>I know Clojure doesn't have all the documentation many would like, but Tim,
>this bit of info is in readme.txt, and the first 3 lines of every source
>file from the library :-)
Touche! +2 points to you!
I love it when my oh-so-noisy self gets skewered by facts! :-)
Tim Daly
--
You received th
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
> >Tim, as someone already mentioned, the multi-page Java code you posted
> from
> >"the Clojure core" is actually one file from the Java ASM library, copied
> >into the Clojure Github repository from one version of that library
> >available from
Tim,
Your project of LP'ing the Clojure internals is not at all inconsistent
with my view. That is code that would benefit from being widely
understood, even by people who won't maintain it. I learned a lot from
reading the "Lions" book on an early version of Unix, even though I
probably ne
>Tim, as someone already mentioned, the multi-page Java code you posted from
>"the Clojure core" is actually one file from the Java ASM library, copied
>into the Clojure Github repository from one version of that library
>available from here:
Hmmm, I didn't see that in the documentation :-)
Thanks
Forward from Ralf Hemmecke:
On 05/22/2014 11:21 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> I can tell you I would rather maintain the four lines of C++ without
> the largely useless commentary.
That's a simple AXIOM program, but I'm sure one can easily translate it
into any programming language.
foo(a: Intege
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:16 PM, u1204 wrote:
> Heck, it is only 4 lines of C++. Why bother? *I* can read C++. I can
> even reverse engineer it (probably by inventing the diagram in Figure
> 2.7 on a napkin). Maybe it lives in the src/SamRecon/StratSam, which is
> all the organization necessary
Howdy Tim,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:16 AM, u1204 wrote:
> Gregg and Gary,
>
> I understand where you are coming from. Indeed, Maturana [0] is on your
> side of the debate. Since even the philosophers can't agree, I doubt we
> will find a common ground.
>
Ah, but philosophers never agree. Dis
Gregg and Gary,
I understand where you are coming from. Indeed, Maturana [0] is on your
side of the debate. Since even the philosophers can't agree, I doubt we
will find a common ground.
Unfortunately, I've decided to take on the task of documenting the
Clojure internals because, yaknow, *I* don
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Mars0i wrote:
> Tim,
>
> From my point of view there are at least a few things that seem clear:
>
> 1. I think that Gregg Reynolds and I agree on a lot, but I would add to
> his remarks that there is almost always a human audience for source code,
> as well as the
Tim,
>From my point of view there are at least a few things that seem clear:
1. I think that Gregg Reynolds and I agree on a lot, but I would add to his
remarks that there is almost always a human audience for source code, as
well as the compiler/interpreter. Sometimes, the audience is just th
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:03:04 AM UTC-5, da...@axiom-developer.org
wrote:
>
> The primary focus of a "documentation system" is communication from
> the author to the audience.
>
> One of the struggles apparent in discussing issues of communication,
> especially with programmers, is Heideg
Hi Tim,
I'm glad you're continuing the conversation, which has helped me at least
to clarify my thinking about not just LP but about the nature of
programming and the sort of tools we (or I at least) need to support good
programming. I end up in a very different place than you, but I don't
think
12 matches
Mail list logo
