the OED.

No, you made it up.


These are ALL the definitions of "clarity" in the OED:
(http://dictionary.oed.com)
CLARITY
1. Brightness, lustre, brilliancy, splendour. Obs. (An exceedingly
common sense in 17th c.)
b. with pl. Obs.
c. fig. ‘Light’. Obs.
2. Glory, divine lustre. Obs.
3. Illustrious quality; lustre of renown. Obs.
4. Clearness: in various current uses; e.g. of colour, sky,
atmosphere, sight, intellect, judgement, conscience, style.


And these are all the definitions of
CLEARNESS
The quality of being clear; in various senses of the adj.
1. Brightness, luminousness; splendour, brilliancy; fairness, beauty;
fineness of weather. Obs.
2. Freedom from opacity, obscurity, or discolourment; distinctness or
purity of light or colour; transparency, pellucidness.
3. Distinctness of vision, sound, expression, comprehension, etc.
4. Purity; innocence; openness. Obs.
5. Freedom from anything obstructive.

And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
"definition":
CLEAR:
A. adj. I. Of light, colour, things illuminated.
1. a. orig. Expressing the vividness or intensity of light: Brightly
shining, bright, brilliant.
b. Now expressing the purity or uncloudedness of light; clear fire, a
fire in full combustion without flame or smoke. Also used with adjs.,
as clear white, brown, etc.
2. a. Of the day, daylight, etc.: Fully light, bright; opposed to dusk
or twilight. arch.
b. Of the weather: orig. Full of sunshine, bright, ‘fine’; serene,
‘fair’. Obs. (Cf. to clear up.)
c. Now: Free from cloud, mists, and haze; a ‘clear day’, ‘clear
weather’ is that in which the air is transparent so that distant
objects are distinctly seen; a ‘clear sky’, a sky void of cloud.
d. fig. Serene, cheerful; of unclouded countenance or spirit. Obs. or
arch.
3. a. Allowing light to pass through, transparent.
b. Of coloured liquids, etc.; Translucent, pellucid, free from
sediment, not turbid or opaque.
4. a. Bright or shining, as polished illuminated surfaces; lustrous.
(Now expressing esp. purity and evenness of lustre.)
b. gen. Bright, splendid, brilliant. Obs.
c. A common epithet of women: Beautiful, beauteous, fair. Obs.
d. Of the complexion, skin, etc.: Bright, fresh, and of pure colour;
blooming; in modern use, esp. implying purity or transparency of the
surface skin, and absence of freckles, discolouring spots, or
‘muddiness’ of complexion.
5. fig. Illustrious. [So L. clrus.] Obs.
II. Of vision, perception, discernment.
6. Of lines, marks, divisions: Clearly seen, distinct, well-marked,
sharp.
7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.
c. Not in cipher or code. Often absol., in clear.
8. Of a vision, conception, notion, view, memory, etc.: Distinct,
unclouded, free from confusion.
9. a. Manifest to the mind or judgement, evident, plain.
b. Of a case at law: Of which the solution is evident.
10. Of the eyes, and faculty of sight: Seeing distinctly, having keen
perception.
11. Of the faculty of discernment: That sees, discerns, or judges
without confusion of ideas.
12. Of persons: Having a vivid or distinct impression or opinion;
subjectively free from doubt; certain, convinced, confident, positive,
determined. Const. in (an opinion, belief), of (a fact), as to, on,
about (a fact, course of action), for (a course of action); that. I am
clear that = it is clear to me that. [So in 12th c. Fr.]
III. Of sound.
13. a. Of sounds, voice: Ringing, pure and well-defined, unmixed with
dulling or interfering noises; distinctly audible.
b. Phonetics. Designating one of two varieties of lateral consonants
(the other being called ‘dark’) (see quots.).
IV. Of moral purity, innocence.
14. fig. from 3: Pure, guileless, unsophisticated.
15. a. Unspotted, unsullied; free from fault, offence, or guilt;
innocent. Cf. CLEAN a.
b. Const. of, from.
V. Of free, unencumbered condition.
16. a. Of income, gain, etc.: Free from any encumbrance, liability,
deduction, or abatement; unencumbered; net.
b. Sheer, mere, bare, unaided. Obs.
17. Free from all limitation, qualification, question, or shortcoming;
absolute, complete; entire, pure, sheer. Cf. CLEAN a.
18. Free from encumbering contact; disengaged, unentangled, out of
reach, quite free; quit, rid.
a. with from.
b. with of. Quit, rid, free.
c. In such phrases as to get or keep (oneself) clear, to steer clear,
go clear, stand clear, the adjective passes at length into an adverb.
d. With n. of action.
19. Of measurement of space or time: combining the notions of senses
17, 18. a. Of distance. Cf. C. 5.
b. clear side (of a ship): see quot.
c. clear day or days: a day or days, with no part occupied or
deducted.
20. a. Free from obstructions or obstacles; unoccupied by buildings,
trees, furniture, etc.; open.
b. Free from roughnesses, protuberances, knots, branches; = CLEAN a.
12.
c. clear ship: a ship whose deck is cleared for action.
21. Free or emptied of contents, load, or cargo; empty; esp. of a
ship, when discharged.
22. Free from any encumbrance or trouble; out of debt; out of the hold
of the law.
23. Free from pecuniary complications.
24. slang. Very drunk. Obs.
25. a. U.S. slang. Free from admixture, unadulterated, pure, ‘real.’
clear grit: ‘real stuff’: see quots.
b. In technical or trade use.
B. adv. [Clear is not originally an adverb, and its adverbial use
arose partly out of the predicative use of the adjective, as in ‘the
sun shines clear’; partly out of the analogy of native English adverbs
which by loss of final -e had become formally identical with their
adjectives, esp. of CLEAN adv., which it has largely supplanted.]
1. Brightly, with effulgence; with undimmed or unclouded lustre. [Cf.
bright similarly used.]
2. In a clear or perspicuous manner; distinctly. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
3. Manifestly, evidently. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
4. a. With clear voice; distinctly; CLEARLY.
b. clear-away: entirely, completely.
5. a. Completely, quite, entirely, thoroughly; = CLEAN adv. 5. Obs.
exc. dial. and U.S.
b. With away, off, out, through, over, and the like; esp. where there
is some notion of getting clear of obstructions, or of escaping; =
CLEAN.
6. See other quasi-adverbial uses in A. 18c.
C. n. I. Elliptical uses of the adjective.
1. A fair lady, a ‘fair’. Obs.
2. Brightness, clearness. Obs.
3. The clear part of a mirror. Obs.
4. Painting. (pl.) Lights as opposed to shades.
5. a. Clear space, part of anything clear of the frame or setting;
phr. in the clear, in interior measurement. See A. 19.
b. Colloq. phr. in the clear: (a) out of reach; (b) unencumbered; free
from trouble, danger, suspicion, etc.; (c) having a clear profit.
orig. U.S.
II. Verbal n. from CLEAR v.
6. a. A clearing of the atmosphere, sky, or weather.
b. With adverbs: clear-out, an act of clearing out (see CLEAR v. 26);
clear-up, an act of clearing up, spec. the settlement of accounts (see
CLEAR v. 27g); also attrib.
D. Combinations.
1. With the adj.: chiefly parasynthetic; as clear-aired (having clear
air), clear-crested, -faced, -featured, -hearted, -limbed, -minded,
-pointed, -spirited, -stemmed, -throated, -toned, -voiced, -walled,
-witted, etc.
2. With the adv., as clear-dangling, -drawn, -judging, -seeing,
-shining, -smiling, -spoken, -standing, -swayed, -writ, etc. (See also
A. 1b.)
3. Special comb.: clear-air gust or turbulence, disturbance of the
atmosphere at high altitudes; clear-cake, a kind of confection, partly
transparent; clear-cut a., sharply-chiselled, sharply defined;
clear-cutness, the quality of being clear-cut; clear-cutting,
-felling, the cutting down and removal of every tree in a given area;
hence clear-fell, clear-felled adjs.; clear-light v., to illumine
clearly; clear-matin, some kind of bread; clear-skin Austral., an
unbranded beast (cf. clean-skin); also attrib.; clear-walk (see
quot.); clear-way, clearway, (a) (see quot. a 1884); (b) a path or
passage-way; (c) a road on which vehicles are not allowed to park or
wait; clear-wing, attrib., popular name of the Hawk-moths with
transparent wings (Ægeridæ); so clear-winged. Also CLEAR-EYED,
CLEAR-HEADED, CLEAR-STARCH, etc.
ADDITIONS SERIES 1993
clear, a., adv., and n.
Add: [C.] [I.] Sense 6 in Dict. becomes 7.
6. In Scientology, a person who has completed a course of dianetic
therapy and is considered free of neuroses and other physical or
mental ills. Cf. *PRECLEAR n.

================
Conclusion: either you're lying, or delusional.
In neither case will you admit your error, of course.
 
S

Seebs

No, you made it up.

No, he just cherry-picked.
And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
"definition":

Sort of.
CLEAR:
7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.

"Easy to understand".

Since he then cherry-picks from "understanding" to get to the sense of
leading to knowledge, and then cherry-picks the definition of knowledge,
and then commits a category error to jump from knowledge of the statement's
meaning to knowledge of the world, he's not technically lying or delusional,
just completely wrong[*].

-s
[*] Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with a
merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.
 
S

Seebs

[*] Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with
a merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.
Hanlon's Razor applies.

I think the Verisign Corollary[*] actually comes into play:

Sometimes, something can only be adequately explained by malice *and*
stupidity.

[*] Named after thing where they set the root servers to yield fraudulent
responses for nonexistent domains.

-s
 

Ask a Question

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.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,994
Messages
2,570,223
Members
46,810
Latest member
Kassie0918

Latest Threads

Top