At 6:56 PM + 3/12/10, karl ramberg wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Ted Kaehler t...@vpri.org wrote:
Here is an example of a specification that reads like an essay, but is
also a computer program that runs. It is the complete specification of text
layout with word-wrap, and
Conal Elliot's Tangible Functional Programming work seems like an
interesting way to shrink the divide between using and programming.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
Okay.
Mostly it relates to the simplicity and difficulty level. Using a computer
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM, James McCartney asy...@gmail.com wrote:
Conal Elliot's Tangible Functional Programming work seems like an
interesting way to shrink the divide between using and programming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faJ8N0giqzw
--
--- james mccartney
Also, I don't know if I need to say this, but my perception is that
people around here may hate this because of the strong functional
programming stance, but I think the key neat idea here is the idea of
fusing UI. So if possible, try to get past any other prejudices he or
you might have.
On Sat,
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
of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 8:17:54 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Code Bubbles
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
On 13/03/2010, at 2:45 AM, Dethe Elza wrote:
Other have made the argument that Google is essentially the modern
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
I think it looks quite cool...
It seems to sit on Eclipse, which means Ruby development might be possible with
it. That'd be fantastic.
I've been looking for something that has a class browser and workspace as well
as a debugger / runtime inspector for Ruby. If we could get it working for
Well, the code isn't really the goal -- it a concrete implementation of a
goal. A goal is more abstract, and usually allows many ways to implement it.
For example, if your goal is to sort a list of elements, there are lots of
ways to do it. Or your goal could be this program shouldn't have a
Err, I meant this program SHOULD have a response time of less than 0.5
seconds. :)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Chris Gahan ch...@ill-logic.com wrote:
Well, the code isn't really the goal -- it a concrete implementation of a
goal. A goal is more abstract, and usually allows many ways to
OK but measurements show that even at 0.25 seconds, people can start to
wonder if the computer noticed their keystroke or button press. Therefor,
some students of cognitive psychology etc incline to try to make something
obvious happen within about 0.1 seconds. For humans, that's real time.
On 12/03/2010, at 9:46 AM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
Chris Gahan wrote:
Or your goal could be this program should have a response time of less than
0.5 seconds.
Again, much better to be expressed as code. Remember, after all, that code is
simply unambiguous text which a computer can
Julian Leviston wrote:
As Self and Smalltalk have tried to point out to us, make programming SO
EASY that it is the SAME THING as using the computer.
But it *is* the same thing, by definition. The only difference is in the
interfaces: GMail a specialized/simple interface, a C compiler is a
Folks,
The tasks are to explain the goal of a program clearly enough
to be easily grasped by a person, and precise enough that it is a
runnable specification.
Here is an example of a specification that reads like an essay,
but is also a computer program that runs. It is the
15 matches
Mail list logo
