Saturated Fat Controversy

[Mermaid]

This thread confuses me.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be expected. OP is determinedly confused.

[FlatAssembler]

There is a reason why a less efficient 6 transistor structure MIGHT be chosen. Go learn stuff.

One of the first things we were told in our Digital Electronics classes was that AND, OR, NOT and XOR were considered basic ("osnovni") gates because they are implemented with 6 transistors, except for NOT which is implemented with 2 transistors. And, frankly, I am not interested in going much deeper than that, it's quite unlikely I'll have to do something that low-level.

Or shitty amateurish websites apparently.

That's not really the same thing. If you mess something up with UX, you will probably not immediately notice that, because UX is a softer part of computer science. Making a compiler or a PacMan game playable on smartphones is a more rigorous part of computer science: what you want to accomplish is quite well-defined and you can't reject it because you subjectively don't like the way it looks. Fine, maybe you can say you don't like GCC and that you like TCC more because GCC does many optimisations which slow down the compilation and that don't make the Assembly it produces significantly faster (hardly any programmer would agree with you, but it's not outright false), but you can't deny that GCC works just because you don't like something about it. And you can't deny that my compiler works, since there is evidence that it works (it can compile QuickSort written in my own programming language). Is it low-quality? Sure it is, the Assembly it produces is a few times slower than one produced by GCC for an equivalent C code, and the compiler itself runs slowly (running on top of the Duktape framework). But, frankly, I don't think you know enough about that to even evaluate those statements. Show me a compiler you've made, and then we can talk about your criticism of my compiler. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

[The Grand Nudger]

Coding is your safe space, huh? The place you scurry off to whenever you feel like you just might have made an ass of yourself. It's cool bro, we all have them.

lol

[LastPoet]

Coding is your safe space, huh?  The place you scurry off to whenever you feel like you just might have made an ass of yourself.  It's cool bro, we all have them.

lol

That's the thing really, he is not even good at that.

---

There is a reason why a less efficient 6 transistor structure MIGHT be chosen. Go learn stuff.

One of the first things we were told in our Digital Electronics classes was that AND, OR, NOT and XOR were considered basic ("osnovni") gates because they are implemented with 6 transistors, except for NOT which is implemented with 2 transistors. And, frankly, I am not interested in going much deeper than that, it's quite unlikely I'll have to do something that low-level.

You can make OR and AND gates with just 2 diods. A NOT gate only needs 1 transistor. Hence you can make a NAND gate with 2 diods and a transistor However, modern architecture uses more transistors simply because it provides faster gate response to keep it in sync with the CLK.

At any rate your prowess or lack of in CS lends you no credibility regarding the topic at hand. Just because you made an half arsed compiler, doesn't make you a biologist. You should know that.

[Abaddon_ire]

There is a reason why a less efficient 6 transistor structure MIGHT be chosen. Go learn stuff.

One of the first things we were told in our Digital Electronics classes was that AND, OR, NOT and XOR were considered basic ("osnovni") gates because they are implemented with 6 transistors, except for NOT which is implemented with 2 transistors. And, frankly, I am not interested in going much deeper than that, it's quite unlikely I'll have to do something that low-level.

Or shitty amateurish websites apparently.

That's not really the same thing. If you mess something up with UX, you will probably not immediately notice that, because UX is a softer part of computer science. Making a compiler or a PacMan game playable on smartphones is a more rigorous part of computer science: what you want to accomplish is quite well-defined and you can't reject it because you subjectively don't like the way it looks. Fine, maybe you can say you don't like GCC and that you like TCC more because GCC does many optimisations which slow down the compilation and that don't make the Assembly it produces significantly faster (hardly any programmer would agree with you, but it's not outright false), but you can't deny that GCC works just because you don't like something about it. And you can't deny that my compiler works, since there is evidence that it works (it can compile QuickSort written in my own programming language). Is it low-quality? Sure it is, the Assembly it produces is a few times slower than one produced by GCC for an equivalent C code, and the compiler itself runs slowly (running on top of the Duktape framework). But, frankly, I don't think you know enough about that to even evaluate those statements. Show me a compiler you've made, and then we can talk about your criticism of my compiler. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

When one can write machine code directly in native binary on multiple platforms, one learns that compilers are for the weak.

[GrandizerII]

One of the first things we were told in our Digital Electronics classes was that AND, OR, NOT and XOR were considered basic ("osnovni") gates because they are implemented with 6 transistors, except for NOT which is implemented with 2 transistors. And, frankly, I am not interested in going much deeper than that, it's quite unlikely I'll have to do something that low-level.
That's not really the same thing. If you mess something up with UX, you will probably not immediately notice that, because UX is a softer part of computer science. Making a compiler or a PacMan game playable on smartphones is a more rigorous part of computer science: what you want to accomplish is quite well-defined and you can't reject it because you subjectively don't like the way it looks. Fine, maybe you can say you don't like GCC and that you like TCC more because GCC does many optimisations which slow down the compilation and that don't make the Assembly it produces significantly faster (hardly any programmer would agree with you, but it's not outright false), but you can't deny that GCC works just because you don't like something about it. And you can't deny that my compiler works, since there is evidence that it works (it can compile QuickSort written in my own programming language). Is it low-quality? Sure it is, the Assembly it produces is a few times slower than one produced by GCC for an equivalent C code, and the compiler itself runs slowly (running on top of the Duktape framework). But, frankly, I don't think you know enough about that to even evaluate those statements. Show me a compiler you've made, and then we can talk about your criticism of my compiler. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

When one can write machine code directly in native binary on multiple platforms, one learns that compilers are for the weak.

Do you still do this manually? Sounds like a lot of effort to do. That's like someone still doing trig tables manually to this day.

[FlatAssembler]

[Abaddon_ire]

[FlatAssembler]

Writing one's own compiler is a noob first year assignment.

It just isn't. The hardest part of the first year of studying computer science here at the FERIT University of Osijek is probably understanding the methods of manually solving the three-phase electrical networks and the stuff such as Millman's Theorem and the Norton's Theorem. The hardest part of programming is probably understanding the basic string manipulation in C, or as some students who failed programming complain that linked lists were hard to understand.

Your big mistake was revealing your naive attempt at a website. That told everyone that you are clueless.

After I had been studying programming by myself for 5 years, my attempt at making a website can hardly be called "naive" and "clueless".

When you have written software that transacts millions in secure encrypted CC interchanges get back to me.

Then give us some explanation of how it works.

You are hung up on the stupid notion that machine code is of neccessity more prone to bugs.

It's the most basic common sense. I know from experience that, when I program something in Assembly, I spend way more time debugging than actually coding. And programming in machine code is even worse, since it's like Assembly, but it also gives you a chance to accidentally insert an illegal instruction. Or to reference a wrong variable without noticing that when reviewing the code, which a symbolic Assembler won't allow you to. And if there are so many bugs which prevent an Assembly language (or, even worse, a machine language) program from even appearing to work properly, how many bugs are there that need to be fixed until it actually works properly?
And there are statistics that show that, of higher-level languages, C programs tend to be the most buggy, and C is, compared to other high-level languages, quite close to Assembly in many ways. JavaScript programs are, if I am not mistaken, around 3 times less buggy, and there are so many bugs in JavaScript programs because the developing tools for it tend not to even issue warnings for what would be a syntax error in other languages. PHP programs also tend to be buggy, though not as much as JavaScript programs. C++ programs tend to be way less buggy, and Haskell and SmallTalk programs even less.