Jonathan Cast wrote:
> I've been busy convincing myself I'm really trying to
> replace TeX, instead. After all, TeX is clearly a much less adequate
> programming language...
>
That's brilliant.
OTOH, remember Oedipus, who, by attempting to avoid hubris, got caught
right in it.
(The old Greeks
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 22:34 -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> There's something I'm missing in all of this.
>
> Perl is in the process of rebooting itself (perl6 is syntactically
> very different from perl5; the closest it's ever previously gotten to
> this kind of radical change was th
There's something I'm missing in all of this.
Perl is in the process of rebooting itself (perl6 is syntactically
very different from perl5; the closest it's ever previously gotten to
this kind of radical change was the change from ' to :: as the package
separator). Perl5 will continue to e
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:04 +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
> Jonathan Cast wrote:
> > (I am actually writing my own language;
> > when I get something usable for real work, I may very well just plain
> > un-subscribe from haskell-cafe, even though I will continue using
> > Haskell for bootstrapping
Jonathan Cast wrote:
> (I am actually writing my own language;
> when I get something usable for real work, I may very well just plain
> un-subscribe from haskell-cafe, even though I will continue using
> Haskell for bootstrapping for some time after that.)
>
/me is curious.
And I'm wondering wh
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:23 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> >> No, I hate C and will never use it again in my entire life unless
> >> forced to at the point of a gun.
> >
> > Why? Its
On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
No, I hate C and will never use it again in my entire life unless
forced to at the point of a gun.
Why? Its libraries are far better, its editors are far better [1],
its
compilers ar
Believe it or not, but I still edit Haskell sources with vi sometimes.
My favorite Emacs doesn't work on iPhone.
On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:18, John A. De Goes wrote:
Are you saying has been no progress since K&R C in the number of
libraries available to C programmers? And that C programmers st
Jonathan Cast wrote:
> IDEs are for losers
>
Hell is freezing over: I'm actually agreeing with an editor heretic.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signa
"John A. De Goes" wrote:
> Are you saying has been no progress since K&R C in the number of
> libraries available to C programmers?
>
I never did, I asked you to compare usability. If you want it in plain
English, library semantics still suck, hell, there isn't even name
spacing.
> And that C
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> No, I hate C and will never use it again in my entire life unless
> forced to at the point of a gun.
Why? Its libraries are far better, its editors are far better [1], its
compilers are far better, its tool support is far better, it's
No, I hate C and will never use it again in my entire life unless
forced to at the point of a gun.
You're point? :-P
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:18 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> Are you saying has been no progress since K&R C in the number of
> libraries available to C programmers? And that C programmers still
> have to edit files with vi and compile and link by specifying all
> files on the command-line?
>
Are you saying has been no progress since K&R C in the number of
libraries available to C programmers? And that C programmers still
have to edit files with vi and compile and link by specifying all
files on the command-line?
You may disagree, but the evidence points in the opposite direct
"John A. De Goes" wrote:
> What do you mean by "progress"? I noted before that there are
> tradeoffs. Constraining the evolution of the language in backward
> compatible ways leads to substantial improvements in tools,
> libraries, and the speed of compiled code. That's progress in several
>
Achim Schneider wrote:
> -calculus
>
PiSigma calculus, that is. I really shouldn't attempt to send unicode
via US-ascii.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of
16 matches
Mail list logo
