Trying to give up computer - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-03-2003, 06:13 PM

"Dan Cosley" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu> wrote in message
news:bj2e25$guk$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umn.edu...
>
> How many of you have ridden with a computer and then decided to
> get rid of it? Do you miss it?
>
> Do people use computers in nontraditional ways? For example,
> taping over the display or mounting upside down so it's way
> inconvenient to read while riding but you can get cumulative
> stats, etc?
>
On my last tour, the way I folded the map into the map case usually obscured
the computer.

I found that it was more fun not to have the temptation to see how fast
(i.e. slowly) I was going up a hill, or how far I'd gone since the last time
I looked. I purposely left the map case there on the day when I was coming
home and knew the route very well.

Still, it was nice to be able to see how far I'd gone at the end of the day,
and nice to know how far I've gone in a year. The computer is also nice if
you are doing some exercise, and want to average at least X speed over Y
time.

09-03-2003, 07:26 PM

Me too!
I dumped the numbers and ride like I did 45 years ago...for transportation
and for fun.
bb

"Scott" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
Now that I am used to not having the computer, it is nice. I no longer
train; I simply enjoy the rides.

09-04-2003, 12:02 PM

Michael <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
: Yup. However, "*tested* lines of code" is a good measure. It's one I
: used in a former life.

yea, that's exactly why i switched from k&r style braces. each one of those
adds up, ya know.

and each & every one tests just great!

ahh, metrics.
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-05-2003, 04:29 AM

On 04 Sep 2003 19:02:01 GMT, David Reuteler <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> : Yup. However, "*tested* lines of code" is a good measure. It's one I
>
> yea, that's exactly why i switched from k&r style braces. each one of

I'm a relatively new C programmer. Care to elaborate?
What can you switch to, and why?

> those adds up, ya know.

Each brace set adds up? Okay, I'll beleive that.

> and each & every one tests just great!
>
> ahh, metrics.

Huh?

Huh?

<G>

FWIW, I've programmed bash scripts for longer than C,
and I must say...the C++ course I've been taking has
been relatively easy for me.

--
Rick Onanian

09-05-2003, 09:52 AM

Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
: I'm a relatively new C programmer. Care to elaborate?
: What can you switch to, and why?

: FWIW, I've programmed bash scripts for longer than C,
: and I must say...the C++ course I've been taking has
: been relatively easy for me.

k&r (as in kernighan & ritchie who helped invent C) ..

ahh, this is all gonna seem so banal. it's one of those religious wars (emacs
vs vi, linux vs bsd, etc) but they originally supported a coding style wrt
braces (for all time refered to as k&r style braces) of ..

if (condition) {
statement;
statement;
}

ahhh, very nice. but if some bureaucrat is sitting over your shoulder doing
metrics (all sorts of nice programs that measure not just code length but
especially complexity) on your code and using it to calculcate your quarterly
bonus (this was in the old days. naturally no one gets bonuses now except
for a paycheck) you might (as i did) wonder why you're throwing away all
those extra lines *ESPECIALLY* when there's a compellingly snooty logic behind
switching over to .. BSD style braces

if (condition)
{
statement;
statement;
}

miss it? pulled the first brace down and bought you an extra line. works
especially well on if then elses where 8 lines for BSD style ..

if (condition)
{
foo;
}
else
{
bar;
}

compresses to 5 lines ..

if (condition) {
foo;
} else {
bar;
}

i'm a convert anyhow, i believe the BSD style is a lot more readable (that's
the compelling snooty reason).

trinaries (as in perl) are deadly .. why do:

$foo = $condition ? 1 : 2;

when you can do ..

if($condition)
{
$foo = 1;
}
else
{
$bar = 2;
}

C is a great language. she's the bitch goddess. all things UNIX come from
her. i really love to write in C but don't get to do it nearly as much
anymore.

as a further aside, line counters were a great boon for perl readability.
previously most perl programmers were really into compressing their 500 line
scripts into 20 lines of unreadable regex. furthermore if you use
"use strict" and declare all your variables who knows how many lines that'll
add PLUS it'll actually be better coding to do so.

$_ and not having "use strict" be a default are enough reasons to draw and
quarter larry wall.

but i digress.
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-05-2003, 03:14 PM

On 05 Sep 2003 16:52:32 GMT, David Reuteler <reuteler@visi.com> wrote:
> k&r (as in kernighan & ritchie who helped invent C) ..

Yup, familiar with that term anyway, have the book, etc.

> ahh, this is all gonna seem so banal. it's one of those religious wars
> vs vi, linux vs bsd, etc) but they originally supported a coding style
> wrt braces (for all time refered to as k&r style braces) of ..

> if (condition) {
> }

> if (condition)
> {
> }

The second way, with the brace on a new line, is how
it is taught in the class I'm taking. I went in with
the habit of cramming everything possible on one line,
but have since gotten a feel for the reasons to put
everything on seperate lines.

With the braces, I especially like having the opening
and closing brace line up vertically with each other,
something that you can't efficiently do if the opening
brace comes in at character 40...

> trinaries (as in perl) are deadly .. why do:
> $foo = $condition ? 1 : 2;
>
> when you can do ..
>
> if($condition)
> {
> $foo = 1;
> }
> else
> {
> $bar = 2;
> }

I like the ?: operator; it makes things simpler
and more readable *in_some_situations*. It's not
a good replacement for if-else at all, but it's
great for output statements and such.

Of course, both issues, {} and ?:, I would see
differently if I was paid by the line...

> C is a great language. she's the bitch goddess. all things UNIX come
> her. i really love to write in C but don't get to do it nearly as much
> anymore.

My Linux and BSD experience has really helped me
learn C. I suppose if I had learned C first, I'd
have had an easier time in *nix.

> as a further aside, line counters were a great boon for perl readability.

I should learn perl soon. That would be a good idea.

> previously most perl programmers were really into compressing their 500
> line
> scripts into 20 lines of unreadable regex. furthermore if you use

Ever see the Obfuscated C code contest?

> but i digress.

No!@ We must fill the group with off-topic stuff!

Bicyclists should be in comp.programmers.c or some such!

--
Rick Onanian

09-05-2003, 03:22 PM

Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
: My Linux and BSD experience has really helped me
: learn C. I suppose if I had learned C first, I'd
: have had an easier time in *nix.

probably not. but you'd appreciate it a lot more. my god, how they wrote
an entire OS with it!

: Ever see the Obfuscated C code contest?

you'd like perl. it's an awful lot like obfuscated C.
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-06-2003, 03:08 PM

David Reuteler wrote:
>
> Michael <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> : Yup. However, "*tested* lines of code" is a good measure. It's one I
> : used in a former life.
>
> yea, that's exactly why i switched from k&r style braces. each one of those
> adds up, ya know.
>
> and each & every one tests just great!
>
> ahh, metrics.
> --
> david reuteler
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

(sigh) ... Yet another reason to avoid C that I hadn't considered.
Added it to my list. Tnx. :-)

09-08-2003, 02:24 PM

David Reuteler <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
: Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
: : My Linux and BSD experience has really helped me
: : learn C. I suppose if I had learned C first, I'd
: : have had an easier time in *nix.

: probably not. but you'd appreciate it a lot more.

Second that. C since about '89, unix only from '93...

Historically, C and Unix go hand in hand...

: my god, how they wrote
: an entire OS with it!

Try writing it in some other language than C? =)

Back to on-topic: anybody wrote cycling software in C?

--
Risto Varanka | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
varis at no spam please iki fi

09-08-2003, 02:30 PM

David Reuteler wrote:
> k&r (as in kernighan & ritchie who helped invent C) ..

Dennis Ritchie invented C. He helped invent UNIX with Ken Thompson.
C was invented for the purpose of writing operating systems; specifically
UNIX.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now