|
Is this better?
Please note that the entire email I first sent is 7,153 bytes and in
attachment
This one plus attachment is under 5 kb.
I am using notetab lite.
How does that rank with security i.e.
I don't want to scare people with attachments.
Note: I am not good at this sort of thing.
Subject: Your message to Haskell-Cafe awaits
moderator approval > > Rational Haskell? > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message body is too big: 6180 bytes with a limit of 5 KB > |
----- Original Message ----- From: Justin Walsh To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 4:12 AM Subject: Rational Haskell?
Please bear with me. Point of departure: My goal is OWL (but replacing the "O" for Ontological with Noological) http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/history.html 2. Noology (as in noumenon or "state of mind") i.e. rational http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology Zoology (as in phenomenon or state of body) i.e. Empirical Declaration: None of these OO languages in their current context seem to work for me. Observations: I love AWK, I don't like C++, I Like plain vanilla Prolog and Smalltalk (as procedural and declarative) IDE's, but in there current form useless for my purposes. I'm unsure of Haskell but, feel it has untapped potential at a meta level. So far I have found, that Haskell is a great "what-if" language (the comparison with the spread sheet correct). I am very much a remnant of the "how-to" generation (one cannot get much lower than assembler). I found it difficult to take responsibility and let go of my "goto". But I do need to reach the "when-to" level: my project is Virtual Reality and SAI:(asIn Silicon Assisted Intelligence is gnot AI). Somehow though all of us early (infant) programmers moved pretty seamlessly form goto's and flowcharting to pseudo-code and structure programming techniques: because it works. However in 1989 I did BR and Semantic Modeling (Debenham and Montgomery UTS), realising immediately that it did not work. Since then I still see the Systems Designers equivalent of the flowchart and the goto i.e Entity Relationship Modeling http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/319.html Why is it so hard for SysDesigners to make the same mind shift we did? Sorry if I sound rude but I'm stuck in an OO rut and I need to reach Process Orientation rather quickly. Any serious suggestions (apart from "just go away")? Justin PS: I don't like dialectical bickering over detail. Please spare me the flaming --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.585 / Virus Database: 370 - Release Date: 2/11/04
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
