On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:07:41 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> There *are* programming languages worse than PHP. Have you ever tried
> britescript?
Have you tried MUMPS? :-)
M4
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:17:00 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
> About a month ago, i posted a message about modernization of emacs. I
> enlisted several items that i think emacs should adapt.
And you are posting this to compl.lang.perl because.??
F'up set.
M4
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401
> (without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic
> omission of any instruction that could do call-and-return without
> hard-coding an adcon with the
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> The 1401 was a decent enough processor for many industrial tasks -- at
>> that time -- but for general programming it was sheer horror.
>
> But the easiest machine language /ever/.
True, very true.
M4
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
