[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.buildingcontrols

Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS 45148

Dilma Roussef

10/9/2010 9:59:00 PM

Se voce acredita em tudo que a candidata fala por ai , veja o video que comprova que ela nao acredita em DEUS, cuidado ao jogar o seu voto no lixo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...

Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS
Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS
Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS
Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS
Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS
Dilma Roussef não acredita em DEUS



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...

Vhot%>bg*vK=i=HZk?tvH_On/
26 Answers

Flash Gordon

11/5/2009 11:30:00 PM

0

bartc wrote:
>
> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> news:V4ednQFRmpHJRG_XnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> In <pozIm.1994$Ym4.221@text.news.virginmedia.com>, bartc wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Ic2dnRgejPw5EW_XnZ2dnUVZ7qGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> In
>>>>
>> <f6731d50-9f4d-45c8-b0ea-d7b212b8fc68@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Grow up. Most platforms are Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Absolute rubbish. [...] MS is a tiny drop in a rather large puddle.
>>>
>>> I keep hearing all this. But since the 80's, most of the computers
>>> I've been able to buy have come with a MS operating system. Most of
>>> the rest have been Macs.
>>
>> How many mainframe systems have you bought, personally, in the last
>> twenty years? How many minicomputer systems? And of course most of
>> the computers that you /have/ bought in the last twenty years aren't
>> MS platforms.
>
> They don't seem to stock mainframes at PC World or Dixons.

So? That isn't where most computers (even most desktops and laptops, I
would guess), are bought.

Oh, and since you've said, since the 80s, there are the HP systems which
were in common use in some industries for which you had a choice of (to
my knowledge) three OSs NONE of which were by MS. These were computers
about the same size as an IBM PC, they had a keyboard, they had a
monitor, and where shipped with at least one programming language (I
used Pascal and BASIC) for software development *on* the machines.

>>> By computers I mean what you normally expect: a box with a screen
>>> and keyboard.
>>
>> If you can arbitrarily restrict the meaning of the word "computer" as
>> much as you like, it's easy enough to come to almost any conclusion
>> about them that you wish.
>
> It's fairly obvious when something is a computer, ie. a desktop or
> laptop PC.

So servers are not computers? That will be interesting to my customer
who buy servers from computer manufacturers, and to the computer
manufacturers themselves who think they are building computers when they
build servers.

> Everything else is more specialised.

Hmm. A computer running simultaneously three versions of Windows (all
server versions, so MS think servers are computers) and I think about 5
versions of Linux as well as the native OS is more specialised than a
computer only running one OS and far fewer applications?

Oh, and it's not long ago we had a customer asking us to port one of our
applications to AIX (a Unix version).

> There might be some
> consumer gadgets that are getting close though.

You mean like the netbook PCs running Linux? Or the PDAs on which you
can run word processors, spreadsheets, terminal emulators, games and
loads more are not computers?
--
Flash Gordon

Seebs

11/6/2009 5:23:00 AM

0

On 2009-11-06, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:

>> #define ADDFACTOR >> int addFactor(char *strInfix, >> char *strPolish, >> int *intPtrIndex, >> int intEnd, >> int intMaxPolishLength)
>> ADDFACTOR;
>
> This is a very strange coding style.

I hypothesize that the intent is to allow both a declaration and a
definition to use the same code.

I agree that it's pretty odd, though.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

11/6/2009 6:06:00 AM

0

(READER NOTE: There is actual content about C in this one, just for variety.)

On 2009-11-06, spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is
> of course that

> (1) Functions must be defined before use (an idiot language feature
> since it is an artifact of the thrilling days of yesteryear when
> storage was limited, and programs were on paper tape and could not,
> conveniently, be read more than once)

You're gonna have to work harder on learning the terminology if you want
to discuss C and not just be laughed at.

Functions must be *declared* before use. The thing with a function body
is a definition, the one without a function body is a declaration, also
called a prototype.

You also don't understand the intent or purpose of the feature. You're
unlikely to even if it's explained, because you seem to have attained
a nearly supernatural level of willful blindness to even the most trivial
facts, but we have other readers.

Q: Why doesn't C just read the whole file to find a function's definition?

A: Because prototypes would be needed anyway.

C is designed to support genuinely modular code -- you can build a program
which incorporates functionality that was previously compiled. That means
that you can, on nearly all implementations, build a program which includes
pieces of code for which you have *no source code*. The solution adopted
in early C was to allow declarations of external functions which are used
to generate code to call those functions even if no definition for that
function exists in source code. In C89, this feature was extended (based
in part, as I recall, on the C++ prototype feature) to include "prototypes"
which provide declarations of the arguments, not just the return types,
of the function.

Prototypes are primarily used to address the fairly common case where the
function being called is defined in a separate "translation unit" (in most
cases, this means "source file", but there are technical differences).

At the time, it made sense to allow compilers to continue to, at least in
principle, be able to operate in a single pass. While that's less crucial
now perhaps than it used to be (as most modern optimizers end up needing
to work with everything in memory for a while), it's still considered a
plus for vendors targeting smaller systems. (In a fit of irony, Microsoft
systems were one of the targets that benefitted a lot from this, but of
course, they're not important.)

Since prototypes are already needed, and well-defined, the language just
expects you to provide them whenever you call a function before its
definition.

> (2) Fixing this problem (which is an iinsult to the intelligence)

In normal English, "an insult to the intelligence" isn't supposed to be
a precise synonym for "which is reasonable for reasons I don't understand",
but I guess I've gotten used to your diaect.

> in the ordinary way means coding the declaration twice.

Or using functions only after their definition.

> If you know a better way to fix the problem, what is it?

The canonical solution is, in fact, to declare the function once and
define it once, usually with the declaration in a header if it's going
to be used by or seen by other translation units.

> My way gives a nice little overview and is reasonably easy to
> maintain.

The regular way is pretty easy to maintain if your prototypes don't change
too often, and if they change too often, they're changing too often.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Chris McDonald

11/6/2009 6:55:00 AM

0

spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:

>This is just silly. I have told you to restrict yourself to C because
>you don't understand programming. When you tell me things I already
>know, you're wasting my time.


Spinny, you come here asking for some feedback on your code, you are
provided with some and, seemingly because you don't like being corrected
when you make errors, you state that people are wasting your time?

Can you see anything wrong with this description of the facts?

Can you see that some may consider you to be wasting our time?

If you don't like C, then that's fine; no-one is holding a gun to your
head to use it, and you have no chance of stopping its use throughout
the world.

Why do you persist with your dross?

--
Chris.

Seebs

11/6/2009 7:24:00 AM

0

On 2009-11-06, spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is your anxiety.

No, it's not.

> You're anxious to avoid being laughed at as you
> were when you were young,

No, I'm not.

You spend hours preening over how I'm an "autistic twerp", but you don't
actually do even the most basic research.

Hint: I don't actually care whether people laugh at me. I think it's
amusing.

> because unlike me, in all probability, you
> did not stand up to the bully and fight like a man,

.... lolwut?

> which is what we
> did in 1964.

I'm glad for you, I guess?

>> You also don't understand the intent or purpose of the feature. ?You're
>> unlikely to even if it's explained, because you seem to have attained
>> a nearly supernatural level of willful blindness to even the most trivial
>> facts, but we have other readers.

> This is just silly. I have told you to restrict yourself to C because
> you don't understand programming.

This is about C, but...

> When you tell me things I already
> know, you're wasting my time.

That might be true. However, you've made it pretty clear that it is
not reasonable to assume that you know much of ANYTHING, and that much of
what you think you know is just plain wrong. So rather than assuming
you knew what prototypes were, I told you. Rather than assuming that you
already knew that you have a nearly supernatural level of willful blindness
to even the most trivial facts, I mentioned it.

> OK, this is better, but I'm afraid you're wasting my time nonetheless,
> because 50% of the effort here is needed to preserve legacy, and the
> answer is: eliminate C.

Not until we've got a replacement.

When you can suggest a better language for kernels, you go right ahead
and do that.

> All of this legacy nonsense has one solution: OO.

That's not actually a solution to the problem at hand, nor does it address
some of the primary cases where people are using C for new development.

> However, the distinction between declaration and definition, like
> sequence points, is not a reputable construct.

You keep making all these random assertions, but you never seem to get
around to actually supporting them.

> It's a patch which
> corrects the blunders and limitations of the past.

And the present, and the forseeable future, because they actually turn out
to be useful. There's substantial benefit to many people in being able to
use a declaration plus an already-compiled hunk of external code, so it's
going to be supported.

> It's asking for trouble to have an intermediate level of definition. A
> code resource is either available or else it isn't.

Untrue. Source is not binary.

> You need to actually learn a radically different programming language.
> Your uncritical "expertise" in mistakes doesn't impress me.

Hmm. How about shell, lua, perl, php, Ruby, awk, Objective-C, and Java?
(I'm probably forgetting a couple, I can't actually list all the languages
in which I can muddle through stuff.)

I'm not super excellent at any of those, although I'm pretty good at shell,
and certainly competent in lua and perl. I'm not including C++, as the
language has changed far too much since I was last any good at it. The
others I can do tolerably in, although I'm hardly expert at any but
maybe shell.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Richard Heathfield

11/6/2009 8:37:00 AM

0

In <slrnhf7mub.4ja.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs wrote:

> On 2009-11-06, spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> #include <stdio.H>
>> #include <stdlib.H>
>
> You already caught these.

Clearly not. He's been told about them, and *still* hasn't fixed them.

I see no point in reviewing his code until it compiles reasonably
cleanly.

<snip>

>> // ***** Function index ******************************************
>> #define ADDFACTOR >> int addFactor(char *strInfix, >> char *strPolish, >> int *intPtrIndex, >> int intEnd, >> int intMaxPolishLength)
>> ADDFACTOR;
>
> As commented elsewhere, this doesn't buy you very much.

He's trying to avoid duplication, presumably because he doesn't
realise the compiler will warn him if an inconsistency arises between
declaration and definition.

>> // ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> // Command line handler
>> //
>> // int main(int intArgCount, char **strArgs)
>
> Right here, you instantly dispelled any possibility of a gain
> occurring from the #defines above, because you're duplicating the
> text anyway.

Quite so.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield

11/6/2009 8:42:00 AM

0

In <13e578ce-3580-487f-b47c-1c1c8f03886c@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:

> On Nov 6, 1:23 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-06, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> #define ADDFACTOR >> >> int addFactor(char *strInfix, >> >> char *strPolish, >> >> int *intPtrIndex, >> >> int intEnd, >> >> int intMaxPolishLength)
>> >> ADDFACTOR;
>>
>> > This is a very strange coding style.
>>
>> I hypothesize that the intent is to allow both a declaration and a
>> definition to use the same code.
>>
>> I agree that it's pretty odd, though.
>
> It is meant to fix a bug in basic C that may have other fixes. This
> is of course that
>
> (1) Functions must be defined before use

You have been told before that this is not true - functions need only
be declared before use.

> (an idiot language feature

There are none so idiotic as those who will not learn.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Seebs

11/6/2009 8:51:00 AM

0

On 2009-11-06, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Clearly not. He's been told about them, and *still* hasn't fixed them.

He followed up to this post to comment on them, so I count that as
"caught".

> He's trying to avoid duplication, presumably because he doesn't
> realise the compiler will warn him if an inconsistency arises between
> declaration and definition.

That or because it's annoying to duplicate things. I'm not a huge fan
of the declaration/definition thing, I just think it's less annoying
to me than many of the alternatives.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Richard Heathfield

11/6/2009 11:33:00 AM

0

In
<23856697-4617-4ed2-9df7-b5dec06371d9@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:

<nonsense snipped>

> I don't want nits from either of you nitwits, Richard and Peter. I
> want real problem reports.

Nits /are/ real problem reports.

> I don't have to conform to your
> standards,

Right. You don't have to. Nor do you have to accept good advice.

because your standards are dysfunctional.
>
> I think what bothers you clowns is that working a few hours on my
> commute, I can craft a solution that works

But it doesn't.

> (with commonsense clerical changes on your system)

....which you have demonstrated yourself to be incapable of making. Do
Your Own Editing.

<nonsense snipped>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield

11/6/2009 11:34:00 AM

0

In
<2f5f7e5c-208f-49e4-ad9b-3fe8bd785790@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:

nothing at all, but managed to quote almost 300 lines in the process.

Learn To Snip.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within