I'd call it cheating if I were the loser, too. Aren't things like "+" and "++" also "pre-built" algorithms? None of this is assembly language, fortunately for those of us who would prefer to get work done rather than study the computer.
It's like the advice they give lawyers: if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if neither are on your side, bang on the table and yell. Sound's like he's banging on the table.... On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Ian Gorse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello list, > > A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a programmer friend of mine > about solving problems. I tend to use J alot now (but do have > experience in several imperative programming languages) , and my > friend is a c/c++ coder all the way. > > I stated to him that I had just solved another Project Euler, by using > J and pasted the J code for him to see, even though I know for a fact > he wont read the - in his own words - "gibberish" text that was > presented infront of him. To my suprise, he said that J was "cheating" > > I obviously defended his statement and asked how could J be cheating, > and his response was that J was using pre-made algorithms. > ... > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
