Marc Espie schrieb:
> Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE
> definitive series on computer algorithms
I don't wish to diminish Knuth's work, but it's definitely not timeless.
For an alternative, see Sedgewick's "Algorithms in C/Pascal/whatever".
Not as rigorous ab
> Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (L) wrote:
>L> Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence
>L> that Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none
>L> (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as
>L> a programmer.
Be nice.
> Boy, you really have to get a clue.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
>
>Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
>theory of
>"literate" programming. As i said for me algorith
On 21 Okt., 19:34, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
> In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
> of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
> and it *still* pro
On Oct 21, 3:11 pm, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely
> shouting obscenities, hm?
You're expecting logic from someone who asserts that
> llothar wrote:
> > only contribution to software development was the theory of
> > "lite
llothar wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
>
> Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
> theory of
> "literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software
> development,
> this is pr
On Oct 20, 6:20 pm, Daniel Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> > > Mathematics.
>
> > Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
> > the worst programm
Lew schrieb:
> I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if
> anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether
> you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to
> perform the art.
Well, sort of.
Some of the code given is unreadable
llothar wrote:
> Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not
> for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid
> for this by this university employee.
What a curious thesis.
> But in the field of software enginering as i said before he
> completely
> f
>
> Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math.
>
> Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational
> database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc.
> are all based on mathematics of different levels.
Thats not i call serious maths. You just need a ve
llothar wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That level of activity could be considered dead.
>
> For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
> to call it non dead.
>
> I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
> not dead but thi
On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That level of activity could be considered dead.
For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
to call it non dead.
I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
not dead but this is not the point under discuss
OMouse wrote:
> For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional
> programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and
> link to it?
I expect you'll be ignored on that. Xah Lee reposts and reposts these essays
from years agone. I don't even read his posts, just the r
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>>> very
>>> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
>>> like TeX - and
>>
>> Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted
>> many other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You
>> will need evidence
For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional
programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and
link to it?
-Rudolf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
llothar wrote:
>> I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
>> _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
>
> No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
> skills.
Many things within programming have a foundation in mathema
Lew wrote:
>> very
>> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
>> like TeX - and
>
> Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted many
> other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need
> evidence for such a claim.
Accordi
llothar wrote:
> Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
> his total
> failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
Umm, the term is "literate" programmer and there is evidence that it is not a
"failure".
> very
> different. Having a dead - i
> I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
> _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
skills.
> Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer?
No and at least the mat
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:04:06 -0700, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
>
>> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
>> Mathematics.
>
>Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
>the worst programmers i've seen becau
George Neuner wrote:
> An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of
> the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of
> discrete steps during which you may close half the remaining distance
> between yourself and the other person.
>
> Mathematician: "
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:20:47 -, Daniel Pitts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
>> > Mathematics.
>>
>> Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
>> the wor
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:28:14PM -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
[snip...]
Inflammatory and irrelevant. Why not ask questions about Darcs on the
Darcs list, or are you worried that there may be too many people there
who can tell you what a load of rubbish you're talking?
Ben
signature.asc
Descripti
On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> > Mathematics.
>
> Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
> the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
> much more often yo
> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
world they loose
On 20 Ott, 05:28, Xah Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
yes-and-no.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 20:28 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
> When i first heard about distributed revision control system about 2
> years ago, i heard of Darcs, which is written in Haskell. I was hugely
> excited, thinking about the functional programing i love, and the no-
> side effect pure system i idoli
28 matches
Mail list logo
