On 9/26/24 4:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:18:01 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> One of the favourite functions in my library pulls the next token from a
>> delimited string, but as opposed to strtok() it does it
>> non-destructively and can handle empty strings.
>
> Use a high-level language which has all this and more:
>
> for item in "the,quick,brown,fox".split(",") :
> print(item)
> #end for
>
> Output:
>
> the
> quick
> brown
> fox
>
> In Python, strings are objects, and that applies to string expressions
> (including string literals) as well.

Ya know ... most of Python IS 'C'-based libs.
Never really looked into it, but the 'advanced'
Python function may just be strtok() with a
lot of handy fixes/cheats in disguise :-)

First you make COPIES of the source string ...

Look, then look DEEPER.

WAY back, latter 70s, Bill Gates used to participate
in 'contests' to see How To Do It In The Least
Bytes/Cycles/Mem - and often won. I do REMEMBER his name
from Way Back When. As such, despite all after, I do
NOT doubt his coding acumen.

The follow-on that a LOT of today's code is
STILL Bill Gates code - just adapted for a
particular chip. Smart ASM that got put
into the libs for almost every computer
language/OS/BIOS and whatever.

There IS 'depth' to all this.

Microprocessors CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Oh, Python 'strings' are ULTIMATELY just
a stretch of memory filled with various
values. The "object" stuff, a carefully-
crafted ILLUSION :-)

I started with ASM ... pre-4004/8008 ... as
such I see things more at their basic level.

Oh, recently found an ADVERT for a "desktop",
more an entire DESK, 8008 all-purpose/wonderful
8008 system. You could buy it with a nice serial
terminal AND a - gasp ! - floppy-disk drive
or, cheap-asses, a tape CASSETTE drive :-)

The first 'floppies' of MY experience were 8-inch
floppies. Huge, actually "floppy", didn't hold much
of DICK.

Ah how times have changed ! You don't even have to
solder-together your own I/O boards anymore !

SO boring ......

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:19:02 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Ya know ... most of Python IS 'C'-based libs.
> Never really looked into it, but the 'advanced'
> Python function may just be strtok() with a lot of handy fixes/cheats
> in disguise :-)

No, because Python strings can contain any characters, including nulls.

I’ve written some of those C extension libraries, and I can tell you the
string API is more sophisticated than you think.

On 10/4/24 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:19:02 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Ya know ... most of Python IS 'C'-based libs.
>> Never really looked into it, but the 'advanced'
>> Python function may just be strtok() with a lot of handy fixes/cheats
>> in disguise :-)
>
> No, because Python strings can contain any characters, including nulls.

Yea ... but Python = 'C' under the hood. The
Python rules/methods are just a disguise for
what the underlying 'C' is doing.

I think the libs can be found/read.

> I’ve written some of those C extension libraries, and I can tell you the
> string API is more sophisticated than you think.

Probably.

Everything you can/want to do with strings ... it's
potentially complicated. Lots of ways to do it, it's
up to clever coders to find good/best ways.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 02:03:31 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 10/4/24 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:19:02 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Ya know ... most of Python IS 'C'-based libs.
>>> Never really looked into it, but the 'advanced'
>>> Python function may just be strtok() with a lot of handy fixes/cheats
>>> in disguise :-)
>>
>> No, because Python strings can contain any characters, including nulls.
>
> Yea ... but Python = 'C' under the hood.

But C = “machine language” under the hood. That’s what Python uses.

> I think the libs can be found/read.

Go do it, then.

"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:
> On 10/4/24 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:19:02 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Ya know ... most of Python IS 'C'-based libs.
>>> Never really looked into it, but the 'advanced'
>>> Python function may just be strtok() with a lot of handy fixes/cheats
>>> in disguise :-)
>> No, because Python strings can contain any characters, including
>> nulls.
>
> Yea ... but Python = 'C' under the hood. The
> Python rules/methods are just a disguise for
> what the underlying 'C' is doing.
>
> I think the libs can be found/read.

Python is a language specification; you can implement it any way you
like (and not all implementations are written in C). CPython is the
best-known implementation, and is written in C. The string handling in
CPython doesn’t use strtok, which would be a bad fit.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> But C = “machine language” under the hood. That’s what Python uses.

It's turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down...

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 03:53:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2024 02:53:36 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 00:37:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Here in NZ we got the system changed as a result of a referendum in
>>> 1993, getting rid of British-style first-past-the-post in favour of
>>> German-style MMP.
>>
>> That has worked so well for Germany.
>
> Yes it has. It has kept them from having another storming of the
> Reichstag. Unlike what happened in the USA during the term of your own
> would-be dictator.

Oh, horseshit.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 03:53:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2024 03:01:26 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 00:38:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>>>
>>> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology)
>>> kept things going long after he thought they would fall apart.
>>
>> Ah, a cornucopian!
>
> Just a realist. You know, looking at what happens in the real world,
> instead of inside your head.

You know, the Romans had some really nifty technological solutions. You
want to be a realist look at the civilizations that have faded from the
world and ask yourself if this one is any different. Hubris is a wonderful
thing when it bites you on the ass.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, Peter Flass wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>>
>> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept
>> things going long after he thought they would fall apart.
>>
>
> Population in developed countries is now declining. Europe, US and Canada,
> Japan, even China. Hucksters are now complaining about this, as they have
> fewer people to peddle their junk to.
>

I think these are two strong arguments against any population-doom
scenarios that are often written about by climate-hysterics.

Malthus was obviously wrong, and many people for the past 200 years have
been wrong about how many people this planet can support.

Science has grown that nr (nr of people the planet can support) enormously
over time, and will continue to do so.

And, it is a known trend (but not a law of nature) that when a society
"matures" has social security etc. birth numbers drop. On the other side
of the spectrum, when a society "hardens" and brings with it enormous
competition, requirements and demands on the young, by the old, birthrates
also plummet (see china).

So I think Hans Roslings prediction was that we'll stabilize on around
12-14 billion or so. But most here will probably get to see if he was
right or not by themselves.

You can also throw in the joker of exploiting space, sea bottoms etc. for
resources as well, but that's many years into the future, so usually I'm
ridiculed for mentioning this, but as a techno-optimist I am convinced
this will happen.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 00:37:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Here in NZ we got the system changed as a result of a referendum in
>> 1993, getting rid of British-style first-past-the-post in favour of
>> German-style MMP.
>
> That has worked so well for Germany.
>
> https://www.dw.com/en/scholz-urges-more-support-for-the-east-on-german-
> unity-day/a-70397571
>
> Hopefully the AfD will get rid of him -- if the freedom loving democrats
> don't ban it first.
>
> https://www.politico.eu/article/can-a-ban-stop-the-rise-of-germanys-far-
> right/
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxAoA8tyvII
>
> Get it while it's hot because most renditions of 'Deutschland Erwache'
> don't last long on youtube. Apparently historical footage is too upsetting
> for today's generation and their tender sensibilities must be protected.
>

I think they declared AfD to be a terrorist organization in some german
states in an attempt to stop them. Didn't work well at all looking at the
current performance in elections.

On 04/10/2024 02:11, Peter Flass wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>>
>> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept
>> things going long after he thought they would fall apart.
>>
>
> Population in developed countries is now declining. Europe, US and Canada,
> Japan, even China. Hucksters are now complaining about this, as they have
> fewer people to peddle their junk to.
>
And political economists are shaking in their shoes, since government
debt is a reverse Ponzi scheme and always requites more people to pay
the accumulated interest.
Hencc mass importation of migrants

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 04/10/2024 09:20, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>>>
>>> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept
>>> things going long after he thought they would fall apart.
>>>
>>
>> Population in developed countries is now declining. Europe, US and
>> Canada,
>> Japan, even China. Hucksters are now complaining about this, as they have
>> fewer people to peddle their junk to.
>>
>
> I think these are two strong arguments against any population-doom
> scenarios that are often written about by climate-hysterics.
>
> Malthus was obviously wrong, and many people for the past 200 years have
> been wrong about how many people this planet can support.

However even the most hard right moron doesn't claim an infinite number
of people.
We are not querying the principle, merely where the limit lies.
The same goes for fossil fuel. Fuck climate change, there is not an
infinite amount left in the earth.

>
> Science has grown that nr (nr of people the planet can support)
> enormously over time, and will continue to do so.
>
A totally unsubstantiated assumption. At a given point there will be
insufficient energy arriving from the sun and the nuclear fuel will run
out on earth

> And, it is a known trend (but not a law of nature) that when a society
> "matures" has social security etc. birth numbers drop. On the other side
> of the spectrum, when a society "hardens" and brings with it enormous
> competition, requirements and demands on the young, by the old,
> birthrates also plummet (see china).
>
Exactly. In a world populated by anb excess of brats, whi wants to breed
another one?

> So I think Hans Roslings prediction was that we'll stabilize on around
> 12-14 billion or so. But most here will probably get to see if he was
> right or not by themselves.
>
> You can also throw in the joker of exploiting space, sea bottoms etc.
> for resources as well, but that's many years into the future, so usually
> I'm ridiculed for mentioning this, but as a techno-optimist I am
> convinced this will happen.

In a limited way yes, but not if the Greens take control

It will be back to the middle ages and a pandemic that wipes out 90% of
the world

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 04/10/2024 04:01, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 00:38:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>>
>> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept
>> things going long after he thought they would fall apart.
>
> Ah, a cornucopian!

Almost as inexplicable as a Green
'Sustaniable' energy. From coal,

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 04/10/2024 08:45, rbowman wrote:
> You know, the Romans had some really nifty technological solutions. You
> want to be a realist look at the civilizations that have faded from the
> world and ask yourself if this one is any different. Hubris is a wonderful
> thing when it bites you on the ass.

Following exactly the same pattern, highly complex and structured, with
leaders fighting over the deckchairs and no one trying to stop the ship
sinking because they have taken the controls of a vehicle they not only
did not build but have no idea how to build, or maintain.

Apparently when the Gaulish people were given the option of 40% taxes
and being kept safe by Rome, or paying the people that Rome was keeping
them safe from 15%, strangely they opted for barbarian overlords.
Since Roman civilisation hadn't really done the peasants all that much
good anyway.

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 04/10/2024 04:07, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/3/24 6:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:26 this Thursday (GMT):
>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:00:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:58 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect PayPal and Ebay actually do still use COBOL somewhere
>>>>>
>>>>> Where would they have got it from? They were both entrepreneurial
>>>>> startups, offering an entirely new kind of financial/commercial
>>>>> service
>>>>> essentially from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> /Sometimes/ having an outdated system is beneficial (CloudFlare
>>>> disaster)
>>>
>>> Did COBOL have something to do with that?
>>
>>
>> Oh, I meant more the couple of companies that managed to keep running
>> stuff, like Southwest.
>
>   Well ... sometimes an 'obsolete' language as the
>   base of your operations - kinda like "Latin" - it
>   doesn't really CHANGE anymore, No COBOL-2025 where
>   they've changed half the stuff .......
>
>   As such "obsolete" CAN equal "stability".
>
Wheels have been round for millennia..

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 04/10/2024 04:26, rbowman wrote:
> t's fossil water, meaning it's leftover from the last ice age. Because of
> the soil structure and the fact it is still a semi-arid region, recharge
> is extremely slow. In other words, when it's gone, it's gone and it's time
> to try to pull another rabbit out of the hat.

Read up what the Russians did to the Aral sea.
Capitalism is not the problem

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 16:34:15 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2024 3:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 16:14:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> And knowing that p=(x>y?3:2);
>>> I would have done it without the parentheses. There’s too much
>>> parenthesis clutter around as it is.
>>
>> Add some spaces, and you've got something downright readable:
>>
>>     p = x > y ? 3 : 2;
>>
>> Maybe add parentheses around the comparison, especially if it's long or
>> complex, which this isn't:
>>
>>     p = (x > y) ? 3 : 2;
>>
>> It's idiomatic C. It's everywhere. Perl and Python have something
>> similar. So does Unisys ALGOL, not that anyone cares:
>>
>>     P := IF X > Y THEN 3 ELSE 2;
>>
>> If you want to see gratuitous cleverness for the sake of cleverness,
>> there's this:
>>
>>     p = (x > y) + 2;
>>
>> Please don't do that. Would you write:
>>
>>     P := REAL((X > Y) AND TRUE) + 2;
>>
>> if you were doing this in ALGOL?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I like the Unisys version. At the cost of a couple of characters it’s
> readable. The C version is not straightforward for those of us for whom
> C is a second or third language.

The C version, of course, was merely a syntactic change from the BCPL
version (on which, via B, it was based):

p := (x > y) -> 3, 2

(parentheses optional)

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
On 2024-10-03, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff Duncan - “Unlike Trump, I’ve belonged to the GOP my entire life. This
> November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a
> criminal defendant without a moral compass,” Duncan wrote in an op-ed
> published Monday in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.”
>
> I think he said something about how the current Republican Party needs to
> be restructured, and when you restructure you start by getting rid of the
> CEO, but I couldn’t find the quote.

My native Swedish has a saying that might be loosely translated as "when
you sweep a staircase, you start at the top".

Niklas
--
Just because you *can* write a Java Virtual Machine in INTERCAL, that
doesn't mean you *should*.
-- David Cameron Staples makes the Understatement of the Year in asr

On 9/27/2024 6:54 PM, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 9/27/24 7:02 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 27/09/2024 07:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> [...] Imagine
>>> that Charles Babbage hadn’t completely failed at building his
>>> Analytical
>>> Engine. (Only it was called the “Difference Engine”, for some
>>> inexplicable
>>> reason.)
>>
>>      The Difference Engine was a completely different project. It was
>> called the Difference Engine because it was meant to calculate
>> differences*,
>> which were the principal tools in numerical mathematics for the
>> calculation
>> of values of functions [sine, cosine, sqrt, log, ...].  In the days
>> before
>> computers, tables of such values were an essential part of the
>> engineer's
>> [or physicist's or statistician's] toolkit and was what
>> mathematicians often
>> spent their entire careers providing and checking.  It was tedious
>> work, so
>> was ripe for automation.
>>
>>      Babbage is remembered today for little more than these projects,
>> but
>> he did much more than that.  His Wiki article is worth reading, if
>> only to
>> learn the breadth of his interests and contributions.
>
>
>   Babbage really was a gifted engineer and maths guy,
>   he had enough rep to get the govt to front him rather
>   a lot of money to build the difference engine.
>
>   Apparently costs-analysis was NOT one of his best
>   skills alas. The machine is devilishly complicated
>   and was at the cutting edge of mechanical techniques
>   and precision at that time.
>
>   I think some MIT people finally *built* one, or a
>   substantial part of one. I've seen a vid, all the
>   brass clockwork is hypnotic to watch.
>

There's this: https://blog.plan28.org/

Louis

On 04/10/2024 11:59, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 16:34:15 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2024 3:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 16:14:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And knowing that p=(x>y?3:2);
>>>> I would have done it without the parentheses. There’s too much
>>>> parenthesis clutter around as it is.
>>>
>>> Add some spaces, and you've got something downright readable:
>>>
>>>     p = x > y ? 3 : 2;
>>>
>>> Maybe add parentheses around the comparison, especially if it's long or
>>> complex, which this isn't:
>>>
>>>     p = (x > y) ? 3 : 2;
>>>
>>> It's idiomatic C. It's everywhere. Perl and Python have something
>>> similar. So does Unisys ALGOL, not that anyone cares:
>>>
>>>     P := IF X > Y THEN 3 ELSE 2;
>>>
>>> If you want to see gratuitous cleverness for the sake of cleverness,
>>> there's this:
>>>
>>>     p = (x > y) + 2;
>>>
>>> Please don't do that. Would you write:
>>>
>>>     P := REAL((X > Y) AND TRUE) + 2;
>>>
>>> if you were doing this in ALGOL?
>>>
>>> I didn't think so.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I like the Unisys version. At the cost of a couple of characters it’s
>> readable. The C version is not straightforward for those of us for whom
>> C is a second or third language.
>
> The C version, of course, was merely a syntactic change from the BCPL
> version (on which, via B, it was based):
>
> p := (x > y) -> 3, 2
>
> (parentheses optional)
>
One less keystroke in C.

[:=] -> [=] -1
[->] -> [?] -2
blank EOL to [;] +1

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 02:03:31 -0400
"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Yea ... but Python = 'C' under the hood. The Python rules/methods are
> just a disguise for what the underlying 'C' is doing.

Everything is just machine code, under the hood - the question is just
one of how greasy you mind your hands getting ;)

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 05:26:08 -0600, Louis Krupp wrote:

>>   Babbage really was a gifted engineer and maths guy, he had enough
>>   rep to get the govt to front him rather a lot of money to build the
>>   difference engine.
>>
>>   Apparently costs-analysis was NOT one of his best skills alas. The
>>   machine is devilishly complicated and was at the cutting edge of
>>   mechanical techniques and precision at that time.
>>
>>   I think some MIT people finally *built* one, or a substantial part
>>   of one. I've seen a vid, all the brass clockwork is hypnotic to
>>   watch.

The Science Museum in London, UK built one (well, two).

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/charles-babbages-
difference-engines-and-science-museum

> There's this: https://blog.plan28.org/

That's the UK plan to build the Analytical Engine.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago.
>
>He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept
>things going long after he thought they would fall apart.

For a short time, in the context of human history. Without
the agricultural use of fossil fuels (fertilizer, mechanization),
Malthus and Ehrlich estimates would have been quite realistic.

The EROEI for oil is has already dropped by a factor of
10 (even more for the oil sands/tar sands/fracking plays, some
of which aren't far from unity).

Hoping that some new paradigm comes along that allows global
energy growth to continue to grow by 2.3% p.a. is wishful
thinking, not good planning. Regardless, there is a hard-limit
on that growth as well (due simply to waste heat from energy
production and use).

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 22:40:03 -0000 (UTC)
>candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>wrote:
>
>> Oh, I meant more the couple of companies that managed to keep running
>> stuff, like Southwest.
>
>Are you referring to the CrowdStrike incident? That had less to do with
>other companies running "outdated" systems and more to do with them not
>using that one *specific* vendor that pushed a broken, insufficiently-
>tested update to their own security software.
>

As you say.

Also, 'candy cane' didn't note that Southwest had just completed
a complete overhaul of most of their mission critical systems after
two scheduling meltdowns in 18 months.

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote at 03:03 this Friday (GMT):
> On 10/2/24 11:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 22:25:27 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/24 6:32 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 00:07:15 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> GNU/Linux has had 64-bit time for many years already.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just HAVING 64/128-bit vars. Gotta look at every function,
>>>>> every line.
>>>>
>>>> Or, you know, you define a type named “time_t”, which can be specified
>>>> to be 32 bits or 64 bits depending on the target architecture build,
>>>> and use that type wherever appropriate. Then you don’t have to worry
>>>> about it any more.
>>>
>>> Ummm ... don't think it's that easy.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>> Think of the huge amount of open-source software that successfully
>> compiles, and runs, on Linux running under both 32-bit and 64-bit
>> architectures. Both big- and little-endian, even.
>>
>> POSIX figured this out decades ago.
>
>
> But programmers with deadlines don't always FOLLOW
> that stuff .....

Yeah, I'm also somewhat bad with following POSIX standards..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom