the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3597
Of course he's famous. That doesn't make him right 100% of the time.
He didn't practice what he taught. There is a difference between teaching theory and using it in the real world.
For instance, some wag decided that goto's were stupid, not lovey, and worthless. The whole backbone of a timesharing OS is dependent on a goto. For each and every interrupt, either software or hardware, there exists a goto. The very first thing done is saving some bits and then dispatching to the appropriate code.
I sure can't. If these idiots wouldn't keep changing the subject header, I could have pointed you to the Debt Collection and given you an estimate of the date. But, no...I have to memorize an inhuman-readable ASCII string that can be a meg long.
I don't understand this one exploiting symmetry.
Well, I'm correcting the notion that I should receive one :-).
the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3601
There is something in people's minds that react to functional languages. I have tried to push collegues in the direction of more functional programming in several programming projects...
That's not really theory. That's learning how to build an algebra or a geometry.
All kinds of math fosters it. Algebras address one aspect. Geometries address another. I use algebras to check my geometry results and I use geometry to check my algebraic results. When I was teaching myself matrix arithmetic, I did both geometry and algebra to check my matrix results.
the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3598
snip-- take for example the problem of calculating the gravitational field of a sphere. i know...
used parts of the analytical approaches I learned doing math and science.
When you're writing a project plan, specification, or anything technical, it was certainly worth all that boring time, doing all those plane geometry proofs by hand. You learn how to write things down in a logical order. You need this kind of heirarchy if you're writing a proposal, making a speech that has to persuade, etc.
Yes, it does. Electricity is slow and very fussy. There are physical limits that cannot be crossed.
Mine were a joke.
the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3599
Sure. I've got no problems with their compiler thinking. One does not apply it to OS. I have rabid problems with people who advocate one size (one OS or one compiler...
Congratulations. You pbutted. Nothing in real life works as it's supposed to.
the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3600
We agree on that. It's the structure of natural languages. One will always find exceptions. During the OS...
Labs were never long enough to suit me.
Now think about what these kids are going to have to play with when somebody builds these so-called quantum circuits. If the grownup kiddies are stuck in 2-D thinking, we'll have to wait another two generations before real quantum computing happens.
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups