Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:48:23 -0400, George Neuner wrote: > I don't know the correct term, but what I was talking about was a tiny > switch with a 1/2 inch metal handle that looks like a longish grain of > rice. We used to call them "knife" switches because after hours > flipping them they would f

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

George Neuner wrote: On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:03:44 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: From: George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A friend of mine had an early 8080 micros that was programmed throu

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:03:44 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t >wrote: > >>> From: George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A friend of mine had an >>> early 8080 micros that was programmed through the front pa

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: >> From: George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A friend of mine had an >> early 8080 micros that was programmed through the front panel using >> knife switches > > When you say "knife switches", do you mean the kind that

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> From: George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A friend of mine had an early 8080 micros that was programmed > through the front panel using knife switches When you say "knife switches", do you mean the kind that are shaped like flat paddles? I think that would be the IMSAI, which came after the ALTA

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) | > In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the | > opcodes (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that | > the low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nib

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) > In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the > opcodes (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that > the low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nibble for > the opcode! ;-} That's a fascinating design constrain

RE: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

* but in fixed point hardware it all got a bit convoluted. Phil (KDF9 Fan) -Original Message- From: Phil Runciman Sent: Friday, 22 August 2008 8:32 a.m. To: python-list@python.org Subject: RE: The Importance of Terminology's Quality >On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, s

RE: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote: >>>Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded >>>machine code here, and know's squat about it. >>> >>>I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are >>>routines that program machine code? Yes, burned

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Arne Vajhøj wrote: Paul Wallich wrote: Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...(snip) I thought microcode was relative well defined as being the software

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:22:05 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: >> >>> Martin Gregorie wrote: Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode was introduced. Mainframes and minis desig

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: Martin Gregorie wrote: Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't use or need it No, most S/360s used microcode.

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > Martin Gregorie wrote: >> Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode >> was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't >> use or need it > > No, most S/360s used microcode. I never use

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Rob Warnock wrote: What was the corresponding 1401 boot sequence? The 1401 had a boot-from-tape-1 button on the console, and a boot-from-card button on the card reader. You couldn't truly boot from a disk; you loaded a little starter deck of about 20 cards on the card reader. On the 1401, t

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't use or need it No, most S/360s used microcode. -- John W. Kennedy "There are those who argue that everything breaks even in thi

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Paul Wallich wrote: Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!! [snip] I don't see the distinction. Just dissasemble it and

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!! [snip] I don't see the distinction. Just dissasemble it and find out. There's

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:23:57 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!! >> [sni

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!! > [snip] > > I don't see the distinction. > Just dissasemble it and find out. > There's a 1:1 relat

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:11:09 -0400, George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >> >>>Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>+--- >>>| I was f

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >+--- >| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >| >In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the opcodes >| >(all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: > >>Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>+--- >>| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first >>| learnt Elliott ass

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Piet van Oostrum wrote: Arne Vajhøj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (AV) wrote: AV> Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx JWK>

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, Rob Warnock wrote: > You're assuming that all machines *have* some sort of "boot ROM". Before > the microprocessor days, that was certainly not always the case. The > "boot ROM", or other methods of booting a machine without manually > entering at least a small

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: | >In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the opcodes | >(all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that the | >low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nibble for | >the opc

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> Arne Vajhøj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (AV) wrote: >AV> Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: >>> John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made >JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx >JWK> family, or to

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote: >>Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded >>machine code here, and know's squat about it. >> >>I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are >>routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitw

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: > >>Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>+--- >>| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first >>| learnt Elliott ass

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >+--- >| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first >| learnt Elliott assembler, which required the op codes to be typed on >| octal but u

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first | learnt Elliott assembler, which required the op codes to be typed on | octal but used symbolic labels and variable names. Meanwhile a colleague | had started on a

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | I said "machine language" and I meant it. I haven't touched a 1401 since | 1966, and haven't dealt with a 1401 emulator since 1968, but I can | /still/ write a self-booting program. +--- Heh! I never dealt with a 1401 per

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:35 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > I said "machine language" and I meant it. > OK - I haven't touched that since typing ALTER commands into the console of a 1903 running the UDAS executive or, even better, patching the executive on the hand switches. I was fascinated, t

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: Martijn Lievaart wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401 (without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share th

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > Martijn Lievaart wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: >> >>> Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401 >>> (without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic >>>

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: >> The 1401 was a decent enough processor for many industrial tasks -- at >> that time -- but for general programming it was sheer horror. > > But the easiest machine language /ever/. True, very true. M4 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martijn Lievaart wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401 (without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic omission of any instruction that could do call-and-return without hard-codin

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401 > (without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic > omission of any instruction that could do call-and-return without > hard-coding an adcon with the

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

John W Kennedy wrote: Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx JWK> family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogr

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx JWK> family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by JWK> first o

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:28:33 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Note: On IBM 1620, instructions and forward-sweeping data records >were addressed by their *first* digit, whereas arithmetic fields >were addressed by

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx JWK> family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by JWK> first o

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JWK> Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made JWK> that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx JWK> family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by JWK> first overwriting the last instruction of what you we

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Rob Warnock wrote: Thunks were something used by Algol 60 *compiler writers* in the code generated by their compilers to implement the semantics of Algol 60 call-by-name, but were not visible to users at all [except that they allowed call-by-name to "work right"]. ...unless you were a system pr

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: I used Algol 60 on an Elliott 503 and the ICL 1900 series back when it was a current language. The term "thunking" did not appear in either compiler manual nor in any Algol 60 language definition I've seen. It doesn't have to; Algol 60 thunks are not part of the language.

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On 2008-07-22, Steve Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:21:50 +0100, Martin Gregorie ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>The first time I ran across the term "thunking" was when Windows 3 >>introduced the Win32S shim and hence the need to switch addressing between >>16 bit and

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:21:50 +0100, Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The first time I ran across the term "thunking" was when Windows 3 >introduced the Win32S shim and hence the need to switch addressing between >16 bit and 32 bit modes across call interfaces. That was called "thunking"

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Rob Warnock wrote: Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | John W Kennedy wrote: | > No, the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to | > /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL. | | Are you sure about that? +--- I d

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | John W Kennedy wrote: | > No, the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to | > /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL. | | Are you sure about that? +--- I don't know if John is, b

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Martin Gregorie wrote: Are you sure about that? I used Algol 60 on an Elliott 503 and the ICL 1900 series back when it was a current language. The term "thunking" did not appear in either compiler manual nor in any Algol 60 language definition I've seen. A60 could pass values by name or value

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > >> David Combs wrote: >>> passing >>> *unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that, >>> via something it maybe termed a "thunk") >> >>

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote: > David Combs wrote: >> passing >> *unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that, >> via something it maybe termed a "thunk") > > No, the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to > /implement/ ALG

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: ... the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL. Ah, thanks for the clarification. Is that info in the appropriate WikiPedia page? If not, maybe you would edit it in? Fr

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> >> ... the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to > >> /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL. > > Ah, thanks for the clarification. Is that info in the appropriate > > WikiPedia page? If not, maybe you would edit it in? > From: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL P

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: Why this response is so belated: = Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400 From: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas wrote: /\ | ,-.-. | | | | | |, .,---.,---.,---.,---.,---.,---.,---|,---. | | | | || |`---.| || || ||

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Why this response is so belated: = > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400 > From: John W Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to > /implement/ ALGOL 60,

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Why this response is so belated: = > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > P.S. Please don't look at my profile (at google groups), thanks! Please don't look at the orange an

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Why this response is so belated: = > Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:37:48 +0100 > From: Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > We all know that Java, Perl, Python and Lisp suck. Well at least you're three-quarters corr

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

David Combs wrote: passing *unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that, via something it maybe termed a "thunk") No, the "thunks" were necessary at the machine-language level to /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL. -- John W. Kennedy

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On 5 Giu, 12:37, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] P.S. Please don't look at my profile (at google groups), thanks! Jon Harrop -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote: >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Combs) >> Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by >> Fortran (1957?)?, and for sure the far-and-away the first as a >> platform for *so many* concepts of computer-science, eg lexical vs >> dynamic

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Combs) > Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by > Fortran (1957?)?, and for sure the far-and-away the first as a > platform for *so many* concepts of computer-science, eg lexical vs > dynamic ("special") variables, passing *unnamed* function

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Arne Vajhøj wrote: > szr wrote: >> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> szr wrote: Peter Duniho wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl i

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

szr wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: szr wrote: Peter Duniho wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } > bash and C. I don't like the

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Peter Duniho wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:27:35 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [...] >>> But the subthread Lew commente don was about Perl and Unix. That is >>> clearly off topic. >> >> I agree with and understand what you are saying in general, but >> still, isn't it possible that w

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:27:35 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] But the subthread Lew commente don was about Perl and Unix. That is clearly off topic. I agree with and understand what you are saying in general, but still, isn't it possible that were are people in the java group (and

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Arne Vajhøj wrote: > szr wrote: >> Peter Duniho wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Stephan Bour wrote: >> Lew wrote: >> } John Thingstad wrote: >> } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } >

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

szr wrote: Peter Duniho wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } > bash and C. I don't like the style, but many do. } } Plea

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

szr wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. } > I don't like the style, but many do. } } Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. Did it ever occur to you that you don

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Jürgen Exner wrote: > "szr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would rather have the OP comment about that, as he started the >> thread. > > The OP is a very well-known troll who has the habit of spitting out a > borderline OT article to a bunch of loosly related NGs ever so often > and then sits bac

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"szr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would rather have the OP comment about that, as he started the thread. The OP is a very well-known troll who has the habit of spitting out a borderline OT article to a bunch of loosly related NGs ever so often and then sits back and enjoys the complaints and co

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Peter Duniho wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } > bash and C. I don't like the style, but many

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Arne Vajhøj wrote: Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. } > I don't like the style, but many do. } } Please exclude the Java newsgroups fro

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Stephan Bour wrote: >> Lew wrote: >> } John Thingstad wrote: >> } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. >> } > I don't like the style, but many do. >> } >> } Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. >> >> Did it ever occur to you th

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Stephan Bour wrote: Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. } > I don't like the style, but many do. } } Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak for entire news groups?

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew wrote: } John Thingstad wrote: } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. } > I don't like the style, but many do. } } Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak for entire news groups? Stephan. -- http:

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Gordon Etly wrote: Lew wrote: John Thingstad wrote: Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. I don't like the style, but many do. Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. Why? Do you speak for everyone in that, this, or other groups? I don't know

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew wrote: > John Thingstad wrote: > > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. > > I don't like the style, but many do. > Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. Why? Do you speak for everyone in that, this, or other groups? -- G.Etly -- http://mai

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

John Thingstad wrote: Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C. I don't like the style, but many do. Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion. -- Lew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

PÃ¥ Fri, 30 May 2008 02:56:37 +0200, skrev David Combs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the importance of naming of functions. Lisp is *so* early a language (1

VERY SORRY FOR THAT CROSSPOST; Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

(This one is also cross-posted, to apologize to one and all about my just-prior followup.) I stupidly didn't remember that whatever followup I made would also get crossposted until *after* I had kneejerked hit "s" (send) before I noticed the warning (Pnews?) on just how many groups it would be pos

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> the importance of naming of functions. > Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by Fortran (1957?)?, and for sure the far-and-a

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Waylen Gumbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sherman Pendley wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > >> > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: >> > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: >> > >> > I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit) >> > but posing an

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT): > ... > Let me give a few example. > > • “lambda”, widely used as a keyword in functional languages, is named > just “Function” in Mathematica. The “lambda” happend to be called so > in the field of symbolic l

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >George Neuner wrote: > >>On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT), "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>• Functions [in Mathematica] that takes elements out of list >>>are variously named First, Rest, Las

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Sherman Pendley wrote: Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this message was posted are about netiquette. Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this > message was posted are about netiquette. Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic. sherm-- -- My blog:

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Waylen Gumbal wrote: George Neuner wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting. This is what I don't unders

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

George Neuner wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as > > comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more > > people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - eve

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

George Neuner wrote: +--- | Common Lisp doesn't have "filter". +--- Of course it does! It just spells it REMOVE-IF-NOT!! ;-} ;-} > (remove-if-not #'oddp (iota 10)) (1 3 5 7 9) > (remove-if-not (lambda (x) (> x 4)) (iota 10)) (5 6 7 8 9) > -Rob

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sherman Pendley wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > >> > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: >> > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: >> > >> > I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit) >> > but posi

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so why not just skip the thread or toss the OP in your >killfile so you don't see his postings. Done years ago. >If others want to discuss his >topics, who are you or I to tell them not to? They are very welcome to do so in an appropriate NG for th

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Jürgen Exner wrote: > "Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sherman Pendley wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: > > > > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: > > Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as > > comp,programming as yo

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew wrote: > Waylen Gumbal wrote: >> Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as >> comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more >> people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone >> seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a >> "

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"Waylen Gumbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sherman Pendley wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > >> > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: >> > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: >Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programming >as you pointed out), so you actually reach more

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Waylen Gumbal wrote: Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a "flamefest", when in fact

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Sherman Pendley wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: > > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: > > > > I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit) > > but posing an interesting matter of discussion. > > It might be interesting in the abstract, bu

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:25:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote: >> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> the importance of naming of functions. > >> ... [take] a keyword and ask a wide >> audience, who doesn't know about the language or even unfamilia

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Terry Reedy wrote: > "Jon Harrop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Perhaps the best example I can think of to substantiate your original > point > | is simple comparison because Mathematica allows: > | > | a < b < c > | > | I wish other languages did. > > Python d

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"Jon Harrop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Perhaps the best example I can think of to substantiate your original point | is simple comparison because Mathematica allows: | | a < b < c | | I wish other languages did. Python does also. -- http://mail.python.or

  1   2   >