jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (04/02/91)
In article <70433@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: >Certainly. On a 100-user mainframe, canonical mode is not a marginal >optimisation. My point was that the good 'ol 9600 bps terminals & large >time-sharing systems are likely to pass away soon, except in heavy-duty >transaction processing environments. Networking technology (in my opinion) >has become simple, reliable, and effective enough that a mainframe is rarely >the most cost-effective option when purchasing a new system. There are no "100-user mainframes". The S/6000, which is a microcomputer by all accounts, supports well over 100 users. The 3090/600E I use for problem tracking supports about 4,000 users total, with the particular virtual machine I access most running close to 1,000 simultaneous sessions. Other virtual machines on that CPU run well over 2,000 simultaneous sessions. >Typing away on what? sh? ed? If they're using a shell with editable >history (as most prefer), or they're editing a file, they're in raw mode. >If you have such a mongo mainframe around, and you have kmem privileges, it >might be interesting to run some tests and see exactly how much time is >spent in canonical mode. Block mode terminals and "cooked" mode tty I/O were developed specifically to get around the issues of interrupt service. Deferring as much of the processing to as late a time as possible lets you do it all at once, without running in circles performing needless context switches. Using the GNU readline() code will aggrevate matters further because it is a PIG. You don't need to snoop about too hard - just turn profiling on for your kernel (for System V types). -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr2.033339.17048@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >Yeah, then how come I can't find "conformant" in my dictionary either? >I suspect that it's one of those bastardized combinations of two other >words, like "irregardless" (coined by someone who confused & combined >"irrespective" and "regardless"). In "conformant"'s case, the >collision appears to be between "conforming" and "compliant". "-ant" is a suffix - check your Webster's. My says "one that performs or promotes (a specified action) <coolant>", or "thing that is acted upon in (a specified manner) <inhalant>". Another entry exists which says "performing (a specified action) <propellant>" or "promoting (a specified action or process) <expectorant>". -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) (04/07/91)
In article <19145@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: >"-ant" is a suffix - check your Webster's. That doesn't mean that you can go adding it to any word willy-nilly. An unabridged dictionary will list the accepted uses of a suffix with the main entries. >My says "one that performs or promotes (a specified action) <coolant>", >or "thing that is acted upon in (a specified manner) <inhalant>". >Another entry exists which says "performing (a specified action) ><propellant>" or "promoting (a specified action or process) <expectorant>". Unlike "conformant", those words are all in the dictionary. They also happen to be nouns, as is usually the case for new -ant words. Not to worry, though, the language grows, and "conformant" will probably make it into a later edition. Hopefully, though, the atrocious "prepend", which is used in place of "prefix" for no good reason and made it into the C Standard, will not. (Note though, that some lexicographers have given in to "irregardless", although it is still generally labeled "nonstandard", putting it in the same class as "ain't".)
gamiddle@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) (04/07/91)
In article <7021@segue.segue.com> jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) writes: > In article <19145@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > >My says "one that performs or promotes (a specified action) <coolant>", > >or "thing that is acted upon in (a specified manner) <inhalant>". > >Another entry exists which says "performing (a specified action) > ><propellant>" or "promoting (a specified action or process) <expectorant>". > > Unlike "conformant", those words are all in the dictionary. "conformant" is in the Oxford English Dictionary: conformant, a. Obs rare: Conforming, conformable, accordant. One citation, from 1643.
decot@hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) (04/09/91)
> >Yeah, then how come I can't find "conformant" in my dictionary either? > >I suspect that it's one of those bastardized combinations of two other > >words, like "irregardless" (coined by someone who confused & combined > >"irrespective" and "regardless"). In "conformant"'s case, the > >collision appears to be between "conforming" and "compliant". > > "-ant" is a suffix - check your Webster's. > > My says "one that performs or promotes (a specified action) <coolant>", > or "thing that is acted upon in (a specified manner) <inhalant>". > Another entry exists which says "performing (a specified action) > <propellant>" or "promoting (a specified action or process) <expectorant>". If you think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be applied to anything, you're not a very good studant. Dave
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (04/10/91)
In article <30780009@hpisod2.cup.hp.com> decot@hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes: >> "-ant" is a suffix - check your Webster's. > >If you think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be applied >to anything, you're not a very good studant. No, but a citation for "conformant" was found in an unabridged, which means that in the case of "conformant", appending -ant to conform is a conformant use of the suffix ;-) -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."
pauld@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) (04/10/91)
expectorant is not derived from "expect", but from "pectoral". the
term refers to a compound which will tend to encourage the departure
of material from the upper chest ("pectoral region"), hence,
ex-pector-ant.
at least, that's one meaning.
--
Paul Barton-Davis <pauld@cs.washington.edu>
UW Computer Science Lab ``to shatter tradition makes us feel free''roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (04/11/91)
decot@hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes: > If you think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be > applied to anything, you're not a very good studant. But, if you *don't* think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be applied to anything, you're not a very good hacker. Or should that be hackant? See the intro to the jargon file for an explanation of verbification. Or one of the appendicies of George Orwell's 1984, dealing with NewSpeak. Even William Safire, that staunch defender of the English Language, has been known to verbify on occasion. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.152219.26318@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >decot@hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes: >> If you think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be >> applied to anything, you're not a very good studant. > > But, if you *don't* think that the fact that something is a suffix >means it can be applied to anything, you're not a very good hacker. I don't think I ever implied that "-ant" can be applied to "anything". While "compliant" and "conformant" and "expectant" all seem to be quite valid, it should be slightly obvious that there are no such words as "thinkant" or "runant" or "programmant". I have vague memories of a time when "database" was still two words. Such are the joys of a living language ... -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."
alex@am.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) (04/13/91)
jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) writes: :In article <19145@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: :>"-ant" is a suffix - check your Webster's. : :That doesn't mean that you can go adding it to any word willy-nilly. An :unabridged dictionary will list the accepted uses of a suffix with the main :entries. : :>My says "one that performs or promotes (a specified action) <coolant>", :>or "thing that is acted upon in (a specified manner) <inhalant>". :>Another entry exists which says "performing (a specified action) :><propellant>" or "promoting (a specified action or process) <expectorant>". : :Unlike "conformant", those words are all in the dictionary. They also happen :to be nouns, as is usually the case for new -ant words. Not to worry, though, :the language grows, and "conformant" will probably make it into a later :edition. Hopefully, though, the atrocious "prepend", which is used in place :of "prefix" for no good reason and made it into the C Standard, will not. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, volume 1, p. 477: "conformant adj, obs: CONFORMING, CONFORMABLE". Thus not only is it an adjective, but it is marked as "obsolete" rather than "a new -ant word"! Also (volume 2, p. 1791) "pre-pend ... vt ...: CONSIDER, PREMEDITATE <make jokes with malice ~ed - Charles Lamb>". It's a variant of "per-pend", from Latin "perpendere", meaning "weigh carefully in the mind, reflect on, PONDER<~ my words - Sir Walter Scott>. Thus, asserting that a programmer prepends a routine may be correct, but asserting that she prepends an underline "to an identifier" is probably wrong - the indirect object has no clear meaning, and "considering" an underline, weighing it carefully in the mind, and premeditating it as well, seems a bit of overkill...:-) I like "conformant" - resurrecting obsolete words, as long as they do have the right connotation, is a meritorious undertaking. "prepend", on the other hand, definitely appears to deserve your choice of adjectives when used in a meaning so far from Lamb's and Scott's usage. These are, of course, just opinions, but the unending fascination of browsing through an unabridged is an undisputable FACT...:-) -- Alex Martelli - (home snailmail:) v. Barontini 27, 40138 Bologna, ITALIA Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/401.3 (home only).
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (04/14/91)
In article <7021@segue.segue.com> jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) writes: >[...] >Hopefully, though, the atrocious "prepend", which is used in place >of "prefix" for no good reason and made it into the C Standard, will not. >[...] Oh? append "xyz" to "ABC" gives "ABCxyz" prepend "xyz" to "ABC" gives "xyzABC" Looks to me like "prepend" is the antonym of "append" and is not directly related to "prefix" (whose antonym is "suffix). If you can suggest or conjure-up a better "verb" to replace "prepend", I'm sure the lexicographers would annoint you. :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad }
jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) (04/15/91)
In article <2391@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >Oh? > >append "xyz" to "ABC" gives "ABCxyz" >prepend "xyz" to "ABC" gives "xyzABC" > >Looks to me like "prepend" is the antonym of "append" and is not directly >related to "prefix" (whose antonym is "suffix). You seem to be arguing from your conclusion. "Looks like" based upon what? Certainly not the dictionary. Above you seem to be defining these words by example. You may *wish* that those examples defined the meanings, but that's about it. "prepend" is most certainly not an antonym for "append". And "suffix" is usually considered an antonym for "prefix" as *a noun*, although "suffix" can be used as an adjective, in place of "append". >If you can suggest or conjure-up a better "verb" to replace "prepend", I'm >sure the lexicographers would annoint you. :-) According to Random House: "prefix v.t. to fix or put before or in front: _to prefix an impressive title to one's name_". If you are looking for lexical consistency (a hopeless goal), you could use "postfix" in place of "append". postfix "xyz" to "ABC" gives "ABCxyz" prefix "xyz" to "ABC" gives "xyzABC"