Good point.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM, John Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it worth engaging idiots commenting moronically about any topic? > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In such endlessly repeated scenes, it's not worth working yourself up. > In > > fact, it's sometimes not even worth coming up with new ways of > responding. > > Why bother? Often it's best to simply defer to the luminaries of history > > who have commented on this topic (nobody wants to fight you when you're > > standing on the shoulders of giants). For example: > > > > "There are two methods in software design. One is to make the > > program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to > > make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors." > > > > -- C.A.R. Hoare, founder in the field of computer program > > correctness and reliability, and laureate of computer science's > > highest award (the Turing award) > > > > "Only short programs have any hope of being correct." > > > > -- Arthur Whitney, computer scientist & inventor of the > > array-language K, which all of Wall St uses to predict markets > > > > "The fewer moving parts, the better" > > > > -- Every engineer of every discipline throughout time, ever > > (ok, fine: every engineer whose first attempt didn't kill him) > > > > But, you know, it's hard to get someone to change his mind, and maybe > some > > would find the preceding unconvincing. I mean sure, some guy who got > rich > > creating an array programming language and a weirdo obsessed with the > > reliability of computer systems support the concept of short, clear > > programs. But that's just 2 guys and the entire enterprise of human > > engineering throughout time. That doesn't tell us anything. Can't we dig > > deeper, get to the bottom of things? Surely there's no philosophical > > reason we should prefer simplicity? > > > > "Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in a few words." > > -- The bible (Ecclesiasticus, which, ironically, the > > Protestants cut out) > > > > "It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what other men say > > in whole books - what other men do not say in whole books." > > > > -- from the other end of the spectrum, Friedrich "God is dead" > > Nietzsche (demonstrating this is not a particularly localized > > sentiment) > > > > "It is with words as with sunbeams. The more they are > > condensed, the deeper they burn." > > > > -- Robert Southey, Poet Laureate of the British empire > > > > "Brevity is the soul of wit" > > > > -- William Shakespeare, another English guy (note, here "wit" > > meant "wisdom", not "humor") > > > > Ah, but perhaps we've strayed too far from software engineering; after > > all, plays and poems are very different things from programs, aren't > they? > > Well, let's see if we can find a bridge from the wisdom of the Bard to > > modern computer programming. > > > > "Language is an instrument of human reason, and not merely a > > medium for the expression of thought" > > > > -- George Boole, guy who invented zeros and ones. > > > > Not bad. The very founder of computer science talking about reasoning > with > > language. Still, not much in there about being concise, only expressive. > > Let's see if we can do better. > > > > "By relieving the brain of all unnecessary work, a good > > notation sets it free to concentrate on more advanced problems, > > and in > > effect increases the mental power of the race." > > > > -- A.N. Whitehead; bah, a mathematician. > > > > "The quantity of meaning compressed into small space by > > algebraic signs, is another circumstance that facilitates the > > reasonings > > we are accustomed to carry on by their aid." > > > > -- Charles Babbage; that's better, the guy who built the > > world's first computer. > > > > Still though, Babbage built his computer before there was even > > electricity. Can't we get a little more modern, a little more relevant > to > > practical software design? Ok, let's turn the clock forward, but > continue > > with the theme of using language to express ourselves briefly and > clearly: > > > > "Programming languages, because they were designed for the > > purpose of directing computers, offer important advantages as > tools > > of thought. However, most programming languages are decidedly > > inferior and are little used as tools of thought in ways that > would > > be considered significant. > > > > [In contrast] APL is a general purpose language which > > originated in an attempt to provide clear and precise expression > in > > writing and teaching, and which was implemented as a programming > > language only after several years of use and development." > > > > Unfortunately, I've lost the reference for this one (I know the guy has > > something in common with the first person I quoted, Hoare). Maybe you > > could ask your commentor friend to look it up. > > > > -Dan > > > > PS: The real irony is, your friend doesn't even seem to recognize the > > value of /being able to quote the entire program/ he's complaining about! > > Try that with Java! You're going to need a bigger comment box. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > John D. Baker > [email protected] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- *Kenneth Lettow* *Director of Web Analytics and Market Intelligence* *ThomasNet.com* Five Penn Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10001 *: [email protected] *(*: 212.290.8713 www.thomasnet.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
