On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:11:34 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
> > wrote:
> > On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw > wrote:
> >>
> >>Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses
> with
> >> proprietry
Wow, is that some top-shelf navel lint. Perhaps we should call the
language WolframWolframWolfram, or WWW for short. Then, Stephen and
Al Gore can fight over who invented what.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave
Ltd) wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2015 20:10, "William Ste
On 11 Jun 2015 20:10, "William Stein" wrote:
>
> It's officially called "The Wolfram Language" [1] beating out [2] many
It would never surprise me is it was renamed to the Stephen Wolfram
Language.
Dave.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel
Bravo, that was pretty good :)
On 11 June 2015 at 21:10, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
> wrote:
> > On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> >>
> >>Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses
> with
> >> proprie
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
wrote:
> On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>>
>>Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
>> proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what
>> I've been told, they ty
On 06/11/2015 02:55 PM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. I have worked in the past for a
> multinational company (>100k employees) on software which costs hundreds
> of thousands of dollars per license, and never heard of that. I am not
> an assembly guy but I would thi
On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
> proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what
> I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling
> the code for
I agree partially about your "best programming language" statement: there
are languages which are useful for very few things - see Fortran - while
others have broader applicability. With C++ one can do well and comfortably
enough scientific computing, system programming, graphics, and a host of
oth
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what
I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling
the code for release). However, from my experience, it is the quality
(off topic)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
>> Or at least it is not hard to write modern C++ that is very difficult for
>> others to work on.
>
>
> Isn't it true for most languages?
In my opinion, absolutely unequivocally not.Each programming
languages has a huge
10 matches
Mail list logo
