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 programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not
> programming
> in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the
> small, sure you
> can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting
> algorithm, but
> this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science -
> well a few
> people seem to like this.
>
> And as an evidence that this theory works ("literate" programming) -
> there is no
> easy prove about efficient workflow - was his TeX program where only
> some parts
> are handled like this. But drawing an conclusion from a "developement
> dead"
> project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: fucking
> stupid.
No, I conclude that literate programming works from the prevalence of tools
like Javadoc and Doxygen, and the Sun and MS coding standards documents. I
see the direct benefits in my own work every day.
Proposing a straw-man argument then knocking it down with mere purple prose
like "just sorry: [sic] fucking stupid" is, sorry, just fucking stupid. See?
No logic there at all. Thus proving that there's no logic there at all.
> Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not
> useable.
Rrr? "Everythink" does, eh? Maybe what the world needs instead is literate
programmers, then.
Cite some specifics, please? And remember, when you say "everything" that
even one counter-example disproves.
There is evidence that aspects of "literate" programming do work. Besides,
that a theory is wrong is part of science, not a denigration of the scientist.
Even a wrong theory, like Newtonian mechanics, advances the science (e.g.,
physics) and is evidence that the scientist (Isaac Newton) is a genius. Like
Donald Knuth.
> Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem
> analysis you might
> find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a
> guy building
> a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby.
So you say, again with just rhetoric and complete lack of evidence or argument
to support the outrageous assertion. Many people, myself included, have seen
your so-called "real world" benefit significantly from academic results.
Object-oriented programming is an example. The fertilization works both ways;
check out how the science of computer graphics expanded thanks to LucasFilms.
Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely
shouting obscenities, hm?
--
Lew
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
