Joe Marshall scripsit: > Reminds me of those papers on GC that have simply replaced the notation > used by the legacy research (which was Lisp) with more `modern' > notation (which is Java). Of course Professor Simpleton is too young > to recognize or remember the prior work, so the paper is accepted. > Besides, infix notation is `intuitive' and needs no explanation.
Yup. If you've never read Reynolds's historical paper "The Discoveries of Continuations" <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.40.237>, it's very accessible (especially for a Reynolds paper!) and documents at least eight independent discoveries of the concept. Similarly, Henry Petrowski has documented how the world sees about one major bridge collapse every generation. Lots of lessons are learned from each, but the underlying problem of underestimating risk isn't passed on, and young designers begin to push the envelope from a new direction until you get a Galloping Gertie or other such problem. John Roebling was wise: knowing that he had no math to calculate the dynamical stability of his bridge (it wouldn't be developed till the 1940s), he made its reinforcements *six times* stronger than his calculations indicated. As a result, the Brooklyn Bridge is the *only* suspension bridge of its era still standing. -- We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just. --Gollum [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
