mimus
9/9/2011 3:57:00 PM
On Sep 9, 11:42 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 11:19 AM, mimus wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 5:14 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 8, 9:56 pm, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> How many more times will I have to knock up a quick hexdump utility in
> >>> my life? how many? huh? huh?
>
> >> why don't you use the one you wrote last time?
>
> > Um. The one I wrote last time was for (Ubuntu) Linux, this is Win7
> > <spit>.
>
> You wrote a hexdump utility for Linux? I'd recommend using 'od' rather
> than bothering to write your own.
<mildly:>
I like writing my own. Makes it easier to customize.
> > The one before that was Win98 (OK after serious strip-down of
> > residential processes and avoiding IE and OE like the plague and
> > defragging regularly and using ZoneAlarm).
>
> > And the two before that were C64 (one in Commodore Basic, one in
> > Spinnaker C).
>
> > And I may've done one for the TI-99/4A (don't remember, but I was
> > playing pretty hard with both its Basic and that godawful line-by-line
> > assembler cartridge).
>
> > Only takes me about five minutes of mumbling to myself in C, but
> > still--!
>
> Maybe "hexdump utility" carries some extra meaning for you that it
> doesn't have for me. To me it seems trivial to write such a utility so
> that it would be portable to most hosted implementations of C. What was
> unportable about your utilities?
Eh, well, writing a hexdump proggie is a trivial exercise, too.
Inshallah.
--
It's all just bricks in the wall.