"Suckehihaw" the new name for code so bizarre you laugh, or cringe, when you read it ?
-
That perfectly describes al lof the code I wrote 10 years ago or more. CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Which part? I hope not the nitwit! :-)
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
We've been having a lab cleanout the last couple of weeks here at work. I found an unopened, shrink-wrapped copy of MS-DOS 6.22, several copies of OS/2 Warp 3 and 4, and a stack of Windows 2003 Server CD's.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Which part? I hope not the nitwit! :-)
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
I believe it is derived from the Pre-First-Peoples-Language word "Veebeesix", which, since as we no longer have the Soapbox, cannot to any extent be translated on CP.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
If you elitists, you and everyone that replied above this one, think VB1 was bad, you should have tried Apple Basic. I wrote a payroll system in it. I then moved on to GW-Basic (the GW stands for Gates, William) and did an Inventory, Invoicing and A/R system in that. I've used VB1 through VB6 since then, over a reasonably successful 42 year career. I still work in both VB6 and C#. Languages are just a tool. If someone shoots himself in the foot with a shotgun while hunting, are you going to blame the shotgun, or the person holding it? Someday some kids will make fun of the languages you are using, if you are lucky enough to last that long. Throw out the academic Kool-Aid you have obviously swallowed.:suss:
Newer isn't better, just different.
-
If you elitists, you and everyone that replied above this one, think VB1 was bad, you should have tried Apple Basic. I wrote a payroll system in it. I then moved on to GW-Basic (the GW stands for Gates, William) and did an Inventory, Invoicing and A/R system in that. I've used VB1 through VB6 since then, over a reasonably successful 42 year career. I still work in both VB6 and C#. Languages are just a tool. If someone shoots himself in the foot with a shotgun while hunting, are you going to blame the shotgun, or the person holding it? Someday some kids will make fun of the languages you are using, if you are lucky enough to last that long. Throw out the academic Kool-Aid you have obviously swallowed.:suss:
Newer isn't better, just different.
Slow Eddie wrote:
I've used VB1 through VB6 since then, over a reasonably successful 42 year career.
Could that have anything to do with you being used to the title "Slow Eddie" ? ? ?
Slow Eddie wrote:
Someday some kids will make fun of the languages you are using,
Possibly quite soon - their ability to comprehend abstractions or do anything that takes mental acuteness is diminished with each incoming text-message. GPS - make fun of those who use maps - perhaps because they can't? Meanwhile, I have the fallback position of returning to FORTRAN.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Slow Eddie wrote:
I've used VB1 through VB6 since then, over a reasonably successful 42 year career.
Could that have anything to do with you being used to the title "Slow Eddie" ? ? ?
Slow Eddie wrote:
Someday some kids will make fun of the languages you are using,
Possibly quite soon - their ability to comprehend abstractions or do anything that takes mental acuteness is diminished with each incoming text-message. GPS - make fun of those who use maps - perhaps because they can't? Meanwhile, I have the fallback position of returning to FORTRAN.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
No. Go to Netflix and watch a Paul Newman Movie "The Hustler". You may then get the reference...
Remember newer isn't better, Just different.
-
Really? Compilers seem to think that it is the same. Insert a GOTO into the code and behold what the compiler makes out of it:
xdbrnf: goto xdbrnf;
11C774EF nop
11C774F0 jmp 11C774EEThe nop probably is needed to prevent knots in the caches.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
Machine languages generally don't have all the loops and higher level controls. All they have is JMP, which is the heart of all program flow control that doesn't involve calling subroutines. Therefore, JMP is not the equivalent of GOTO but it is the basis for GOTO, IF, WHILE, LOOP, etc.
-
Machine languages generally don't have all the loops and higher level controls. All they have is JMP, which is the heart of all program flow control that doesn't involve calling subroutines. Therefore, JMP is not the equivalent of GOTO but it is the basis for GOTO, IF, WHILE, LOOP, etc.
GOTO is unconditional. JMP is unconditional. There is only one unconditional branching instruction, more would not make much sense. Eell, I do know a processor with two unconditional branching instruction, but that's another story. On that processor I could actually perform an unconditional branch without using any of these instructions. Anyway, the compiler really does not have much choice how to implement a GOTO. It always comes down to this one instruction, so how much more equivalent do you want it? Loops, IF and all that stuff are based on conditional branches, quite a selection of branching instructions. They all work the same way, but branch only if a specific condition is met. These instructions are not equivalent. A loop obviously does a little more than just branch somewhere.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
GOTO is unconditional. JMP is unconditional. There is only one unconditional branching instruction, more would not make much sense. Eell, I do know a processor with two unconditional branching instruction, but that's another story. On that processor I could actually perform an unconditional branch without using any of these instructions. Anyway, the compiler really does not have much choice how to implement a GOTO. It always comes down to this one instruction, so how much more equivalent do you want it? Loops, IF and all that stuff are based on conditional branches, quite a selection of branching instructions. They all work the same way, but branch only if a specific condition is met. These instructions are not equivalent. A loop obviously does a little more than just branch somewhere.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
CodeWraith wrote:
GOTO is unconditional. JMP is unconditional. There is only one unconditional branching instruction, more would not make much sense.
As I recall, the PDP-11 instruction set (which I used to write drivers for lab systems in the dim and distant past) had two unconditional jump instructions. One was a single byte instruction with a single byte target, and could consequently only be used for very local branches, but executed very fast. The other (LNGJMP) had a two-byte target, so it could branch anywhere within the processor's address space, but executed more slowly.
-
CodeWraith wrote:
GOTO is unconditional. JMP is unconditional. There is only one unconditional branching instruction, more would not make much sense.
As I recall, the PDP-11 instruction set (which I used to write drivers for lab systems in the dim and distant past) had two unconditional jump instructions. One was a single byte instruction with a single byte target, and could consequently only be used for very local branches, but executed very fast. The other (LNGJMP) had a two-byte target, so it could branch anywhere within the processor's address space, but executed more slowly.
Exactly as in my old CDP1802 processor. The short branch had only an 8 bit address which changed only the lower half of the program counter. By having to fetch a byte less, it only needed two bus cycles to execute. The long branch instruction loaded the full 16 bit address and was one of the few instructions that needed three bus cycles.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
"Suckehihaw" is from the Osage North American First People's language: it refers to a noxious pest weed that grows aggressively by creeping, and climbing, and can even form thick mats which are difficult to walk over without tripping. It can be used to poison fish, and is known as "devil's shoestrings." You wanna see some code like that: goto QA :omg:
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
If you're still using GOTO and/or BASIC my deep condolences. There's no place for either one of them in modern Object Oriented or Aspect Oriented Programming. Alas, any hyperlink to an internal anchor in a web page is a GOTO statement and #HashTags on Twitter and Facebook are actually the parameter for GOTO searches on them. So GOTO is not going the way of the dodo, just transforming itself into something useful.