Storgae durations

[James Kuyper]

Re: Storgae durations

Richard wrote:

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@ve rizon.netwrites :
>

....

>I think you've got it backwards; at least a few of the members of this
>newsgroup could be counted on to race to disagree with him, if they
>could, precisely because they are not his buddies. The silence of his
>numerous enemies on this issue is a pretty strong indication that
>you're alone in this.

>
Enemies? There are no enemies. Only people that are sick to death of his
smarmy, godly, holier than thou persona and his egotistical preening. It
is more likely the "way" rather than the "what" that riles people with
him.

It's really not relevant to my point what excuses they give for their
attitudes toward him; it's only the attitudes themselves that matter.

[David Thompson]

Re: Storgae durations

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:10:32 +0530, santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.com>
wrote:

s0suk3@gmail.co m wrote:

On Aug 18, 9:02 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>
[about value of portable code]
>
<massive snip>
>

My favourite example is a Web browser product for set-top
boxes that was already well-established when I joined the project,
and which comprised about half a million lines of code, of which 99%
(495,000 lines or so) was written in ISO C - and yes, it was C90, not
C99, although C99 had been the de jure standard for at least a couple
of years by then.

<snip>

It isn't possible to write anything that even nearly resembles a Web
browser in ISO C. A modern Web browser depends heavily on things like
Graphical User Interfaces, networking, threading, and OS environment
stuff. If 1% of the code did this things, what in heaven did the other
99%?

>
Things may be different for set-top boxes though I'm not sure. Certainly
graphics can be done in 100% ISO C if the OS allowed full privileges to
the program.

Graphics algorithms/(de)coding/rendering, yes. Actual display, no;
even if 'privilege' means writing directly to a display buffer and/or
engine, that part isn't standard. The semantics defined (portably) by
the standard only allow you to form addresses of, and access, declared
objects (aka variables) and space from malloc et al. The nonstandard
part may be only a few lines, leaving 99.9% standard, but not 100%.

Cooperative multitasking can be implemented in the place
of preemptive threading. Most of the networking too can be done in ISO
C except for the actual transfer which is simply an OS API call. The

Or preemptive can be localized into a small (nonstandard) module,
if not provided by the (also nonstandard) OS API.

meat of a web browser is of course the HTML parser and renderer, as
well code for HTTP, FTP, SSL, TLS etc. etc., all of which can be done
in ISO C except for the interface to the outside world, which is simply
an OS call or two. It won't be strictly conforming C, but it *can* be
highly portable C nevertheless.

I would add at least images (PNG, JPEG, more?) and perhaps other
mediatypes -- there is disagreement over whether those belong 'in' the
browser or as addons/plugins/etc., but for a settop-box in particular
I'd expect them to be important. And at least some scripting e.g.
Javascript. And CSS, although that's sort-of just HTML. And cache and
cookie management. SSL and TLS are within epsilon a single thing.
And perhaps Java, although doing that yourself rather than using Sun's
might not be worth it.

It's arguable whether 'the Web' should include FTP, and indeed whether
it should include graphics/media, but in practice it does.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.ne t