On 1/29/06, Matthew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That is one reason that I love the hard sciences. We are constantly
> > learning new things, cherished old theories are no longer useful. If we
> > are to stay in the field, we must evaluate information rationally. It
> > is a bit like having your code criticized. It is not you, it is your
> > code. Many programmers have trouble with the difference.
>
> Again, simple system. I like the concept, but as a computer scientist and
> philosopher, I don't see how it can scale. With computer science, given
> enough gumption and knowledge, you can prove things or disprove them on your
> own computer system. Opinions about which algorithm is a "better O(n)" than
> another, but simple experimentation and testing can provide analysis of which
> is faster, more stable, etc... Better yet, if someone proves my code is bad,
> they can show me how and I can reproduce it on my own system.
Yep. That's why at shudder with comments like "Fox New is twisted and
dangerous." Maybe if I had a few case studies to back up that claim, I
could prove or disprove it on my own systems, so to speak.
--
Collins Richey
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write
the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
smart enough to debug it.
-Brian Kernighan
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
