Array size limits

[grv575]

Re: Array size limits

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> wrote in message news:<4135FB63. 47998A95@yahoo. com>...
[color=blue]
> Google groups is one of the slowest and awkwardest ways to read
> news. Among other things many items never appear there, due to
> foolish use of X-noarchive, and things that do appear have a delay
> of several hours. On the other hand its archive is invaluable,
> and it provides access for people without a newsreader (or behind
> firewalls that prevent newserver access). This generally includes
> library access, for example.[/color]

I don't see why everyone hates google groups so much (aside from the
X-noarchive header buisness) as a newsreader. It's accessible
anywhere, and instead of using the spacebar to read all the messages,
using the scroll button on the mouse works just as nicely.

[grv575]

Re: Array size limits

Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message news:<j47h02xjb n.ln2@brenda.fl ash-gordon.me.uk>.. .[color=blue]
> The most likely solution is using malloc and this has been suggested.[/color]

Or increasing the stacksize.
Or using non-local storage (a global variable for example).

[Flash Gordon]

Re: Array size limits

On 3 Sep 2004 06:04:57 -0700
grv575@hotmail. com (grv575) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthl ink.net> wrote in message
> news:<2pn2rqFn1 30qU2@uni-berlin.de>...[color=green]
> > grv575 top-posted:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Please use google groups to read news.[/color]
> > [etc.]
> >
> > Didn't you see the requests to Wei Li that he not top-post? Why do
> > you think you merit an exemption?[/color]
>
> Thanks for the dictatorial reply. If it's in the comp.lang.c faq then
> that's fine, but what gives you or the previous poster any moderator
> privledges?[/color]

Since you are a fan of Google Groups, here is a quote from their posting
FAQ (http://groups.google.com/googlegroup...ing_style.html) :

| Summarize what you are following up.
|
| When you follow up an existing article, Google Groups includes the
| full article in quotes, with the cursor at the top of the article.
| Tempting though it is to just start typing your message, please STOP
| and do two things first. Look at the quoted text and delete parts that
| are irrelevant. Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing
| there. Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through
| your post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
| comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article. And if your
| reply appears on a site before the original article does, they'll get
| the gist of what you're talking about.

The emphasis (putting STOP and BOTTOM in upper case) is Googles, not
mine.

This is just Googles interpretations of the normal Usenet conventions.
There is also an RFC that covers it, but the RFC is not as easy to read
as the above.
--
Flash Gordon
Sometimes I think shooting would be far too good for some people.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Flash Gordon]

Re: Array size limits

On 3 Sep 2004 06:00:41 -0700
grv575@hotmail. com (grv575) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:<j47h02xjb n.ln2@brenda.fl ash-gordon.me.uk>.. .[color=green]
> > On 1 Sep 2004 07:59:26 -0700
> > grv575@hotmail. com (grv575) wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Please use google groups to read news.[/color]
> >
> > Google is an on-line service that performs badly as a news reader.
> > Many people read groups off-line for a number of good reasons,
> > including dial-up connections where you pay per minute for being
> > connected.[/color]
>
> I've also used xnews quite a bit which also makes it irrelevant
> whether the replies are top or bottom-posted. Top-posted text will be
> visible first and it automatically skips quoted text (as an option).[/color]

One that would be a real pain for me if it was enabled, since on
returning to a thread I always have to scan the text that is being
replied to in order to get context before reading the first reply.
[color=blue]
> The google comment could be change to 'use a decent threaded
> newsreader' and it still wouldn't matter how someone chooses to reply
> (assuming you thread the articles and read them as a group if you want
> to get proper context).[/color]

You get absolutely no context from a post that has not yet reached your
server, therefor you have to post on the assumption that some of the
audience will not see the article you are responding to prior to seeing
your reply. In this case the comment I made else where about having to
scroll up and down being a pain still applies. If someone does what you
suggest then it is even worse if they have not just read the previous
message since they have to unhide the quoted text, scroll down whilst
reading then scroll back up to start again. However, many excellent
threaded news readers do not hide quoted text for the very good reason
that if posts are done properly there is no need to hide quoted text.
--
Flash Gordon
Sometimes I think shooting would be far too good for some people.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Flash Gordon]

Re: Array size limits

On 3 Sep 2004 06:24:15 -0700
grv575@hotmail. com (grv575) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:<j47h02xjb n.ln2@brenda.fl ash-gordon.me.uk>.. .[color=green]
> > The most likely solution is using malloc and this has been
> > suggested.[/color]
>
> Or increasing the stacksize.
> Or using non-local storage (a global variable for example).[/color]

I said the most likely solution, not the only possible solution.

I know of real systems still in use today where you have a fixed
global+static data limit of 64K but you can get as much memory as is
available on the machine using malloc without changing any options. I
did not have a C implementation on the system in question, but since it
was a limit in the OS it is unlikely that any C compiler would have side
stepped it.

Using malloc also means you can trap the error if you don't have enough
memory and either handle the situation (possibly by using temporary
files) or give the user a nice friendly report on the problem.
--
Flash Gordon
Sometimes I think shooting would be far too good for some people.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Array size limits

grv575@hotmail. com (grv575) writes:[color=blue]
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> wrote in message
> news:<4135FB63. 47998A95@yahoo. com>...[color=green]
> > Google groups is one of the slowest and awkwardest ways to read
> > news. Among other things many items never appear there, due to
> > foolish use of X-noarchive, and things that do appear have a delay
> > of several hours. On the other hand its archive is invaluable,
> > and it provides access for people without a newsreader (or behind
> > firewalls that prevent newserver access). This generally includes
> > library access, for example.[/color]
>
> I don't see why everyone hates google groups so much (aside from the
> X-noarchive header buisness) as a newsreader. It's accessible
> anywhere, and instead of using the spacebar to read all the messages,
> using the scroll button on the mouse works just as nicely.[/color]

If it works for you, that's great; we have no objection to your using
it. But whichever newsreader you use, you need to remember that not
everyone is going to use the same one. The conventions we use here
have evolved over many years as the best way to make sure everyone's
articles are as legible as possible.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[CBFalconer]

Re: Array size limits

grv575 wrote:[color=blue]
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Google groups is one of the slowest and awkwardest ways to read
>> news. Among other things many items never appear there, due to
>> foolish use of X-noarchive, and things that do appear have a delay
>> of several hours. On the other hand its archive is invaluable,
>> and it provides access for people without a newsreader (or behind
>> firewalls that prevent newserver access). This generally includes
>> library access, for example.[/color]
>
> I don't see why everyone hates google groups so much (aside from
> the X-noarchive header buisness) as a newsreader. It's accessible
> anywhere, and instead of using the spacebar to read all the
> messages, using the scroll button on the mouse works just as nicely.[/color]

It is not a matter of hate, it is a matter of slowness and
functions. Google fouls threading. To use it you have to have
various things enabled in the browser, which increases the
possibility of intrusion. You can't use it in an off-line mode.
The same thing applies to any web-based newsreader. I use my ISPs
web based access purely to examine the list and weed out the spam
on my email (unless I am away from home). I can format my replies
as I wish, conveniently grab and paste anything, etc. when using a
proper newsreader.

--
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

[Default User]

Re: Array size limits

grv575 wrote:
[color=blue]
> I don't see why everyone hates google groups so much (aside from the
> X-noarchive header buisness) as a newsreader. It's accessible
> anywhere, and instead of using the spacebar to read all the messages,
> using the scroll button on the mouse works just as nicely.[/color]

<meta-topical?>

These comments are about the primary service, I haven't tried Beta.

1. There's no way to mark messages as read.

2. It takes hours to have posts show up even on their system, let alone
the rest of the world.

3. It conflates dissimilar threads that happen to have the same subject.

4. Changing the subject starts a new thread.

5. No killfile or filtering ability.


The bottom line is, groups.google is a pretty good archive and handy to
have. As a newsreading system, it sucks. There's no good reason to use
it except in the most dire circumstances. The free news server at
http://news.individual.net is a far better product. Decent free
newsreaders are available by the dozen.

</meta-topical?>



Brian Rodenborn