This is turning into a debate on the semantics of the word experience,
so let's leave it that each person has their own belief system.
On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 09:22 +, TheDalaiLama via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 at 06:04:59 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Thus
> > statements
On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 at 06:04:59 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Thus
statements such as "experience is irrelevant" are dangerous
statements in most
contexts.
sorry. but 'experience' IS irrelevant.
What is relevant, is what your experience demonstrates (i.e. what
do you have to show for your
On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 23:54 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 10:51 PM, TheDalaiLama wrote:
> >
> > There's no substituion for taste...some have it.. some don't.
> >
> > 'Experience' is irrelevant.
> >
>
> Honestly, there's a lot of truth to this.
On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 02:51 +, TheDalaiLama via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> How did they get 'Go'... so wrong?
They didn't. A lot of people out there are using Go very effectively and
thoroughly enjoying it. True it is a language by Google for Google, but it has
massive traction outside
On 05/01/2018 10:51 PM, TheDalaiLama wrote:
There's no substituion for taste...some have it.. some don't.
'Experience' is irrelevant.
Honestly, there's a lot of truth to this. People can certainly learn, of
course (well, at least some people can), but experience definitely does
not imply
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 23:26:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I posit that redundancy is something programmers learn to
appreciate as they gain experience, and that eliminating
redundancy is something new programmers think is a new idea :-)
Not just 'new programmers', but even old
On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 at 18:46:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Well, yes. Of course the whole idea behind big O is asymptotic
behaviour, i.e., behaviour as n becomes arbitrarily large.
Unfortunately, as you point out below, this is not an accurate
depiction of the real world:
[snip]
The
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 05:13:13PM +, IntegratedDimensions via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> The point of O is for the most dominant rate of growth(asymptotic
> behavior). In mathematics, one only cares about n as it approaches
> infinity and so any constant term will eventually be dwarfed.
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:03:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:14:17PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming
> in BF instead of D. :-O
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 06:10:35PM +, Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Oh yes, I'm well aware that there's a lot of semantic contortion
> required here, and that as spoken, this sounds like complete
> gibberish. I don't know where the monosyllable meme came from, either;
> it's readily
On Monday, 30 April 2018 at 16:20:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
As a native Chinese speaker, I find contortions of this kind
mildly amusing but mostly ridiculous, because this is
absolutely NOT how the language works. It is carrying an
ancient scribal ivory-tower ideal of one syllable per word to
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 04:47:54AM +, Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, I think the Chinese have us beat; they can construct
> redundant sentences far beyond anything we could ever imagine, and
> thus I predict that within 50 years Chinese will be the new
> international
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 23:26:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Besides, redundancy can make a program easier to read (English
has a lot of it, and is hence easy to read).
I completely agree. I always make an effort to make my sentences
as redundant as possible such that they can be easily
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:18:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:26:30PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
[...]
People often complain about how redundant natural languages
are... not realizing that it actually provides, in addition to
being easier to
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 06:22:55AM +, sarn via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> The first Haskell tutorial I read was written by someone who thought
> it would be cute to do mathsy typesetting of all the syntax. E.g., ->
> became some right arrow symbol, meaning that nothing the book taught
>
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 04:06:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
One of the items on my bucket list is to write a "CS Theory for
Programmers" book that actually fills in all this stuff, along
with going easy on the math-theory syntax that you can't
realistically expect programmers
On 04/26/2018 08:03 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:14:17PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF
instead of D. :-O (Since, after all, it's
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:03:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Actually, Turing-complete *does* mean it can do anything...
well, anything that can be done by a machine, that is.
No, it means there's some *abstract mapping* between what a thing
can do and what any Turing machine can do. That
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 22:29:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
why do people use this syntax?
if val == someVal
or
while val != someVal
it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val ==
someVal).
The theory goes:
A. "less
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:26:30PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Having redundancy in the syntax makes for better, more accurate error
> diagnostics. In the worst case, for a language with zero redundancy,
> every sequence of characters is a valid program. Hence, no errors
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:14:17PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >
> > If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF
> > instead of D. :-O (Since, after all, it's Turing-complete, which
> > is all
On 4/26/2018 3:29 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
The theory goes:
A. "less syntax => easier to read".
B. "There's no technical need to require it, and everything that can be removed
should be removed, thus it should be removed".
Personally, I find the lack of parens gives my brain's
On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF
instead of D. :-O (Since, after all, it's Turing-complete, which is
all anybody really needs. :-P)
Yea. Speaking of which, I wish more CS students were taught the the
inherent
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:29:46PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
> >
> > why do people use this syntax?
> >
> > if val == someVal
> >
> > or
> >
> > while val != someVal
> >
> > it makes editing the code harder then if you
On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
why do people use this syntax?
if val == someVal
or
while val != someVal
it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val == someVal).
The theory goes:
A. "less syntax => easier to read".
B. "There's no technical need to require it, and
On 04/26/2018 09:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Fair enough. But if that's all there is to it, then why bring it up
here? Not that I object, mind you, but it just seemed kinda random, why
pick this one hobby project over any other, when there are tons of new
languages out there being made almost
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:26:03PM +, Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> > > https://github.com/felixangell/krug
> > >
> > >
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
https://github.com/felixangell/krug
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
It's still too
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
https://github.com/felixangell/krug
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
It's still too
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
https://github.com/felixangell/krug
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
It's still too
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> https://github.com/felixangell/krug
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it
seems
https://github.com/felixangell/krug
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
32 matches
Mail list logo
