On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:47:34 -0400
Tony Baldwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:40:28PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> > >On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
> > >Tom Furie wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Programming
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:40:28PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> >On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
> >Tom Furie wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >>
> >>>Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
> >>>times you need
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:40:28 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
Tom Furie wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
times you need to code to get th
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:40:28 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
> > Tom Furie wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
> >>> times you need
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
Tom Furie wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
times you need to code to get things done. Dare you to configure
dwm without coding.
However, there is
Steve Litt wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
Tom Furie wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
times you need to code to get things done. Dare you to configure
dwm without coding.
However, th
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
Tom Furie wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
> > times you need to code to get things done. Dare you to configure
> > dwm without coding.
>
> However, ther
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:46:58 +0100
Tom Furie wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of
> > times you need to code to get things done. Dare you to configure
> > dwm without coding.
>
> However, ther
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:41:57PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Programming belongs on any Linux list, especially since a lot of times
> you need to code to get things done. Dare you to configure dwm without
> coding.
However, there is a difference between discussing code in the context of
a soluti
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:25 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 02:02:54PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > What do people like instead of Perl, and why?
>
> Are you aware of the OT mailing list:
> Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
> http://lists
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 02:02:54PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
>
> What do people like instead of Perl, and why?
Are you aware of the OT mailing list:
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
--
"If you're n
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 06:37:09PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> First, this isn't the slightest bit OT. A week doesn't go by where I
> don't need to write either a simple script or a slightly bigger program
> to make Linux do just what I want.
I disagree. It has NOTHING to do with debian support,
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:02:54 -0700
David Christensen wrote:
> On 06/28/2014 06:14 AM, slitt wrote:
> > LOL, at a client's place, I was trying to customize the
> > Perl-written Interchange web store software (don't ever use it, it's
> > an atrocity) on circa 2003 Red Hat, and had to use CPAN for a
Bob Proulx wrote:
> I keep waiting for Ruby to mature and get past these packaging
> problems. I hope that one day it will be as well packaged as Perl.
> But years have rolled by and still the problems continue.
As someone watching from the outside of the Ruby world (well, standing on
the edge,
David Christensen wrote:
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
> purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm
> wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything else.
I'd say that Ruby itself is a reasonably general purpose lan
David Christensen wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >But Ruby suffers from being popular on platforms that lack a good
> >package manager. That hurts it terribly on Debian because so many
> >Ruby authors have written so much packaging code making it difficult
> >or perhaps impossible to create a well b
On 12/26/2011 02:54 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
But Ruby suffers from being popular on platforms that lack a good
package manager. That hurts it terribly on Debian because so many
Ruby authors have written so much packaging code making it difficult
or perhaps impossible to create a well behaved system
On 12/26/2011 01:12 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
That's Common Lisp. I think SBCL is the most popular free-software
implementation for the language. Emacs+Slime is the most popular
development environment.
I've installed all three packages and will play with them.
Usenet group comp.lang.lisp is
>> Which Debian Squeeze package do you recommend for "hello, world!" and STFW
>> tutorials?
>
> Not enough experience with it to make a recommendation, so I'll defer
> to Teemu on that. (I already had SBCL loaded, and I'm loading
> emacs-slime now to take a look.
Digging around, I find a nice surp
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:14 AM, David Christensen
wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 06:17 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
>
>
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be purpose-built
> for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm wanting, but I
David Christensen wrote:
> Joel Rees wrote:
> > Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
>
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
> purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps
> I'm wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything
> else.
I
On 12/25/2011 06:17 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm
wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything else.
Well, lisp
* 2011-12-25T12:46:07-08:00 * David Christensen wrote:
> I'm looking for a language/ system that is general-purpose in scope
> and supports historical through recent paradigms: procedural,
> structured, modular, and OO.
> The applications I want to build include web content management
> systems a
On 12/26/11, David Christensen wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> On a more general note: for "advanced application" (as the subject
>> focuses on), and assuming that "advanced" translates to "complicated" -
>
> Yes, you caught me. I had a hard time deciding what word to us
David Christensen wrote:
On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
The type of applications I've been writing with Perl include system
utilities, text munging, data acquisition and control, and CGI
scripts. Most everything interfaces via the environment, STDIN,
STDOUT, STDERR, and/or fil
On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On a more general note: for "advanced application" (as the subject
focuses on), and assuming that "advanced" translates to "complicated" -
Yes, you caught me. I had a hard time deciding what word to use, and
settled on "advanced". To elaborate, I
Joel Rees wrote:
On 12/23/11, David Christensen wrote:
Someone wrote:
I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
I have become disillusioned with the new
Yes, specifically at http://www.jsoftware.com/stable.htm,
though I'd recommend linking from "Getting Started" on
the Home page -- for overview, docs, labs
Joel Rees wrote:
On 12/25/11, PMA wrote:
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and supers
Joel Rees wrote:
>(Sigh. My son hates programming. He likes mucking around with the
>source code for his customized Three Kingdoms MUD. Perl. I've tried to
>teach him C and it's like he thinks I'm trying to brainwash him for
>even mentioning it. Heh.)
A MUD written in Perl? Sounds like an…interes
On 12/25/11, PMA wrote:
> Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
> you might consider its successor and superset,
> *J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Is there a package for that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On 12/23/11, David Christensen wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>> I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
>> early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
>> compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
>>
>> I have become disillusioned with the new C++ t
re: Perl
IMHO: The true power of perl comes from cpan. Nothing else comes close
in terms of a huge library of modules that self-assemble pretty easily.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Debian Forum comparing J to Brainf*
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:09:31 -0500
From: Marshall Lochbaum
To: Programming forum ,
peterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu
Well, I'm not tired of this stuff quite yet, so here goes:
Brainfuck and APL/J/K
On 2011-12-24 14:06:20 -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> As you can see, there's more than one way to do it (TIMTOWTDI). (And,
> probably more than I found.) There are even more ways that appear correct
> upon casual coding, but either generate errors/ warnings (lucky you) or have
> some subtle b
On 12/24/2011 08:50 AM, PMA wrote:
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and superset,
*J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Interesting. :-)
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On 12/24/2011 02:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure
distributed computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
Interesting. But, Go has similar (?) concurrency features and l
On 12/24/2011 01:06 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
what about D ?
I'd really like to start using a UML power tool to help me with advanced
applications.
I've used Umbrello, but it hasn't been updated since June 2007 and its
Perl support is thin/ immature. (C++ and Java appear to be the best
sup
On 24/12/11 23:13, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Nah... D is just warmed over C.
may be more than a better C.
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure distributed
computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
J
Original Message
Subject: Re: OT programming languages/ systems for advanced applications on
Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:23:46 -0500
From: tony baldwin
To: g62993...@rezozer.net
- Original Message -
From: Jerome BENOIT
Sent: 12/24/11 04:06 PM
To: debian-user
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:46:23PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
$ cat /etc/debian_version
6.0.3
$ python --version
Python 2.6.6
On 12/24/2011 10:51 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
My system and Python versions are identical to yours.
Python 3.2.2 seems to be the current stable:
Nah... D is just warmed over C.
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure
distributed computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
what about D ?
On 24/12/11 21:56, David Christensen wr
On 12/24/2011 08:54 AM, lina wrote:
Did not notice the difference between () and {} in tutorial.
Perl is the most complex and subtle programming language/ system I know
(attempt?). For example, see the following Perl script which
demonstrates syntax for accessing single and multiple (slice)
what about D ?
On 24/12/11 21:56, David Christensen wrote:
On 12/24/2011 06:44 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
for that matter, Ada, if you're wr
On 12/24/2011 06:44 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
for that matter, Ada, if you're writing mission-critical/safety-critical
systems
If you're real
On 2011-12-24 18:15:34 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> No doubt it's powerful, and you can do powerful things. The problem is that
> the syntax is so ideosyncratic, that I'm so relieved to get someting finally
> to do what I need, that I can't be bothered expressing it in a very concise
> way.
W
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:15:34PM +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 24/12/11 17:34, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> >>Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
> >>PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:46:23PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 12/23/2011 07:57 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
> >I noted your comments on Python, and while I haven't any
> >experience with the 2 -> 3 transition, I am inclined to prefer
> >it. In fact, almost all my work is now
On 24/12/11 17:34, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's IMHO the worst
programming language ever invented. Totally non-intuitive.
On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
> PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's IMHO the worst
> programming language ever invented. Totally non-intuitive.
I completely disagree. It's a very power
Should have gone to the list; sorry Lina:
Original Message
Subject: Re: OT programming languages/ systems for advanced applications
on Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:35:29 +
From: Tony van der Hoff
To: lina
On 24/12/11 15:43, lina wrote:
Tonight I am pretty free, so
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and superset,
*J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/
systems for advanced applications on Linux?
Li
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-12-24 23:43:18 +0800, lina wrote:
>> Tonight I am pretty free, so started to read something about perl.
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>
>> print "Hello World! \n";
>>
>> $a = 3;
>>
>> print "$a \n";
>>
>> @food = {"apples", "pears", "eel
On 2011-12-24 23:43:18 +0800, lina wrote:
> Tonight I am pretty free, so started to read something about perl.
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> print "Hello World! \n";
>
> $a = 3;
>
> print "$a \n";
>
> @food = {"apples", "pears", "eels"};
I suppose you want:
@food = ("apples", "pears", "eels");
{
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> David Christensen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/ systems
>> for advanced applications on Linux?
>>
> Lisp
> Smalltalk
> Erlang
> Haskell
> Caml/OCaml
> APL - if you're crazy or want to be; o
David Christensen wrote:
Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/
systems for advanced applications on Linux?
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
f
On 12/23/2011 07:57 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
I noted your comments on Python, and while I haven't any
experience with the 2 -> 3 transition, I am inclined to prefer
it. In fact, almost all my work is now in that language. You
can see some examples at my page (below) in the SOFT
David:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:14:44PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> Someone wrote:
> >I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
> >early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
> >compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
> >
> >I have be
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:18:47 +0100,
Wilko Fokken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:52:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:37, Tom wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> These
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:52:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:37, Tom wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > > etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:05:22AM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
now, think of an example in which you encounter anything remotely like
full sentence structure in code,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:49:02AM +0100, Johannes Zarl wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 05:33, Tom wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:20:36PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> > > the distinction that's being missed here is that people don't code in
> > > englis
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 05:33, Tom wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:20:36PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> > the distinction that's being missed here is that people don't code in
> > english, people use english words as symbols in their code. there's a
> > huge difference.
>
> Random webpage
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:20:36PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> the distinction that's being missed here is that people don't code in
> english, people use english words as symbols in their code. there's a
> huge difference.
Random webpage I have open...
GtkTreeStore* gtk_tree_store_new
on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:51:17PM -0800, Tom insinuated:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:36:20PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> > i'm arguing that _neither_ english _nor_ german is perfectly
> > suited to code, since one needs to do some translation to get the
> > sentence into the form in which a human
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:36:20PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> i'm arguing that _neither_ english _nor_ german is perfectly suited to
> code, since one needs to do some translation to get the sentence into
> the form in which a human would say it.
>
> on top of that, i'm arguing that _no_ langu
on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:05:22AM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> >
> >>Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >>
> >>>now, think of an example in which you encounter anything remotely like
> >>>full sentence structure in code,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 20:54 GMT, David Jardine penned:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >>
> >> english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> >> etc. but it consists mos
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 at 21:09 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 15:09, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 at 18:59 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > -
>> > Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeffe
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 15:09, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 at 18:59 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
>
>
> > --
> > -
> > Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Jefferson, LA USA
> >
> > "Eternal vigilance is the price of l
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 at 18:59 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> --
> -
> Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jefferson, LA USA
>
> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty: power is ever
> stealing from the many to the few. The manna of
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:03:56PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > But the "less formal process", i.e., intuitive mapping without know-
> > > ing what adjectives, adverbs, participles, etc are is less efficient
> > > than having formal knowledge (even if that formal knowledge does not
> > > consist
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 09:52, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:09:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson insinuated:
> > On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 17:15, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 22:02 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> > > >
> > > > I didn't learn that exact method, but did learn w
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 09:48, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:52:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson insinuated:
> > On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:37, Tom wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change sha
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
...
of course, you can create vario
on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:09:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson insinuated:
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 17:15, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 22:02 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> > >
> > > I didn't learn that exact method, but did learn what I guess
> > > you'd call "sentence decomposition". It fu
on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:52:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson insinuated:
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:37, Tom wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > > etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick l
on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> >
> >>Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >>
> >>>on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> of course, you can
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 19:46, Tom wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:23:13AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > Of course I know it's a fork. It's my paramater and I know what I'm
> > passing. I wouldn't have called it "fork" otherwise.
>
> For the purpose of the discussion, I'll grant you the poi
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:23:13AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> Of course I know it's a fork. It's my paramater and I know what I'm
> passing. I wouldn't have called it "fork" otherwise.
For the purpose of the discussion, I'll grant you the point.
But, clearly a (normal) fork is either red or
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 03:32:08PM -0700, Tom wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:50:40PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:45PM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > > I would say isRed(fork) contains an implied [it] and [a]:
> > >
> > > [it] | is | fork
> > > -||
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 17:15, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 22:02 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> >
> > I didn't learn that exact method, but did learn what I guess you'd
> > call "sentence decomposition". It fundamental to being able to
> > comprehend complex sentences.
> >
>
> I
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 22:02 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
>
> I didn't learn that exact method, but did learn what I guess you'd
> call "sentence decomposition". It fundamental to being able to
> comprehend complex sentences.
>
I don't know about that. Having a mental map of sentences may be
funda
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:50:40PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:45PM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > I would say isRed(fork) contains an implied [it] and [a]:
> >
> > [it] | is | fork
> > -||--
> > || \ \
> > \a \red
> >
> > fork
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 16:21, Tom wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:54:26PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > >
> > > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > > etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:37, Tom wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick like pieces. german (and
> > lot of other languages) is more like putt
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:45PM -0700, Tom wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:54:26PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > >
> > > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > > etc. but it consists mostly o
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 20:54 GMT, David Jardine penned:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >>
> >> english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> >> etc. but it consists mos
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:54:26PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >
> > english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> > etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick like pieces. german (and
> > lot of other l
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 20:54 GMT, David Jardine penned:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>>
>> english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
>> etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick like pieces. german
>> (and lot of other languages)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick like pieces. german (and
> lot of other languages) is more like putty - you mold things together.
> the lego-like
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:11:49PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> english is like lego, yes there are some pieces that change shape
> etc. but it consists mostly of bricks and brick like pieces. german (and
> lot of other languages) is more like putty - you mold things together.
> the lego-like s
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
...
of course, you can create various complex and ambiguous sentences in
english, the point is that you can take few forms
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> ...
> >> of course, you can create various complex and ambiguous sentences in
> >>english, the point is that you can take few forms of senten
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> ...
> >> of course, you can create various complex and ambiguous sentences in
> >>english, the point is that you can take few forms of sentences a
At Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:24:44 -0700,
Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> * csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031018 03:22]:
> > At Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:28:44 -0600,
> > Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 22:37 GMT, Erik Steffl penned:
> > > >
> > > >english has a fairly simple a re
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
...
of course, you can create various complex and ambiguous sentences in
english, the point is that you can take few forms of sentences and
have a working language (that's pretty much what BASIC (talking
about pro
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 18:24, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031018 03:22]:
> > At Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:28:44 -0600,
> > Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 22:37 GMT, Erik Steffl penned:
[snip]
> ASCII. I'd predict just the opposite of your "probably": I t
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:53:34AM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
Nori Heikkinen wrote:
the two are apples and oranges, my friend, especially when you're
dealing with something that no one can have an objective point of
view on, given different native languages.
??? you can me
* csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031018 03:22]:
> At Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:28:44 -0600,
> Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 22:37 GMT, Erik Steffl penned:
> > >
> > >english has a fairly simple a regular grammar so it's
> > >fairly easy to create english based programming la
on Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:53:34AM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >the two are apples and oranges, my friend, especially when you're
> >dealing with something that no one can have an objective point of
> >view on, given different native languages.
>
> ??? you can measure h
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
