Who were the opponents of Lisp?
in [Lisp]
|
From: Xah Lee on 21 Apr 2010 16:26 On Apr 21, 5:00 am, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-20, Xah Lee wrote: > > > Actually, just yesterday i wrote: > > > ⢠The Writing Style on XahLee.org > >  http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/xah_style.html > > The paragraph on dashes goes against every standard for English that > I've seen.  In typeset work, em-dashes should never be spaced > (although I use " --- " for them in plain-text formats such as > USENET), and there is a useful distinction between em- and en-dashes > (the latter are for ranges of numbers, for example).  Many British > publishers follow a custom of using spaced en-dashes instead of > em-dashes; I don't like this, but at least they are making the > distinction. I think most of your remarks is factually wrong. I was going to be colorful and say that the logical conclusion is that you haven't seen much, but, just that most of your remarks is factually wrong. See, for example, here, on the section on Hyphen and Dashes: ⢠The Moronicities of Typography http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/typography.html Xah â http://xahlee.org/ â
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 21 Apr 2010 18:47 Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > Modern programming languages, especially the object-oriented ones, seem > to encourage a philosophy of "Let's try this and see whether it works". > That's a big mistake, in my opinion. I too would like a more "constructivist" approach to programming, but unfortunately, with most of the code out there (libraries, etc), you cannot really expect to be able to use correctly them without trying them out. (All, really, you would be hard pressed finding one that is documented well enough, and enough bug free to be able to write a client working from the first time). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Peter Brooks on 21 Apr 2010 19:27 On Apr 21, 1:41 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: > > > Here's an interesting example from my teaching computer programming. > Programmers typically expect to have to revise over and over, with > numerous recompilations as errors are revealed. Once, though, I set a > programming assignment with the rule "You only get one chance to have it > compile and run correctly." (This was in the days of punched cards, > where the turnaround was one compilation per day.) Remarkably, about 70% > of the class turned in a working program. Since the students knew they > couldn't use trial and error, they took more care to avoid inserting the > errors in the first place. > I had a similar experience. I was taught COBOL programming with no computer at all. We had to write the whole program on coding sheets, in pencil. The scoring of tests was simple, you started with 100%, any typo was -1%; the tests ran to about four coding sheets, any logic error was -3%, the pass rate was 96% and if you failed the weekly test, two weeks running, you were off the course. They turned out some amazing programming machines that way. > > Modern programming languages, especially the object-oriented ones, seem > to encourage a philosophy of "Let's try this and see whether it works". > That's a big mistake, in my opinion. > I agree. My more human experience was with Pascal. With that I found that once I got the compile to run through, there were seldom any logic errors - unlike FORTRAN or assembler that would compile first time, but be riddled with them.
From: Xah Lee on 21 Apr 2010 20:34 On Apr 20, 8:56 pm, Peter Axon <pe...(a)canvasbook.com.au> wrote: > But you don't write in-depth technical stuff. You write in a > blogger-tutorial style. humm... that's a reasonable critique. Am trying to think hard, of all my hyperbole and boasts of my writing skills and knowledge, i don't think i have written a coherent academic quality work of more than, say, 50k words. Well, actually, my special plane curves, my wall paper group exposition, my emacs tutorial, come close, or very close. In fact, thinking about these works, it simply thwarts your claim. They are rather in-depth and not just blogging styled tutorial. The plane curves and emacs each are book sized too, much more than 50k words. Especially the math works, are cited in more than ten academic journals and text books. what am thinking more to myself, is that i don't think i have wrote some none technical subjects that's substantial and coherently sizable. All i have is pretty much a collection of a hundred or 2 disparate short essays that are more or less so-called creative writings, mostly academically classified as rant style of social commentary. But here again, what am actually doing is close to introspection of self-worth â a flaw of mine. All things considered, of my published writings, with as much indifference as possible, i'd say they are more worth than say lifetime output of more than 90% of today's PhDs. > The following are from your article: > > Do not use a "and" for the last item in a sequence of things, unless > > it is too odd. For example, write "My favorite fruits are peach, > > banana, cherry", not "My favorite fruits are peach, banana, and > > cherry". > > The article "an" is always written as "a". > > Which clown invents their own grammar? It makes your stuff just awkward > to read. Awkwardness is a point of view, young man. Don't you find Shakespeare awkward to read? Don't you find Chinese awkward to read? Do you find one cuming or one Finnegans awkward to read? have you thought about the reasons why? If you put your mind into this, you could, write a 3 thousands words essay about this topic. For example, here's some tips to start your essay. Classify the reasons. Give example of each. Quote the part of literature for each. Define what is meant by âawkward to readâ. And, unavoidably, you probably have to philosophize about the audience. Depending on where you want to go, your essay can turn into classification of audiences, research report on english styles, nature and character of works from recognized stylists, definition of english styles, history of english styles, survey of world's styles by region... etc. (the work in this can become years long, tantamount to a phD's thesis.) After which, you'll have a reasonable workout on this matter, then perhaps you'll see, my point of view. alternatively, you can just read more of me. ⢠To An Or Not To An http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/an.html ⢠On the Postposition of Conjunction in Penultimate Position of a Sequence http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/1_2_and_3.html Xah â http://xahlee.org/ â
From: russell on 24 Apr 2010 04:48
Xah Lee wrote: <snip> > > On Apr 19, 4:40 am, r...(a)rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote: > Robert Uhl <eadmun...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> As Halmos said in his classic little essay: >> >> http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/pg/data/halmosw.pdf [3.3 MB, 30 pages] >> How to write mathematics >> P. R. Halmos >> ... >> 6. Write in Spirals >> The best way to start writing, perhaps the only way, is to write >> on the spiral plan. According to the spiral plan the chapters get >> written in the order 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. You think you >> know how to write Chapter 1, but after you have done it and gone >> on to Chapter 2, you'll realize that you could have done a better >> job on Chapter 2 if you had done Chapter 1 differently. There is >> no help for it but to go back, do Chapter 1 again differently, do a >> better job on Chapter 2, and then dive into Chapter 3. And of course >> you know what will happen: Chapter 3 will show up the weaknesses of >> Chapters 1 and 2, and there is no help for it... etc., etc., etc. >> <snip> No no no, The best way to rewrite, as everybody knows, is to use a modified tower of Hanoi sequence e.g. (1 2 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 1) --russell --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |