|
I came across an article today re/ mad cow disease. An hour or so later I was learning of the origins of QR Codes via Veritasium. Several minutes into the video it is stated mad cow disease is part of its history. Quite a coincidence. Even further I also read today an article re/ Rudy Giuliani. Quite a coincidence.
"Insanity in individuals is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, it is the rule." - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,200 4/6*
⬛⬛🟨⬛🟨
🟨⬛🟩🟩⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,200 4/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,200 4/6
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,200 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,200 4/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask for a small favor from one who has got a recent version of MS Word?
I discovered not too long ago why my 2013 vintage Word sometimes refuses to drag a marked area to a new position: If there is an open search & replace box, it won't do it. (Don't ask me why - it makes no logical sense to me!) My friend is still using Word 2003: It has the same bug; it is not a regression over those ten years. Nor was the bug fixed in those ten years.
So I am curious: Has it been fixed during the next ten years? Would one of you, using a 2023-24 release test it: Open a search&replace box and leave it open while marking (double clicking) a word, and drag the word to a new position. Does it work? Or is the bug still present after alt least 20 years?
No, I am not tempted to report the bug in Word 2013 to Microsoft 
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what version I have (not 365) but certainly newer.
Does it do it? No.
Is it a bug? No. It shows a 'not allowed' icon when I attempt it so it is defined behavior.
trønderen wrote: while marking (double clicking) a word, and drag the word to a new position.
Just noting that as a touch typist I would never do that anyways. Never attempted even long ago when I still needed to look at the keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Is it a bug? No. It shows a 'not allowed' icon when I attempt it so it is defined behavior.
Or possibly: It is certainly not intended, but the root cause may lie so deep in the design that it is not realistic to fix the bug. But they are able to catch it, and glossy over with a 'Not allowed' message.
Well, at least they have discovered it and done something about it, but I would hardly say 'fixed it'.
Thanks for the information.
I cannot see any reason whatsoever why it shouldn't be allowed. Instead of dragging the marked text to a new location, I can hit Ctrl-X, click the new position, Ctrl-V. That is allowed, causing exactly the same result as dragging.
You can state good reasons why you are not allowed to change a C# enumerable data structure within a foreach loop on that enumerable. I see no similar reason with a search box, when no search is in operation. Besides, if there was a similar reason, then Ctrl-X/Ctrl-V should be forbidden as well.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Just noting that as a touch typist I would never do that anyways.
When typing the text for the first time, I always use Ctrl-X/Ctrl-V. But when I review what I have written, deciding to move paragraphs, sentences and words around (that happens quite often), my hand is constantly on the mouse for selecting the relevant text. Moving my hands over to the keyboard just for the Ctrl-X/Ctrl-V is much slower.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft 365 display "not allowed" icon (circle with bar) as I try to drag the word.
So it's intended, although perhaps undesired, behaviour and not bug. 
|
|
|
|
|
What was the mainstream programming language before C took the lead?
|
|
|
|
|
COBOL, FORTRAN?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
How was switching from one generation of languages to another?
Was it a hurdle or a natural evolution as the computers got better.
modified 12hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
As I mention in my other response: After 50 years of C, both Cobol and Fortran are still alive. I guess that comes closer to 'natural evolution'. In academics, there is a continuous line from Algol60 through Pascal to C - no great big revolution, only that C was an 'El Cheapo' language with a lot of features dropped in order to make a simpler, faster compiler.
The change of language platforms for production use is a lot slower than you might be lead to think. Legacy is a lot more essential than what any university student discovers until he enters a job in business or industry. If he goes the academic route and becomes a professor himself, he probably never discovers it.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, each in their own sector. Fortran was never an option in business, Cobol was never an option in engineering.
C's ability to knock out Cobol in business has been a lot less successful than most people believe. Even today, Cobol runs a lot of applications. Declining use of Cobol over the last few years (fewer than you would think!) is primarily due to universities not having educated new Cobol programmers for several decades: Those who could maintain the once billions of Cobol code lines (according to Wikipedia: 220 billion lines as late as 2017) are retiring. The needs covered by Cobol are still there. If C hasn't been an improvement for 50 years, it probably isn't today, just an emergency solution.
Similarly, Fortran is still a very important language in supercomputing - a revised standard was published less than a year ago. Then again: "I don't know what programming languages will look like in year 2000, but they will be called Fortran!", as old guru Tony Hoare remarked to all the crazy extension proposals for Fortran-77. Fortran 2023 has only vague resemblance to Fortran of the 1970s.
IBM tried to make PL/1 a common language for all application areas, including system programming. Let us say that it was a half success for some years - on IBM machines only. (But compilers exist for several other architectures.)
In academic circles, a plethora of widely differing languages were known, and taught, in the late 1970s and 80s, such as Lisp, APL, Prolog, Snobol, Forth, Algol68 - all very different from the C family. Especially in compiler courses, students were expected to know a variety of language classes, not just the 'algorithmic' ones. The predecessor of C in academic circles was Algol60 in the 1960s and 70s, with Pascal taking over in the 70s and into the 80s.
At some universities, for OO programming Simula67 (an OO extension of Algol60) was essential, but the world in general wasn't ready for OO at that time. Algol68 offered a lot of exciting 'academic' extensions that you might call 'experimental', so it was widely studied at academic institutions, but hardware wasn't ready for it yet, so few people used it for any serious work.
C entered academics along with those other 'academic' languages that were not widely used in business and industry, and for several years were not considered a real alternative for production work. The main reason why it gradually took over the scene is that during the 1980s, universities dropped teaching of other languages: People fresh from the university didn't master other languages than C. 95% of all 'new' languages arriving after the late 1980s are mostly based on C syntax; those that initially differed a lot has been modified to become more C-like with time, as that is the only style programmers of today know.
Also, up through the 1980s, for production work there were lots of either proprietary - but not that much different - or domain specific languages. E.g. at one point in time, it was said that 50% of all the worlds digital phone switches were programmed in CHILL, a special-purpose language developed by the International Telecommunication Union for that purpose; a fair share of the rest was programmed in Erlang. Both are essentially displaced by C.
Give a programmer of today a program in Lisp, APL, Snobol, Forth ... and he would hardly recognize it as computer program. If you try to present arguments for any not-C-looking language today, you are usually met with a blank stare. For those (few) who care to listen to your description, they may answer with how the same thing can be achieved in C, or by using C++ classes -- so there really is no need for that facility you describe. No need for anything but C/C++. If all you've got (or all you master) is a hammer, then whole world consists of nothing but nails.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
assembler and Fortran here. Maybe PL/1
>64
It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it never became 'mainstream'. Its predecessor. Pascal, was very much more so. (Modula was generally considered a 'grown up' version of Pascal, and could have been named 'Pascal-2'.)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Assembler here
A home without books is a body without soul. Marcus Tullius Cicero
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/1, and various Assembly languages. It really depended on the hardware and application. What's interesting to note is that other than the Assembly languages, none of the high-level languages at the time had buffer overrun, use after free, use before allocation, and the entire host of possible memory management errors that have resulted in roughly 90% of all vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you tell an approximate timeframe for when C took over? Was Dos written in C?
|
|
|
|
|
DOS is written in assembly language - originally in 8080 assembler. It is based on CP/M, which was an OS for the 8080. Essentially, 8080 assembler is source code compatible with 8086 assembler, but of course the 8086 has lots of extensions. I don't know how much these were used in the very first DOS versions (for the 8086 based IBM PC). Somewhere down in my basement is a ring binder that came with an IBM PC: The entire DOS source code is published there - if I could find it, I could tell, but a fast search was unsuccessful.
Note that DOS is not a single OS, and not from a single vendor. There is at least half a dozen of DOS versions, from different vendors for IBM PC compatibles, each in multiple versions. Maybe some of the more recent ones were written in C. If anyone were to write a DOS emulator today, it would of course be implemented in C.
The age when C took over is very diffuse, and people would give (highly) varying answers. It started spreading in academics through the 1980s, but didn't become what you'd call dominant until the late 80s. It probably occurred a few years earlier in the US than in Europe, but even in the US, it took quite a few years from its introduction until it had squeezed out everything else.
In business and industry, it took a lot longer. To some degree, it hasn't happened yet ... (ref my other post). Let's say that in new application domains, such as internet communication, C has been dominant or the single alternative since the late 1980s. In established application domains, such as business, supercomputing, CAD/CAM and several others, C didn't gain a strong foothold until the 1990s, possibly late 1990, into the 2000s or even later - but that varies a lot with application domain.
Most academics will tell that it happened much earlier - which is true within academics, which is what counts to a lot of academics. Lots of them consider Fortran and Cobol, and any other language with a not-C-like syntax, dead, historic languages.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Before C there were lots of higher level assembly languages (Jean Sammett wrote in the 70-ies, may be even late 60-ies, a thick book with on the cover the tower of Babel.
I myself used assembler (PDP-8, PDP-9) until I ported BCPL to the PDP-9, later using
BCPL on and for the PDP-11 with cross compilation for the P860 (a small Philips 16 bit computer with obly papertape in and output).
I actually wrote a lot of software in BCPL, including parser generators and a compiler for Algol 60 on the PDP-11
It was in app 1978 that we got Unix on a PDP-11 and obtained the original C Book
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12982558 wrote: Before C there were lots of higher level assembly languages
I worked with an assembler that wasn't 'higher level' in the sense of being above single instruction, but its syntax gave much more of a 'high level language' feeling, when e.g.
W1 * 5
to multiply register W1 by 5 (the specific multiplication instruction determined by the type of register/operand). To load a register:
F3 := B.LocalFloatValue
Similarly, storing a register:
W2 =: GlobalValue
This was (most definitely so!) a CISC machine, so you could program a loop by
LOOP LoopIndex, IncrementBy, Limit, Label
(usually placed at the end of the loop, with a negative displacement to Label, at the top. A conditional jump after an arithmetic operation or explicit compare was written as
IF = GO Lab1
IF > GO Lab2
A function call:
CALL FunctionName, argc, Arg1, Arg2, Arg3
And so on. Similar machines had similar instructions, but their assembler 'mnemonics' were far from mnemonic in nature - usually very hard to read/remember, cryptic abbreviations. If I had the choice between programming in K&R C or in the assembler above, I'd prefer the latter
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
