Re: what does "serialization" mean?

From: Randy Howard (randyhoward_at_FOOverizonBAR.net)
Date: 06/23/04 

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:44:45 GMT

In article <f5dda427.0406221608.3c67cd7e@posting.google.com>, spinoza1111
@yahoo.com says...
> (Sigh) Unicode can be used in C. C in fact can be used to get rid of C
> (the first C++ compiler was implemented using the famous, and most
> egregious, C preprocessor).

Just because you have proven yourself in the past incapable of
understanding it's proper use does not make it "egregious". If IIRC,
you're not even clear on the differences between C and C++, so I
decline to believe you are even qualified to comment in this area.
 
> However, the default gesture in actual C praxis is to

Which of course applies here as well...

> represent hex characters in the original standard style which uses two digits
> and which represents ONLY 0..255.

Actually, normal C unsigned chars can be of any range (ref: CHAR_BIT), although
a lot of wannabe C programmers make the mistake of assuming that they are
always 8 bits and limited to such limitations. Since I new you were likely
to fall into this category, I explicitly used the term "octet" instead in
my earlier reply.

> This combines with the xenophobia of typical American C programmers
> and their hatred of global competition to make C programs that break
> when provided characters past 255.

Perhaps your inability write programs without such limitations while in
America is responsible for your need to seek work in foreign countries?

I have no such difficulties, while programming in America, in C, as do
literally hundreds of friends and acquaintances, so I'll assume this is just
yet another example in the interminal stream of your persiflage.

> Princeton University's Info Centers had to support
> a considerable number of old programs merely to be able to reconstruct
> proprietary data formats created by "creative" programmers of the
> 1960s who had long since fled the field for more joyous occupations
> and more fulfilling lives.

You were on of those who wrote programs in the 1960s, or so you would
have us believe. Presumably, you weren't that successful, or you would
have also found a more joyous occupation by now. Nevertheless, I'll
readily agree that a lot of code written in that era was written without
a lot of thought with respect to portability, or long "life span" of
the source base. Fortunately, programmers today for the most part know
better, after learning of the mistakes of earlier periods. Of course,
not everyone has, witness the wonderful pain and suffering required to
fix all the 32-bit assumptions buried in Microsoft type declarations
which makes porting apps to 64-bit platforms so lucrative right now.

> These old programs were written in unspeakable BAL and unmentionable
> PL/I,

Strange that you were extolling the virtues of PL/I about 6 months
ago, yet suddenly it is unmentionable. Perhaps you're just getting
forgetful in your old age.

> People like you, with your shall I say somewhat retarded social
> skills,

Well, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

> don't see that public relations, properly construed merely as
> Aristotle's ars rhetorica, are part of the job.

I'll go out on a limb and theorize that you have never held a position
which could be construed as "public relations" by any serious person.

> > > deserialize(serialize(thing)) == thing
> > >
> > > This is what palindromic means to me.
> >
> > What a novel way to misuse a word. It would be a lot cooler if it
> > was even close to being a palindrome in the form you express it.
> >
> The problem for you is that I wrote the code and the concept is useful
> as an answer to the manager's question as to whether the object is
> truly restored from persistent storage.

A "manager's question" answered with gibberish about "palindromic" is
only going to make the manager's eyes glaze over. Once again, we
obtain through inspection hints as to why you must seek employment
in foreign countries.

> I realize that many programmers play the game of passive-aggression,
> lying to, mocking and confusing their managers until early retirement
> and in my experience these creeps really hate formal notation,

Are you going to actually pretend that your "palindromic" invention above
bears any resemblance to "formal notation"? Spare us the BS.

> > Instead of something like reversible, inverse, export/import, etc. you use
> > a complete misnomer, probably just to extend the thread further. Lame.
>
> "Reversible" is not as precise as palindromic

Almost anything is more precise than "palindromic", because it is, by your
own admission, it is some artistic invention of your own, used in such a
fashion nowhere else on the planet. As such, a elementary school child
could come up with a more precise description, with zero prior programming
experience.

> "Export" and "import" are completely useless. This is because they are
> commercial metaphors. Anybody who's actually worked in export/import,
> or on the waterfront

I don't know whether you are being deliberately opaque or genuinely this
ignorant of the use of export/import with respect to software behaviors.
However, given your past history, I have my suspicions, and they are not
flattering.

> You want me to replace terms of art accompanied conscientiously with
> definitions with sloppy accepted usage.

That's not true. If I *want* anything at all from you, it is that you
stop pretending to be competent by making up your own pseudo-language
gibberish to cover up for your pretenses with respect to a whole host
of honest questions asked by those in need of help, rather than using
such questions as an outlet for your amusement.

> The problem is that sloppy accepted usage,

Note "accepted". Sloppy or not, at least it has a meaning within the
group participating in the discussion. You making up words, and using
them in a fashion completely counter to their normal meaning is worse
than sloppy, it's deliberately designed to confuse and invite argument.

What is sad is that you are so pathetic that you are willing to
intentionally make a fool out of yourself, just to achieve some (albeit
almost entirely negative) attention.

> the 80% failure rate of American enterprise systems in which I don't
> choose to participate.

That's not even a very convincing piece of Nilgewater. You can't defend
the numbers, in fact you yourself can't even agree on what they are (they
keep fluctuating over time). More to the point, you didn't choose not
to participate, you are not allowed to participate, hence your need to
seek employment elsewhere, despite the boom of late within the *real*
tech community.

> > > This loses the ability to lose the reconstruction code and have a shot
> > > at reconstructing the data. It's a goal of XML.
> >
> > Any self-describing data format has the same property.
>
> ...only if you have the code or can reverse engineer the
> self-description

What sort of genius does it take to "reverse engineer" self-describing data?
Nevermind, I'm sorry to confuse you, you can't possibly understand the
question. 

-- 
Randy Howard    (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry is its
continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering gains made by the
computer hardware industry..."   - Henry Petroski