Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums

On Jan 12, 1:55 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Randy Howard, Richard Heathfield, and Willem, either emulate him or
leave.

If you had misrepresented and abused me in the way you have done to
Richard Heathfield, I doubt I would be able to keep my head as he has
done.





Here's my response including a bug fix.

On Jan 11, 1:08 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111<spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

<snip>

This was a technical post describing my concern, with references, to
code presented as Beautiful which seemed to me Ugly because it didn't
even work for modern strings [...]

Fairer to say that it is "old" code.  Your C# "modern string" version
would not have been possible at the time.  Technology marches on and

The problem here is that the publication date of the book Beautiful
Code was 2007. It is intellectually dishonest to maintain that
something as pragmatic, as applied, as code can be beautiful, at least
without an explicit statement from Kernighan that "I ignore
international characters", a statement he did not make.

The error of this logic has been pointed out already (I think by
Richard Heathfield, in fact).  The code is valid for any character set
at all.  It does not work for certain encodings, but then neither does
yours.  

Ben, with all due respect, it is certainly Heathfield's style to say
things that upon investigation have safety valves in the form of
logical contradictions, as your statement does.

How on EARTH could the code by VALID if it DOES NOT WORK for certain
encodings?

I'll ignore the *tu quoque*, because it shows that you don't know what
OO encapsulation means. It means that by design, Java and C Sharp
Strings allow the programmer to forget about "encodings" and do
humanity a service by destroying the authority of bullies and geeks
who run around making claims, not about reality, but about artifacts
(as in the famous put down that emerges whenever anyone dares to call
an 8 bit code ASCII).

The code is NOT VALID and DOES NOT WORK for other than 8 bit
characters on any machine where the address points not to a longer
word but to a byte.

The code has to be jiggered, ootzed, and hacked to work for anything
but bytes.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I want unsigned char * string literals
    ... Forget casting, the ctype functions don't even work at all if the high ... First, C does not assume ASCII character encodings, ... characters include a specified set of "basic" characters, ... I think that you should consider the possability that programming ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Creating UNICODE filenames with PERL 5.8
    ... > the arabians invented the modern idea of characters then it became widely ... Chinese ideograms to spell... ... > should not be treated using standardized application level encodings, ... > stored on legacy systems, and manipulated using legacy software and ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums
    ... Richard Heathfield, I doubt I would be able to keep my head as he has ... It would handle international characters if the execution character ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Unicode chr(150) en dash
    ... I'll change the approach trying to filter the contents with htmllib and mapping on my own those troubling characters. ... those two encodings, but you could break other encodings, like UTF-8 ... None of these are perfect methods, but then again, if text encoding ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: How to detect if a file contains unicode characters ?
    ... UTF-8 characters can be up to 7 bytes. ... various encodings, eliminating those where the file contains illegal ... IIRC, you were asking about translating Asian words into English, so I ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)