On Fri, 27 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Ah, but the Crazy Cranky C Curmudgeons Classic Computer Talk list is a
> subset of cctalk. But, there was a big crash a while back, and
> separation of the lists hasn't been completely successful.
Yes, quite correct and the tagline for the list is:
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Josh Dersch wrote:
Oh, I see what's going on. See, this is the "cctalk" (Classic Computing
Talk) mailing list. I think what you're meaning to send this to is the
"ccctalk" (Cranky C Curmudgeons Talk) mailing list. Could we maybe talk
about classic computing rather than go
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Paul Koning wrote:
["Demystification"]
Those first two titles sound reasonable. The third sounds strangely
touchy-feely rather than like an engineering course.
A touchy-feely nickname applied by those who personally wouldn't have
anything to do with it.
They had a
> On May 27, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
> ...
> Anyway, back to, . . .
> Clancy and Harvey reworked the UC undergraduate lower division (first two
> years) curriculum. They setup a three course sequence at the core,
> consisting of "Abstraction", "Data
> I had words with Clancy and Harvey. While need may be diminshed,
> there is never a complete elimination of the need to pay attention to,
> and optimize near, the level of hardware.
[top posted, with Swift's remarks below]
The Clancy and Harvey topic is about curriculum, and teaching of
On 2016-05-27 12:54 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
...
I'm not saying the state of the art can't be improved. I only assert that
there are some strategies for doing so that seem flawed
On 5/27/2016 9:08 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
While I don't formally do agile, what I do do is in line with many of
>the principles behind agile - things like "release early, release
>often", short iterations, and constant customer involvement.
I can appreciate some of the elements, also. It's
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Mouse wrote:
> Agile and XP are less about programming productivity in isolation and
> more about customer interfacing - and therefore productivity in terms of
> producing happy customers
Well, as you suspected, I wasn't really thinking about that. That's the
convenience
> I've worked under Agile and XP regimes and I hate both with a
> passion. They were both a *huge* productivity drag (ever actually
> tried "pair programming"?)
Yes. I've done agile and XP and even a little pair programming.
And...I agree and I disagree.
If you have a small project, something
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
> I had words with Clancy and Harvey. While need may be diminshed, there
> is never a complete elimination of the need to pay attention to, and
> optimize near, the level of hardware.
I'm going to loudly agree here. While I find assembly coding somewhat
10 matches
Mail list logo