Quickie Poll -- C vs. C++

Michael A. Terrell
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:31 pm

Joel Koltner wrote:

Quote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yv-dnV-ih5bhj-XRnZ2dnUVZ_tIAAAAA_at_earthlink.com...
I've seen plenty of Robertson screws with stripped heads.

Same here. A lot of Robertson screws don't seem to have the square inset
deeply enough prevent easy stripping!

I don't think I've ever seen a stripped Torx or hex socket screw.
(...although I have managed to round off smaller Allen wrenches trying to
remove really tight hex socket screws...)

Some 'so' called Allen wrenches are not properly hardened. I've seen
them twist off in the screw head. After digging out the crap, a real
Allen wrench removed it with no problem.

One thing that helps is to stick a wrench into the head and hit it
with a hammer before trying to remove it.

Excelite used to sell a nice set, with their 66 series handle. I've
had my set for about 35 years.

Ever used 'Bristol' wrenches?

Nico Coesel
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:47 pm

"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms_at_charter.net> wrote:

Quote:

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZKRdo.85736$pX3.81304_at_en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
Phillips screws are actually designed to cam out of the screw head
before enough torque can be applied to risk shearing off the screw head.
That made
sense back when power tools didn't have clutches on them, but it does
tend to
instead lead to a lot of stripped screws. For use with hand tools, I
find
Pozidrv screws preferable in that they don't cam out... yet with a hand
tool
usually there isn't much risk of shearing off the screw head either.
(...although an impact driver makes it unlikely to strip Phillips head
screws...)

Admittedly I'm not sure if they are Pozidriv, but I have sheared heads off
stainless steel sheetmetal screws. Apparently, aluminum is sticky stuff,
the threads sieze and off goes the head. (Note: sheetmetal, so they're
forming the thread in situ.) I find it odd that stainless fasteners are
that much weaker than their mild steel counterparts (which went in just
fine). Though I'm sure it doesn't hurt that galvanizing has a high
pressure lubricant effect.

Stainless steel is less stronger than normal steel.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico_at_nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Joel Koltner
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:53 pm

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HImdneN026ALveXRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d_at_earthlink.com...

Quote:

Some 'so' called Allen wrenches are not properly hardened.

That's very likely the case -- for small hand tools, I often haven't paid
enough attention to the quality of the tool.

I do find it rather annoying that some crappy screwdriver manufacturers
actually color the tip dark grey to make it *look* like the tip was hardened
when in actuality it's 100% cosmetic!

Quote:

Ever used 'Bristol' wrenches?

No, but they look pretty bullet-proof from the drawings on Wikipedia!

---Joel

Michael A. Terrell
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:45 pm

Joel Koltner wrote:

Quote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HImdneN026ALveXRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d_at_earthlink.com...
Some 'so' called Allen wrenches are not properly hardened.

That's very likely the case -- for small hand tools, I often haven't paid
enough attention to the quality of the tool.

it's tempting to use those 'free' wrenches that come with furniture,
but they are usually so soft that won't even let you take abart what you
assembled with it. I have a coffee can full of them, for when someone
wants to 'Borrow a hex key'. When they come back and tell me it was no
good, I tell them to hit one of the Fastenal or Grainger's stores and
buy what they need. ;-)

Quote:

I do find it rather annoying that some crappy screwdriver manufacturers
actually color the tip dark grey to make it *look* like the tip was hardened
when in actuality it's 100% cosmetic!

Or they chrome plate crap metal to hide what they are selling.

Quote:

Ever used 'Bristol' wrenches?

No, but they look pretty bullet-proof from the drawings on Wikipedia!

They didn't slip in the screw head, but they would snap. A lot of
W.W.II surplus electronics used them for setscrews and in knobs. When
the equipment was new, each wrench needed for repair was in a fahnstock
clip. By the time the equipment was sold as surplus, they were mostly
missing.

robertwessel2@yahoo.com
Guest

Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:30 am

On Aug 27, 7:50 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/08/2010 23:23, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:

What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++? Something else? What?

REXX or C++, except when programming microcontrollers.

That is a blast from the past! REXX was the native OS/2 scripting
language. I didn't know it was still going. Good while it lasted tho.

Are you by any chance the Hobbs of the Hobbs OS/2 archive or is it just
a coincidental name collision?

OS/2 was a fabulous operating system deliberately hobbled by an IBM
marketing department determined to make it fail to protect their
midrange system sales. In the end they lost both and more besides.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, Hobbes the archive is named after Hobbes the philosopher (the law of
the jungle character), possibly by way of Hobbes the tiger. I've used
Hobbes a lot, though.

I used to be an OS/2 diehard--I still have a triple boot OS2/XP/Red Hat
system.

REXX started out on mainframes in about 1985, and is available for Linux
and Windows among other things. The best classic REXX interpreter out
there is Regina, and there's also the Open Object Rexx interpreter that
has all sorts of object-oriented extensions, and now works in 64-bit.

REXX appeared in VM/370 in about 1979 or so.

Tim Williams
Guest

Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:51 am

"Nico Coesel" <nico_at_puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4c782423.525184593_at_news.planet.nl...

Quote:

Admittedly I'm not sure if they are Pozidriv, but I have sheared heads
off
stainless steel sheetmetal screws. Apparently, aluminum is sticky
stuff,
the threads sieze and off goes the head. (Note: sheetmetal, so they're
forming the thread in situ.) I find it odd that stainless fasteners are
that much weaker than their mild steel counterparts (which went in just
fine). Though I'm sure it doesn't hurt that galvanizing has a high
pressure lubricant effect.

Stainless steel is less stronger than normal steel.

Well, no. Or it's not supposed to be. Cold rolled 304 is many times
stronger than mild steel will ever be. Even annealed, they're very close,
certainly not weaker.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:06 pm

Tim Williams wrote:

Quote:

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZKRdo.85736$pX3.81304_at_en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
Phillips screws are actually designed to cam out of the screw head
before enough torque can be applied to risk shearing off the screw head.
That made
sense back when power tools didn't have clutches on them, but it does
tend to
instead lead to a lot of stripped screws. For use with hand tools, I
find
Pozidrv screws preferable in that they don't cam out... yet with a hand
tool
usually there isn't much risk of shearing off the screw head either.
(...although an impact driver makes it unlikely to strip Phillips head
screws...)

Admittedly I'm not sure if they are Pozidriv, but I have sheared heads off
stainless steel sheetmetal screws. Apparently, aluminum is sticky stuff,
the threads sieze and off goes the head. (Note: sheetmetal, so they're
forming the thread in situ.) I find it odd that stainless fasteners are
that much weaker than their mild steel counterparts (which went in just
fine). Though I'm sure it doesn't hurt that galvanizing has a high
pressure lubricant effect.

Tim

SS and aluminum undergo some interfacial reaction that makes the screws
seize up and gall when you try removing them. There's special
anti-seize grease for that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:13 pm

robertwessel2_at_yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 27, 7:50 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/08/2010 23:23, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:
What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++? Something else? What?
REXX or C++, except when programming microcontrollers.
That is a blast from the past! REXX was the native OS/2 scripting
language. I didn't know it was still going. Good while it lasted tho.
Are you by any chance the Hobbs of the Hobbs OS/2 archive or is it just
a coincidental name collision?
OS/2 was a fabulous operating system deliberately hobbled by an IBM
marketing department determined to make it fail to protect their
midrange system sales. In the end they lost both and more besides.
Regards,
Martin Brown
No, Hobbes the archive is named after Hobbes the philosopher (the law of
the jungle character), possibly by way of Hobbes the tiger. I've used
Hobbes a lot, though.

I used to be an OS/2 diehard--I still have a triple boot OS2/XP/Red Hat
system.

REXX started out on mainframes in about 1985, and is available for Linux
and Windows among other things. The best classic REXX interpreter out
there is Regina, and there's also the Open Object Rexx interpreter that
has all sorts of object-oriented extensions, and now works in 64-bit.

REXX appeared in VM/370 in about 1979 or so.

Turns out it was first conceived in 1979 and appeared in a product in
1982. Great language--arbitrary precision arithmetic and associative
arrays built in, really good string handling, and very very few nasty
surprises. (Mike Cowlishaw articulated the 'principle of least
astonishment' as one of the foundations of REXX's design, and he did a
pretty good job of minimizing it.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest

Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:16 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:51:27 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms_at_charter.net>
wrote:

Quote:

"Nico Coesel" <nico_at_puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4c782423.525184593_at_news.planet.nl...
Admittedly I'm not sure if they are Pozidriv, but I have sheared heads
off
stainless steel sheetmetal screws. Apparently, aluminum is sticky
stuff,
the threads sieze and off goes the head. (Note: sheetmetal, so they're
forming the thread in situ.) I find it odd that stainless fasteners are
that much weaker than their mild steel counterparts (which went in just
fine). Though I'm sure it doesn't hurt that galvanizing has a high
pressure lubricant effect.

Stainless steel is less stronger than normal steel.

Well, no. Or it's not supposed to be. Cold rolled 304 is many times
stronger than mild steel will ever be. Even annealed, they're very close,
certainly not weaker.

I built a deck out of SS square-head-recessed screws, where the head would cam
out quite easily. Since I've been buying screws from McFeeleys, I haven't had
that problem. I usually buy 316s, but they sell a variety (18-8 (304 AIUI),
305, 316, 410, 500 - not all in wood screws).

IanM
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:25 am

"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:683808c1-8efc-4c9b-8667-8a3e932651a8_at_x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:50 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

Quote:

So, I'm working on a spare-time project that's off the back burner for
at least a day. It's a trainer, and I'd _like_ to be able to set it up
so that advanced students can do their own programming. Hence, the poll.

So, since anyone who responds to a dippy poll on USENET is obviously
100% representative of the embedded software engineering public, I know
that your responses will accurately reflect reality.

If you answer this poll you will _not_ be entered into a contest to win
an iPod, or a free smokeless cigarette, or anything else. So do it for
the glory, and to advance the state of the species.

Please don't fire up the C vs. C++ flame war -- we all know that Forth
is the best language in the world next to Python, so C vs. C++ is really
moot anyway.

What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++?

I would have to say both. Since I use VC++ to build projects
involving PCB, I usually end up with at least one PC/VC++ program.

Quote:

Something else? Why?

Visual Studio 5.0, if you consider it a language. Because I have it
and it's good enough.

Quote:

Why?

Quick and dirty user interfaces.

Quote:

Would you describe yourself as being competent in both C and C++? If
only one, which?

Both, but I always stay with the C subset if possible. Just habit.

Quote:

What size processor(s) do you most often find yourself using? 8 bit?
16? 32?

8 or 32. Nothing in between.

Quote:

What size of memory space do you most often find yourself using? Less
than 1kbyte? 1 to 8kbyte? 8 to 64kbyte? More than 64kbyte?

32K to 64K.

Quote:

If you had to use someone's library code in your smallish project and
knew nothing about it other than the language it's written in, would you
be happier knowing it was in C, C++ or some other language?

C is usually easier to pick up on. But once you are familiar with it,
you don't feel much differences between them. I have been using MFC/C+
+ libraries without thinking too much. On the micro side, it's almost
always C.

Quote:

Are you comfortable reading schematics of digital circuits?

Yes.

Quote:

Are you comfortable reading schematics of mixed analog and digital
circuits?

Yes.

Quote:

If you can't read schematics, can you find your way around a block
diagram? Can you understand explanations of circuit behavior given by a
sympathetic hardware engineer?

Yes.

Quote:

Thanks.

Exact same answers as me, except I use Visual Studio 6 - sure you didn't
mean 6 ?

Grant
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:08 pm

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:25:46 +0100, "IanM" <nobody_at_no_where.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:683808c1-8efc-4c9b-8667-8a3e932651a8_at_x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:50 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
So, I'm working on a spare-time project that's off the back burner for
at least a day. It's a trainer, and I'd _like_ to be able to set it up
so that advanced students can do their own programming. Hence, the poll.

So, since anyone who responds to a dippy poll on USENET is obviously
100% representative of the embedded software engineering public, I know
that your responses will accurately reflect reality.

If you answer this poll you will _not_ be entered into a contest to win
an iPod, or a free smokeless cigarette, or anything else. So do it for
the glory, and to advance the state of the species.

Please don't fire up the C vs. C++ flame war -- we all know that Forth
is the best language in the world next to Python, so C vs. C++ is really
moot anyway.

What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++?

I would have to say both. Since I use VC++ to build projects
involving PCB, I usually end up with at least one PC/VC++ program.

Something else? Why?

Visual Studio 5.0, if you consider it a language. Because I have it
and it's good enough.

Why?

Quick and dirty user interfaces.

Would you describe yourself as being competent in both C and C++? If
only one, which?

Both, but I always stay with the C subset if possible. Just habit.

For nine years I wrote and maintained a project for 8085 in z80 assembler,
very rarely got caught out Wink

To me, the z80 syntax was cleaner.

Grant.

Quote:

What size processor(s) do you most often find yourself using? 8 bit?
16? 32?

8 or 32. Nothing in between.

What size of memory space do you most often find yourself using? Less
than 1kbyte? 1 to 8kbyte? 8 to 64kbyte? More than 64kbyte?

32K to 64K.

If you had to use someone's library code in your smallish project and
knew nothing about it other than the language it's written in, would you
be happier knowing it was in C, C++ or some other language?

C is usually easier to pick up on. But once you are familiar with it,
you don't feel much differences between them. I have been using MFC/C+
+ libraries without thinking too much. On the micro side, it's almost
always C.

Are you comfortable reading schematics of digital circuits?

Yes.

Are you comfortable reading schematics of mixed analog and digital
circuits?

Yes.

If you can't read schematics, can you find your way around a block
diagram? Can you understand explanations of circuit behavior given by a
sympathetic hardware engineer?

Yes.

Thanks.

Exact same answers as me, except I use Visual Studio 6 - sure you didn't
mean 6 ?

JosephKK
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:46 pm

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:50:17 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim_at_seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

Quote:

So, I'm working on a spare-time project that's off the back burner for
at least a day. It's a trainer, and I'd _like_ to be able to set it up
so that advanced students can do their own programming. Hence, the poll.

So, since anyone who responds to a dippy poll on USENET is obviously
100% representative of the embedded software engineering public, I know
that your responses will accurately reflect reality.

If you answer this poll you will _not_ be entered into a contest to win
an iPod, or a free smokeless cigarette, or anything else. So do it for
the glory, and to advance the state of the species.

Please don't fire up the C vs. C++ flame war -- we all know that Forth
is the best language in the world next to Python, so C vs. C++ is really
moot anyway.

What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++? Something else? What?

At 1000 lines i would probably use C. For much larger projects the
use of C++ becomes more common for me. For uCs i generally use ASM.

Quote:

Why?

Would you describe yourself as being competent in both C and C++? If
only one, which?

Marginally, at times.

Quote:

What size processor(s) do you most often find yourself using? 8 bit?
16? 32?

8/16 bit uCs. 32/64 on desktops.

Quote:

What size of memory space do you most often find yourself using? Less
than 1kbyte? 1 to 8kbyte? 8 to 64kbyte? More than 64kbyte?

uCs so far under 8k. Desktop soft generally over 64k to many MB. GUIs
are expensive.

Quote:

If you had to use someone's library code in your smallish project and
knew nothing about it other than the language it's written in, would you
be happier knowing it was in C, C++ or some other language?

I'd be mighty uncorfortable using any external lib on a uC. Can't
avoid them on desktop.

Quote:

Are you comfortable reading schematics of digital circuits?

Quite.

Quote:

Are you comfortable reading schematics of mixed analog and digital circuits?

Quite.

Quote:

If you can't read schematics, can you find your way around a block
diagram? Can you understand explanations of circuit behavior given by a
sympathetic hardware engineer?

I would be more likely to be the hardware engineer.

Quote:

Thanks.

JosephKK
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:54 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:51:27 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms_at_charter.net> wrote:

Quote:

"Nico Coesel" <nico_at_puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4c782423.525184593_at_news.planet.nl...
Admittedly I'm not sure if they are Pozidriv, but I have sheared heads
off
stainless steel sheetmetal screws. Apparently, aluminum is sticky
stuff,
the threads sieze and off goes the head. (Note: sheetmetal, so they're
forming the thread in situ.) I find it odd that stainless fasteners are
that much weaker than their mild steel counterparts (which went in just
fine). Though I'm sure it doesn't hurt that galvanizing has a high
pressure lubricant effect.

Stainless steel is less stronger than normal steel.

Well, no. Or it's not supposed to be. Cold rolled 304 is many times
stronger than mild steel will ever be. Even annealed, they're very close,
certainly not weaker.

Tim

Now you did it, you gat me to get ouit my ASM Metals Handbook, 8th
edition, volume 1.

1035 steel hot rolled average tensile strength azbout 85,000 psi,

1016 cold drawn average tensile strength azbout 75,000 psi before work
and up to 90,000 psi after,

1040 cold drawn 100,000 b4 and 120,000 respectively,

low carbon sheet steel 40,000 to 50,000 psi,

Structural steels 65,000 to 85,000 psi,

Hardenable carbon steels;

0.25 to 0.55% higher Brinell has proportioniatly higher strenth with
200 Brinell at about 100,000 psi and 400 Brinell at about 200,000 psi,

Hardenable alloy steeels;

Typical alloys are similar to hardenable carbon steels but have better
forging performance,

Meduim carbon (0.20 to 0.50%) cast steel increases in tensile strength
from about 68,000 at 0.20% C to about 95,000 at 0.50% C,

Stainless steels;

Type 201, cold rolled strip 180,000 to 200,000 psi,
Type 301, annealed strip 100,000 to 110,000 psi,
Type 316, annealed sheet 80,000 to 90,000 psi,
Type 403, hot rolled bars, air cooled 100,000 to 115,000 psi.

Enough i think.

JosephKK
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:59 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:15:22 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yv-dnV-ih5bhj-XRnZ2dnUVZ_tIAAAAA_at_earthlink.com...
I've seen plenty of Robertson screws with stripped heads.

Same here. A lot of Robertson screws don't seem to have the square inset
deeply enough prevent easy stripping!

I don't think I've ever seen a stripped Torx or hex socket screw.
(...although I have managed to round off smaller Allen wrenches trying to
remove really tight hex socket screws...)

I have stripped a few smaller Allen key screws and snapped more than a

few heads off; not with torx yet. Clutch is pretty good as well.

JosephKK
Guest

Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:04 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:04:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

Warren wrote:
Phil Hobbs expounded in news:4C76E962.9070508_at_electrooptical.net:

...
What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000
lines of code) projects? C? C++? Something else? What?
REXX or C++, except when programming microcontrollers.
...
Phil Hobbs

REXX on a MCU would be perverse indeed.

Warren

I don't know--the statically linked executable is about 393k on Windows,
so if you built it for an ARM Cortex M3, say, you could probably slim
it down to below 256k, which is less than half the flash available.

Of course scripting usually needs a bunch of I/O, so it usually won't
make sense without a disk.

I used to really love HP Basic on the HP9816--it had really great
built-in GPIB support, which made instrument control a breeze.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I got my introduction to Rocky Mountain BASIC for instrument control
on the HP 9845B, the predecessor to the 9816, in 1978.