Am 12.03.2010 um 02:12 schrieb Julian Leviston:
This is great, but code should be easy enough to understand that anyone can
read it... like, say, an even easier and better version of Cucumber. Do
that kind of binding, and I see there being no difference between writing
down the goals in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dethe Elza de...@livingcode.org wrote:
Other have made the argument that Google is essentially the modern
command-line interface, but I think this goes way beyond Google. Things like
mash-ups are made possible by the View Source nature of the web, every web
On 13/03/2010, at 3:17 AM, John Zabroski wrote:
Wrong.
Commercial spreadsheets are not Turing complete. However, it is possible for
a programming language built using the spreadsheet cell as a fundamental
building block to be Turing complete. See Oregon State University's work on
And, of course, there was Playground (a object oriented language made
completely from (richer) spreadsheet cells that we did for the Vivarium project
in the late 80s and early 90s).
Cheers,
Alan
From: John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com
To: Fundamentals of
Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
To restate my point, simply: programming computers is not as easy as using
them, and using them is not even as easy or useful as it could be.
Don't get me wrong - I completely understand your intuition. I have it too.
But beware! Intuition weighs
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2010 10:18, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com wrote:
1. I am simultaneously interested in open, reflective, dynamically
distributed and dynamically federated systems
Nice way to put it. Welcome to the club!
3.
