|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But the people that insult Fahrenheit with some superiority complex do.
Jeremy Falcon
So ignore those people, and accept Celsius as the norm!
|
|
|
|
|
Leave me alone! I do not care for your replies, thoughts, or anything about you. Have enough self-respect to know this.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 16-Dec-23 9:25am.
|
|
|
|
|
UDHR Article 19. Or if you ignore the world outside your own country (as one may be tempted to suspect): First amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
IF YOU DO NOT STOP THE HARRASING, I'LL REPORT YOU. CP DOESN'T LET ME BLOCK YOU, BUT I CAN REPORT YOU.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Please do. Maybe they will consider your posts more harassing than mine.
My references to UDHR-19 must be considered appropriate, given your explicit attempts to censor me.
|
|
|
|
|
No disputes with respect to -40 degrees, because:
-40 degrees F = -40 degrees C
|
|
|
|
|
Oh? What does -40 Kelvin mean?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not very relevant to -40 F being equal to -40 C, which would be approx. 233.14 K.
I wouldn't be surprised if negative Kelvin is used in some physics models. You can come across e.g. negative speeds (which are not positive speeds in the opposite direction), negative distances, negative whatever. Actually, I'd be surprised if negative Kelvin values never appear in the math of physics (although I can't recall any case were I have heard about it).
|
|
|
|
|
I created a Temperature class that caters to any preference. Also a Distance class. Otherwise, I use the approriate Calculator setting. Or perhaps access the internet.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually pretty cool man.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
i learned a bit of programming the other day whilst viewing a YouTube video w/ the intriguing title "Never write another loop again" . in particular re/ recursion "trailing call optimization" sometimes performed by compilers but i do not see why it can not be done by hand . namely
instead of :
void recurse(int count)
{
if (count == 0) return;
recurse(count-1);
}
this :
void recurse(int count)
{
start:
if (count == 0) return;
count -= 1;
goto start;
}
so the stack is never destroyed regardless of the depth of the recursion which is why i have always shunned recursion but now i have a new toy to play with .
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: so the stack is never destroyed regardless of the depth of the recursion which is why i have always shunned recursion but now i have a new toy to play with.
I wish more programmers cared about stuff like this. I mean, don't get me wrong I'm a functional programming fanboy. So, in my world I'm tossing stacks around like they're going out of style.
Still, it's nice to see peeps care about stuff like this in a world where few people understand things like all strings are immutable and every concatenation is a reconstruction of objects, etc.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
One of my least favorite tasks is converting a recursive function to an iterative one.
It comes up more than I'd like because of embedded and limited stack space forcing my hand.
Still, it's rewarding once it's done.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Side note, if you ever pull off something like that in a real-world project, that's the kinda thing that deserves a comment explaining why. Most devs will probably look at that goto and consider it a code smell if they don't know the why.
I should say, if the goal is to prevent recursion, it's a good thing. If the goal is to prevent using a loop construct, you're better off not using the goto realistically.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I would rather write code that's easy to read and understand and let the compiler optimize the tail recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Also giving you a thumbs up because a compiler can unroll loops for sure. I'm not a compiler guru though, but it was always my understanding you had no guarantee of how it did so. But, of course, you have to trust if someone is smart enough to write a compiler than can figure this out.
However, I also give the OP a thumbs up, because it's nice to see people caring enough to actually continue to learn the craft. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of programmers that don't even know what the stack is, much less care about it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Unrolling loops is a complex task beacuse to have any benefit you can unroll to a maximum of a certain size that depends on the target processor. Depending on the structure of the loop and it's compiled size the amount of unrolls may vary drastically.
I had to write some extra high performance libraries in assembler - the only way to use SIMD effectively - and I had to unroll the loops manually.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't write either of those.
And I might point the author to a page about if-less programming as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to be the party pooper, but I don't see the point of either one (assuming they are C code). C has call-by-value semantics so the first one descends on a stack without any benefit and the second one loops for no apparent reason.
Also I don't see how the 2nd one is better than the equally useless:
void loop(int count)
{
while (count--)
;
} Maybe I'm missing something...
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
The OP left out the actual function to focus on the semantics of the loop/recursion. In real code there'd be something between the start of the code and the 'if'.
|
|
|
|
|
i eventually came to the same conclusion .
|
|
|
|
|
It's still a loop. 
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: i have always shunned recursion
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who likes to avoid using recursion.
There are instances where I have implemented it (e.g. developing a custom file system,
or tiered menu), but I'm superstitious about the way I code.
I'm superstitious about datatypes and parentheses, too. Even if I know a variable is an
integer, I redundantly cast it as an integer just to be absolutely sure. I can't help it.
Even though I write code that adheres to the order of operations, I use parentheses
just to make sure it operates in the proper order.
|
|
|
|
|
i am superstitious also but just the opposite . i liberaly use auto xyz = somthing; and insist on no parenthesis unless required after carefully studing the precedence chart which i do frequently .
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
