Marc Espie schrieb:
Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE
definitive series on computer algorithms
I don't wish to diminish Knuth's work, but it's definitely not timeless.
For an alternative, see Sedgewick's Algorithms in C/Pascal/whatever.
Not as rigorous about
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] (L) wrote:
L Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence
L that Tex is a dead end (or even what that means), and there has been none
L (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as
L a programmer.
According to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Be nice.
Boy, you really have to get a clue.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 00:48 +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:19 -0400, Lew wrote:
[something attackish]
Well, you are making a personal attack, it's dangerous. I wish to see
only discussions about TeX ;;
On a python group?
Wildemar Wildenburger schrieb:
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
First of all, irregularities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#The_typesetting_system:
[...]almost all of TeX's syntactic properties can be changed
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:07:37 -0400, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
i have written ... No coherent argument,
I've long killfiled XL to the effect that all of his threads are
ignored altogether, since the guy is nice enough to only take part
to his own rants, but occasionally some
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:19 -0400, Lew wrote:
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
is
Lew wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
i have written ... No coherent argument,
Actually the modified title is wrong. It should be
The Xah Lee pestilence
Please see his posting history of off-topic random rambling for details.
Oh, and PLEASE
+---+ .:\:\:/:/:.
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
/W
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
functional programming.
jue
--
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:19 -0400, Lew wrote:
[something attackish]
Well, you are making a personal attack, it's dangerous. I wish to see
only discussions about TeX ;;
On a python group?
Also: Lew won't see your post, he's on c.l.java.*
/W
--
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
And yes, it [syntactically] sucks in major ways.
Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
functional programming.
That's not
On 21 Okt., 19:34, Joachim Durchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
and it *still* produces
TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.
i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
the basic thoughts are here:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html
it's slightly repeatitous there. But i think i might summarize in gist
the
Xah Lee wrote:
i have written ... No coherent argument,
--
Lew
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:50:30 -0700, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.
i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
the basic thoughts are here:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html
Knuth
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
is unsuitable of representing any structure or
[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.functional.]
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:51 -0400, George Neuner gneuner2/@/comcast.net
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:50:30 -0700, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in
George Neuner schrieb:
5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
major ways.
No one except you thinks TeX is a computer language.
But it is.
It's Turing-complete.
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:04:06 -0700, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen because they
I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
_not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
skills.
Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer?
No and at least the
llothar wrote:
Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
his total
failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
Umm, the term is literate programmer and there is evidence that it is not a
failure.
very
different. Having a dead - i mean
Lew wrote:
very
different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
like TeX - and
Based on what do you call it dead end. It's used, it's outlasted many
other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need
evidence for such a claim.
According to
llothar wrote:
I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
_not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
skills.
Many things within programming have a foundation in mathematics
For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional
programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and
link to it?
-Rudolf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Lew wrote:
very
different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
like TeX - and
Based on what do you call it dead end. It's used, it's outlasted
many other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You
will need evidence for such a claim.
OMouse wrote:
For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional
programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and
link to it?
I expect you'll be ignored on that. Xah Lee reposts and reposts these essays
from years agone. I don't even read his posts, just the
On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That level of activity could be considered dead.
For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
to call it non dead.
I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
not dead but this is not the point under
llothar wrote:
On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That level of activity could be considered dead.
For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
to call it non dead.
I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
not dead but this is not
Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math.
Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational
database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc.
are all based on mathematics of different levels.
Thats not i call serious maths. You just need a very
llothar wrote:
Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not
for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid
for this by this university employee.
What a curious thesis.
But in the field of software enginering as i said before he
completely
Lew schrieb:
I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if
anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether
you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to
perform the art.
Well, sort of.
Some of the code given is unreadable.
On Oct 20, 6:20 pm, Daniel Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen
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
On Oct 21, 3:11 pm, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely
shouting obscenities, hm?
You're expecting logic from someone who asserts that
llothar wrote:
only contribution to software development was the theory of
literate
On 20 Ott, 05:28, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes-and-no.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
world they loose
On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
much more often you just
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:28:14PM -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
[snip...]
Inflammatory and irrelevant. Why not ask questions about Darcs on the
Darcs list, or are you worried that there may be too many people there
who can tell you what a load of rubbish you're talking?
Ben
signature.asc
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:20:47 -, Daniel Pitts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers
George Neuner wrote:
An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of
the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of
discrete steps during which you may close half the remaining distance
between yourself and the other person.
Mathematician: But
When i first heard about distributed revision control system about 2
years ago, i heard of Darcs, which is written in Haskell. I was hugely
excited, thinking about the functional programing i love, and the no-
side effect pure system i idolize, and the technology of human animal
i rapture in
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 20:28 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
When i first heard about distributed revision control system about 2
years ago, i heard of Darcs, which is written in Haskell. I was hugely
excited, thinking about the functional programing i love, and the no-
side effect pure system i idolize,
44 matches
Mail list logo
