OSDev.org

The code I provided solves the stated problem.

Various people on this thread has proven themselves knowledgable and gained respect. While there might be someone extraordinary who know a lot more about computer science than them, it does not change the fact that they still know more than many of other people.

And stop the language flame.

You're almost definitely in the wrong forum.

davidv1992 wrote:Brendan, you're last post just gives the idea that you're completely oblivious to the gains of fundamental research (most of what you write can be transposed one to one to every other field of fundamental research out there) combined with a complete lack of respect.

int lcs(char *a, char *b) {
    int pos;
    int length;
    int bestPos = 0;
    int bestLength = 0;
    char first;

    first = b[0];
    for(pos = 0; a[pos] != 0; pos++) {
        if(a[pos] == first) {
            length = 1;
            while( (a[pos + length] != 0) && (a[pos + length] == b[length]) ) {
                length++;
            }
            if(length > bestLength) {
                bestPos = pos;
                bestLength = length;
            }
        }
    }
    return bestPos;

brain wrote:Lol someone's got an axe to grind against some academics

davidv1992 wrote:That said brendan, your posts in this thread do not give the impression that you have spend any decent ammount of time with languages other than C/C++. Whilst this is your choice, it might be refreshing to try and use some other languages, i would suggest something like haskell or lisp, and something like scheme or erlang. These are languages structured in radically different ways to C/C++ type languages, and working with them might teach new methods of approaching problems. If you've tried them and you felt they didn't work for you that's fine, but at the moment you give the impression that you haven't used them at all.

Combuster wrote:

The code I provided solves the stated problem.

There's just one problem with that. lcs("axbcd", "aybcd") returns 4, it should be 3. "abcd" is not a substring of either, it's a subset.

brain wrote:Just tell them they can't leave the conference until they offer a working solution to the halting problem, their pride won't let them quit </sarcasm>

Brendan wrote:Guess who's right?

Brendan wrote:However, more recently I've been doing a "Bacheler of IT" course.

Brendan wrote:Up until a few years ago I'd learnt several dialects of BASIC (Commodore 64 BASIC, QuickBASIC, VisualBASIC), several assembly languages (6502, 80x86) and C. I learnt some more obscure languages (e.g. "ladder diagrams" used by electricians to program industrial controllers, some BASH scripting, etc). I also picked up small pieces of other languages along the way (a little Pascal and a little C++, etc)

Brendan wrote:What we need is to limit the number of languages to one per field (e.g. one for low level programming, one for high level programming and scripting, one for databases, etc).

childOfTechno wrote:

Brendan wrote:Up until a few years ago I'd learnt several dialects of BASIC (Commodore 64 BASIC, QuickBASIC, VisualBASIC), several assembly languages (6502, 80x86) and C. I learnt some more obscure languages (e.g. "ladder diagrams" used by electricians to program industrial controllers, some BASH scripting, etc). I also picked up small pieces of other languages along the way (a little Pascal and a little C++, etc)

I think this statement actually points to a major flaw in your argument about "natural" solutions. To a BASIC programmer a pile of GOTO spaghetti seems perfectly natural, indeed the very concept of a language without GOTO seems like an unnecessary restriction. Those with more experience understand why imposing such a restriction on a programming language is the Right Thing.

childOfTechno wrote:Thinking that there's One True Language is naive and immature. Remember "C" was a new language once. Then "C++" was a new language. People will always create new languages, for good reason: there's no such thing as a "perfect" language. Remember: "If all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."

childOfTechno wrote:

Brendan wrote:What we need is to limit the number of languages to one per field (e.g. one for low level programming, one for high level programming and scripting, one for databases, etc).

And then we can get rid of all these unnecessary natural languages and everybody can just speak English. Heil Brendan!

Brendan wrote:For GOTO there's 3 types of programmers: noobs that don't understand why goto can be bad in certain situations (yet), noobs that don't understand that goto is beneficial in some situations (yet), and real programmers. For a nice example of this, google for "Python goto".

childOfTechno wrote:

Brendan wrote:For GOTO there's 3 types of programmers: noobs that don't understand why goto can be bad in certain situations (yet), noobs that don't understand that goto is beneficial in some situations (yet), and real programmers. For a nice example of this, google for "Python goto".

I laughed, I cried. From http://entrian.com/goto/ : "The "goto" module was an April Fool's joke, published on 1st April 2004. Yes, it works, but it's a joke nevertheless. Please don't use it in real code!"

Did you hear that? It's an April fool's day joke (The module even includes a "comefrom" statement, which is straight out of Intercal.)

childOfTechno wrote:GOTO may be useful very occasionally in highly exceptional circumstances. I imagine that you think your code is always highly exceptional.

childOfTechno wrote:You may be intelligent, but profoundly lacking in experience. You are not superior to every other programmer who ever walked the earth, got it? Your approach to image scaling as described in your developer's blog is a good example, and gave me a hearty giggle.