Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:27 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >I do prefer at least medium level code though. > >> > >> Yes, you seem to have that kind of thinking style. > >> Haven't you ever been curious about what goes on > >> underneath all the layers? > > > >I know what does. > > > >In fact PL/M allows you to invoke certain instructions explicitly such as > >SHL, SHR, ROL and ROR for example. > > > >I do prefer to be able to write the rest of the code in something close to > >English though. > > Then you rely on other people to do the correct thing. This > is the philosophy you've had in this whole thread. Don't be daft. By a similar token you'd use a typewriter instead of a computer. There is quite simply no merit in reinventing the wheel every time you want to multiply 2 numbers for example. You invariably seem to think it's 'better' to do things the 'hard way'. That's simply backward thinking. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:30 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult > >> >to maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. > >> > >> And it doesn't appear that anyone got my joke. > >> > >> Assember isn't difficult to maintain and I can't imagine writing > >> nonsense code. Assembler is too clear-cut for obfuscation. > > > >Maintenance can mean maintenance by those who didn't write it. > > So? That has to be part of the product plan. I'll bet most managers forget that. > >There's simply no way I'd have taken on maintaining > >large amounts of assembler. > > Yes, I would never assign such work to you because you don't > think that way. There are probably very few ppl still capable of doing it. Certainly not coming out of universities I'd reckon. It's simply not sensible to use assembler any more for most things. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 09:26 In article <45703B1F.85ABEBBB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > >> >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >> >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >> >capitalistic society? >> >> Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >> motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >> more often than the rich kid. > >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic and not socialistic. > >Th rich kid is likely to have a better education, >better connections and better >opportunities ( including relatively easy access to money for investment ). The rich kid is also likely to be quite lazy and never taught, nor learn, how to get work done. As for education, the only way to learn stuff is by doing it or watching other people do it and then trying to emulate them. This does not include the GIGO which is now often found in universities these days. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 09:28 In article <45703A8F.D217E872(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Yup. I knew people who would read a listing when going to the >> toilet. > >Good Lord ! > >Did they use it for the other thing too ? Heavens! NO! The listing has the hen scratches that may fix the bug. Don't you read code as a hobby? I like reading math books. Haven't done that for a while because I've been trying to learn all this people-stuff. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 09:31
In article <45703BBE.E394AE6A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >I do prefer at least medium level code though. >> >> >> >> Yes, you seem to have that kind of thinking style. >> >> Haven't you ever been curious about what goes on >> >> underneath all the layers? >> > >> >I know what does. >> > >> >In fact PL/M allows you to invoke certain instructions explicitly such as >> >SHL, SHR, ROL and ROR for example. >> > >> >I do prefer to be able to write the rest of the code in something close to >> >English though. >> >> Then you rely on other people to do the correct thing. This >> is the philosophy you've had in this whole thread. > >Don't be daft. I'm not. I pretty much know how you think. >By a similar token you'd use a typewriter instead of a >computer. It depends on the what is to be accomplished. >There is quite >simply no merit in reinventing the wheel every time you >want to multiply 2 numbers for example. There is merit if I'm trying to breed kiddies who are going to design the next 5 architectures of CPUs. > >You invariably seem to think it's 'better' to do things the >'hard way'. Of course but for only the first time. After that, the kid can use all different ways. >That's simply backward thinking. Sigh! No, that's training. /BAH |