franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
In article <1345@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >While this reply was inspired by this particular posting, it is not a >flame at the poster, but rather to the network in general. If you didn't intend to flame at the poster, you should have avoided doing so. >Over a number of years, members of my family have been involved in the >care and education of retarded and brain-damaged people. Recently, I >myself married and gained a 14-year old son with epilepsy. The cavalier >use of the term "brain-damaged" is both innappropriate and, in some cases, >downright offensive. The use of the term seems to be limited to net.lang.c, >which may or may not be testimony to the level of courtesy of the people >inclined to communicate in this forum. I only used the term because it was used in the article I was replying to. It is not one I would normally use. On the other hand, I don't think the word is particularly inappropriate in this context. We are talking about systems which are supposed to perform computational functions, as the brain does; it is a reasonable extrapolation of this idea to describe them as "brain-damaged" when they are deficient. One describes a city as "crippled" when normal activities are interrupted by an act of nature; I don't think this usage is any more insulting than that one. >The attitude exemplified above seems to give this person the impression that >matters of incontrovertable physical law are being questioned >("architectures ... ARE brain-damaged:, as opposed to "architectures ... >I find deficient"). I wished to make a stronger statement than that. Yes, it is my opinion; but I hold that opinion quite strongly. >The opinoins expressed on this net are just that. Frankly, >letters like the above I find to be the output of human architectures >which are socially-damaged. Frankly, I find sentences like the one above extremely offensive. >Flames in reply are not solicited, welcome, or accepted. You feel free to flame, but don't want to be flamed at? Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
styborsk@hpspkla.UUCP (styborsk) (10/04/85)
Hear, Hear! I personally feal no guilt for calling a machine names of any kind! When talking to or about humans, I am always tactful, but I have worked with computers long enough not to care. I also have no problem with making a machine do boring, nearly-meaningless work (like transmitting my flames...) but I would not ask a human to do it! Flames welcome, solicited, and gleefully thrown into the bit bucket!
libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Don Libes) (10/06/85)
> I agree. Lets use "mentally-deficient" instead of "brain-damaged". > ... > My last program was so "mentally-deficient", it died. Hey, wait a second. My uncle Joe is dead. I'm insulted by your comparing your program with my uncle. On the other hand, can you send your program to me? I haven't seen Joe for a long time, and it would be nice to talk to him again. Don Libes nbs-amrf!libes
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (10/06/85)
> Hear, Hear! I personally feal no guilt for calling a machine names of any > kind! When talking to or about humans, I am always tactful, but I have > worked with computers long enough not to care. I also have no problem with > making a machine do boring, nearly-meaningless work (like transmitting my > flames...) but I would not ask a human to do it! O.K., *human*, I've got your name, now. <The Machine In Charge Of> -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
cottrell@nbs-vms.arpa (COTTRELL, JAMES) (11/27/85)
/* > The problem is really the brain damage among UNIX hackers that assumes > sizeof(int) == sizeof (char *). This is so painful to fix (for quick ports) > that although the 68000's int should be 16 bits (the size that works best, > fastest, ...) it is often made 32 bits. While this avoids the pain for the > porter, it does lead to problems for the end user (i.e. using short vs int). > > Rich Hammond (ihnp4|allegra|decvax|ucbvax) !bellcore!hammond Sorry, but some of us *like* it that way. The 68k is a 32 bit machine in spite of the fact that the bus is only 16 bits. 16 bit ints are stupid. And sizeof(int) should be sizeof(any *) on any machine possible. Portability to lesser machines should be done *by the porter*. That's why they call it porting. After all, this is still easier to do than rewriting the program. I can live with the new ANSI C recasting all my parameters for me. I refuse to cast parameters to the `correct' type. And I refuse to work on any machine where I need to. You want it, you fix it. jim cottrell@nbs */ ------
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (11/29/85)
> /* > > The problem is really the brain damage among UNIX hackers that assumes > > sizeof(int) == sizeof (char *). This is so painful to fix (for quick ports) > > that although the 68000's int should be 16 bits (the size that works best, > > fastest, ...) it is often made 32 bits. While this avoids the pain for the > > porter, it does lead to problems for the end user (i.e. using short vs int). > > > > Rich Hammond (ihnp4|allegra|decvax|ucbvax) !bellcore!hammond > > Sorry, but some of us *like* it that way. The 68k is a 32 bit machine in > spite of the fact that the bus is only 16 bits. 16 bit ints are stupid. Sorry again but if you look closely at the way the 68000 does arithmetic you quickly realize (not the 68020!!!) that it IS a 16 bit machine disguised as a 32 bit machine. It WILL NOT do a 32 x 32 bit multiply (even ignoring the upper 32 bits) not will it do a 32 / 32 bit divide!!. (say 28 bits / 20 bits will not work!). What generally happens (e.g. SUN's is that the compiler when it sees: long a,b,c; c = a/b; calls a built in routine to do the division. This, to my way of thinking is a machine which really only does 16 bit arithmetic. The 68010 may have 32 bit addressing and registers but most instructions only operate on 16 bit quantities. You can't even shift more than 16 bits or shift across register boundaries. Bob Silverman > And sizeof(int) should be sizeof(any *) on any machine possible. > Portability to lesser machines should be done *by the porter*. That's > why they call it porting. After all, this is still easier to do than > rewriting the program. > > I can live with the new ANSI C recasting all my parameters for me. > I refuse to cast parameters to the `correct' type. And I refuse to > work on any machine where I need to. You want it, you fix it. > > jim cottrell@nbs > */ > ------ *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (11/30/85)
Faron (RDS) does not include attributions, but I know that ">>" is cottrell@NBS. In article <403@faron.UUCP> bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) writes: >> > The problem is really the brain damage among UNIX hackers that assumes >> > sizeof(int) == sizeof (char *). ... >> Sorry, but some of us *like* it that way. ... >Sorry again but if you look closely at the way the 68000 does arithmetic >you quickly realize (not the 68020!!!) that it IS a 16 bit machine disguised >as a 32 bit machine. ... Look, those of you who are new to this discussion: it has already been incontrovertibly shown that cottrell@nbs is one of those irremediably brain-damaged people who think that all computers should look like VAXen. He's even shown VMS-loving tendencies. So, let's not waste net time trying to shout him down, eh? ;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-) Jim, if you want to flame me, let's do it privately, eh? -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/01/85)
> ...Portability to lesser machines should be done *by the porter*. That's > why they call it porting. After all, this is still easier to do than > rewriting the program. > > I can live with the new ANSI C recasting all my parameters for me. > I refuse to cast parameters to the `correct' type. And I refuse to > work on any machine where I need to. You want it, you fix it. Translated, what this says is "I don't care whether my programs are portable, so long as they run on the machines I care about right now". -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry