From: alex goldman
Subject: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <1248995.mKnhqnnptZ@yahoo.com>
I really like this book even if i'm not a Lisp fan.
This book gave me fresh view of lisp that realy helped me.
Few months ago my company got a new wealthy client,
the job was to maintain their in-house software ,
as the application was written in Lisp and i was the
only programmer with Lisp in my CV
(I's behind C/C++,Java,VB, php and before Pascal)
i got the project , promotion "Lead Programmer",
raise , and could hire help .
Sounds great ? Well it was untill i sow the code.
Actually i didn't used Lisp since the college days,
even than my largest one was less than 800 lines long.
Facing the code that i sopose to maintain was a:
"In what the hell is this written in ?"
Even after 8 months, and countless hours working
on the code i still can't answer that.
The whole program is a one big macro , when i
macroexpand it , got a code large enaphe to fill
Paul Grahams' On Lisp , book (around 400 pages)
and remain enaphe for 2 Doctoral thesis.
After unsuccessfull idea to rewrite the code in
C# , our calculation was that 4 men would do it
in something like 5 years , and hiring three Lispers
we decided to rewrite the code strictly from the comments
and documentation (geetting as much idea from original code as we could).
Thank you lord that it was such well documented and commented.
Now our program is still missing features ,it's buggy ,
it's slower , and thanks god for the brand new Dell boxes that
hide our unoptimization else we would be out of job .
Eight months ago i had a very high opinion of my skills
now i feel like a high School jr writing his first Hello World.
Lisp tested me and i failed .
If it wasn't this recession i would leave this project ,but good job are
hard to find this days especially for one with lack of selfrespect as
myself.
.
I wish you a happy Lisping
Stephen
You could never know how good you are if never done
Lisp before
alex goldman <·····@spamm.er> writes:
> I really like this book even if i'm not a Lisp fan.
> This book gave me fresh view of lisp that realy helped me.
>
> Few months ago my company got a new wealthy client,
> the job was to maintain their in-house software ,
> as the application was written in Lisp and i was the
> only programmer with Lisp in my CV
> (I's behind C/C++,Java,VB, php and before Pascal)
> i got the project , promotion "Lead Programmer",
> raise , and could hire help .
> Sounds great ? Well it was untill i sow the code.
> Actually i didn't used Lisp since the college days,
> even than my largest one was less than 800 lines long.
> Facing the code that i sopose to maintain was a:
> "In what the hell is this written in ?"
> Even after 8 months, and countless hours working
> on the code i still can't answer that.
> The whole program is a one big macro , when i
> macroexpand it , got a code large enaphe to fill
> Paul Grahams' On Lisp , book (around 400 pages)
> and remain enaphe for 2 Doctoral thesis.
> After unsuccessfull idea to rewrite the code in
> C# , our calculation was that 4 men would do it
> in something like 5 years , and hiring three Lispers
> we decided to rewrite the code strictly from the comments
> and documentation (geetting as much idea from original code as we could).
> Thank you lord that it was such well documented and commented.
> Now our program is still missing features ,it's buggy ,
> it's slower , and thanks god for the brand new Dell boxes that
> hide our unoptimization else we would be out of job .
Show us the source we'll explain it to you ;-)
> Eight months ago i had a very high opinion of my skills
> now i feel like a high School jr writing his first Hello World.
> Lisp tested me and i failed .
Perhaps that's why Lisp is not more popular: it makes quiche eaters feel HS jr.
(In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This is a signature virus. Add me to your signature and help me to live
>In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
>FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
>http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering (computer
engineering is probably an exception) and science.
Eric Lavigne wrote:
> FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering,
almost
> all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
> plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
> heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering
(computer
> engineering is probably an exception) and science.
We have a Win32 component written in FORTRAN 77 that we use for
exponential calculations in a data modeling application.
Eric Lavigne:
> FORTRAN is far from gone.
I had a friend of mine working on the APE project, which at some moment
was the faster multiparallel special purpose supercomputer in the world
(I think now the japaneses have got something faster). APE was
especially
designed to perform lattice quantum chromodynamics computations.
It was 7-8 years ago, but probably the project is still active now,
some
googling with APE and INFN should give the relevant informations.
At that time they were working at writing a set of compilers for APE,
as well as other development tools. Guess which was the first compiler
in the their list? FORTRAN. The second, BTW, was C, so they could write
a Unix-like operating system for it.
In my experience, people in the high energy community use Fortran and
C++
(C++ because the students like it, but I am not convinced it is a good
choice,
I would use Fortran or C + Python).
There also also a lot of scientists that do very little programming
(because
they have better things to do): for them Fortran is a very good choice
since
it is fast and it is easy to use. So, I think Fortran will continue at
least for
another 50 years.
Michele Simionato
"Eric Lavigne" <············@gmail.com> writes:
>>In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
>>FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
>>http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
>
> FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
> all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
> plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
> heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering (computer
> engineering is probably an exception) and science.
I'm surprized. Why not ADA? Or does Fortran 90 include safety
features like in ADA or Modula-3?
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ _ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email (o_ the computer industry all around
/\ 1962:DO20I=1.100 //\ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
2001:my($f)=`fortune`; V_/ http://petition.eurolinux.org/
>>In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
>> all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90
>I'm surprized. Why not ADA? Or does Fortran 90 include safety
>features like in ADA or Modula-3?
The FORTRAN programmers I know tend to emphasize the speed of FORTRAN
compilers (2-3 times faster than C++ is what I've heard). Besides,
FORTRAN is the standard language. Using the same language as your peers
makes it easier to exchange code and to critique other people's work.
As for ADA or Modula-3? I have no clue. I'm not familiar with these
languages and never heard them discussed as alternatives. C++
occassionally comes up because students coming from other fields often
have a background in that. Students who start out in nuclear are told
from the beginning that FORTRAN is the one to learn.
The physics department is a bit different in this respect. I remember
hearing that students should choose between FORTRAN and C++ (C++ was
more popular among students) because it's easy to learn FORTRAN later
if you have a background in C++. Even there, though, it was assumed
that any work on a supercomputer would use FORTRAN.
All of my experience in this matter is from the University of Florida,
but I haven't heard any indication that it's different elsewhere.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <ull6xkk0t.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> "Eric Lavigne" <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
> >>FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
> >>http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
> >
> > FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
> > all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
> > plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
> > heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering (computer
> > engineering is probably an exception) and science.
>
> I'm surprized. Why not ADA?
Huh? Nobody (only mildly exaggerating) used ADA unless forced
to do so by the U.S. Department of Defense (which invented it).
And then the government mostly stopped doing that.
DOD cancelled their ADA MIL-STD in 1997, and got out of the
ADA business in 1993 (dropping their mandate/endorsement for it,
partly due to its never taking off in the commercial sector).
There might still be contractors who are writing new ADA code,
though, and there's some legacy code. ADA was used mostly
for real-time embedded systems.
ADA gained some small following, mostly academic I think,
outside the US, being an ISO standard language.
ADA may be a good language, but it was never nearly
as popular or widely used as Lisp, Smalltalk, APL,
or some other mentionable non-mainstream languages.
As we know, quality has very little to do with popularity.
ADA still has a niche, and its programmers will defend
their language with the same ferocity as any other religion.
ADA is supported by GCC.
Common Lisp was, in fact, partly a response to ADA.
(Back when ADA was mandated for all DOD software,
DOD had to grant waivers for Lisp because it was so widely
used and irreplacable. But not for more than one dialect
of Lisp -- and that was obviously going to be Interlisp.)
FORTRAN, on the other hand has been taught to engineers and
mathematicians since the dawn of computing, so it should be
no surprise that it's still being actively used even for new
software. There's a vast body of software written in it.
Infinitely more FORTRAN code is used today than COBOL
(which was the other DOD language, but popular).
The Symbolics Lisp Machine sported a high-end development
environment for both FORTRAN and ADA, including all the
interactive incremental debugging features, source level
debugging, run-time error checks, etc.
> Or does Fortran 90 include safety features like in ADA or Modula-3?
Dunno -- when I programmed in FORTRAN, the cool new thing was
FORTRAN IV (aka Fortran '66). I haven't used any modern Fortran.
But if you're referring to features like type range checks and having
a defined subset that's ammenable to formal verification, I doubt it.
There was an article on Slashdot the other day about a new language
called "Fortress", which might maybe have something like that.
From: Florian Weimer
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <87sm14fzbf.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
* Christopher C. Stacy:
> Huh? Nobody (only mildly exaggerating) used ADA unless forced
> to do so by the U.S. Department of Defense
*ahem*
> (which invented it).
Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
> And then the government mostly stopped doing that.
Yes, but there's still a functioning market for Ada implementations,
and companies even fund work on the ISO standard, to update it.
Ada has its issues, but if you like strongly typed, mostly statically
typed languages, it could be a fine choice. If you like neither, Ada
is an extreme annoyance.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uoebso7qv.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>
> > Huh? Nobody (only mildly exaggerating) used ADA unless forced
> > to do so by the U.S. Department of Defense
>
> *ahem*
>
> > (which invented it).
>
> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
"Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
In 1973, DOD created the Higher Order Language Working Group, which
produced an initial requirements document. At a company called CII,
Ichbiah responded by starting to invent a language called LIS.
Shortly thereafter, CII was merged into CII-Honeywell-Bull.
In 1977, 17 DOD contractors answered the latest RFP from DOD and
submitted proposals for prototype languages. Four were chosen,
including the "Green" proposal by Ichbiah's team at CII-HB.
That's the proposal which finally won, in 1979. Further development
was done by some more DOD contractors, notably including Alsys
(Ichbiah started his own company just to do Ada). Then the language's
name was changed from "DOD-1" to "Ada", and in 1980 the reference
manual was published by DOD.
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <UfadnW7vvuM18erfRVn-2g@dls.net>
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Then the language's
> name was changed from "DOD-1" to "Ada", and in 1980 the reference
> manual was published by DOD.
Gee, I had thought the Iron Man proposal was by Tony Stark. :)
Paul
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>>
>> > Huh? Nobody (only mildly exaggerating) used ADA unless forced
>> > to do so by the U.S. Department of Defense
>>
>> *ahem*
>>
>> > (which invented it).
>>
>> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
>
> "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
He worked for a French corporation, as you know perfectly well.
When a government "requests for proposals", corporations who "send
proposals" are not "working for" the government. It's a
client-provider relationship, not a employer-employee one.
> In 1973, DOD created the Higher Order Language Working Group, which
> produced an initial requirements document. At a company called CII,
> Ichbiah responded by starting to invent a language called LIS.
> Shortly thereafter, CII was merged into CII-Honeywell-Bull.
> In 1977, 17 DOD contractors answered the latest RFP from DOD and
> submitted proposals for prototype languages. Four were chosen,
> including the "Green" proposal by Ichbiah's team at CII-HB.
> That's the proposal which finally won, in 1979. Further development
> was done by some more DOD contractors, notably including Alsys
> (Ichbiah started his own company just to do Ada). Then the language's
> name was changed from "DOD-1" to "Ada", and in 1980 the reference
> manual was published by DOD.
http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/ada-hist.html
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The world will now reboot. don't bother saving your artefacts.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uzmvc5e2z.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
> > Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> >
> >> * Christopher C. Stacy:
> >>
> >> > Huh? Nobody (only mildly exaggerating) used ADA unless forced
> >> > to do so by the U.S. Department of Defense
> >>
> >> *ahem*
> >>
> >> > (which invented it).
> >>
> >> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
> >
> > "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
>
> He worked for a French corporation, as you know perfectly well.
>
> When a government "requests for proposals", corporations who "send
> proposals" are not "working for" the government. It's a
> client-provider relationship, not a employer-employee one.
DOD instigated the work and totally paid for it,
and was referred to as "the client" and "the customer".
In what was is that not "working for" them?
From: Florian Weimer
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <87vf5yps62.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
* Christopher C. Stacy:
>> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
>
> "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <u3bt2prdf.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>
> >> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
> >
> > "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
>
> By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
From: Matthias Buelow
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <3dt7l5F39s7U2@news.dfncis.de>
Christopher C. Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
>Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
>funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
>networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
>on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
>know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
Hmm.. just out of interest.. was Multics also funded from the DoD?
Or was it an industry-only cooperation?
mkb.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <upsw6o255.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> Christopher C. Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
> >funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
> >networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
> >on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
> >know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
>
> Hmm.. just out of interest.. was Multics also funded from the DoD?
> Or was it an industry-only cooperation?
DOD.
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>>
>> >> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
>> >
>> > "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
>>
>> By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
>
> Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
> funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
> networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
> on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
> know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
I'm really sorry for this OT, but: all these researchers would get
their funding from civil sources if the government did not steal that
money from the people in the first place.
For more information see: http://mises.org/ http://mises.org/story/1796
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The world will now reboot. don't bother saving your artefacts.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <m3ekcms4nh.fsf@4dv.net>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
> I'm really sorry for this OT, but: all these researchers would get
> their funding from civil sources if the government did not steal that
> money from the people in the first place.
Interestingly, the book Tuxedo Park illustrates this quite well. It's
really rather remarkable how much science was privately funded back in
the '30s.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Si Kristo ay muling nabuhay! Buhay na tunay magpakailanman!
On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:18:20 +0000, Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>>
>> >> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
>> >
>> > "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
>>
>> By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
>
> Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
> funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
> networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
> on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
> know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
but who invented (are) the DOD?
--
mvh,
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uu0lio28l.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:18:20 +0000, Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
> > Florian Weimer <··@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> >
> >> * Christopher C. Stacy:
> >>
> >> >> Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
> >> >
> >> > "Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
> >>
> >> By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
> >
> > Yes, that would be a fair statement: the DOD pretty much entirely
> > funded all the invention and develpoment of Lisp, timesharing,
> > networking, and many other things. (Some small amount of work
> > on things like timesharing was also done in Europe, and I don't
> > know who funded that, but I bet it was their government.)
>
> but who invented (are) the DOD?
I don't understand your question. The DOD is the military branch
of the US Government; they spent lots of money investing in things
(computer science, in particular) they perceived could directly
lead to good weapons with which to defeat the nuclear threat
posed by the Soviets.
In the case of Lisp and other things that I mentioned, their specific
interest was to invent distributed real-time computing (for the purpose
of military command and control), intelligent weapons, etc.
Those investments represented basic research. A couple decades
later, after that resounding success, they created a military order
for a programming language that they wanted to standardize on.
They hired contractors to flesh out the spec, and then the military
selected from among the choices. Then they paid even more money to
those military contractors (Honeywell, Alsys, etc.) to deliver actual
compilers. The language was called "DOD-1", but was then renamed Ada,
which is more poetic. Then they tried to coerce all the other military
contractors, which have always been the leading elements of the computer
industry, into using Ada. It didn't catch on and they gave up on Ada.
"Christopher C. Stacy" <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
··················@news.dtpq.com...
> The language was called "DOD-1", but was then renamed Ada,
> which is more poetic. Then they tried to coerce all the other military
> contractors, which have always been the leading elements of the computer
> industry, into using Ada. It didn't catch on and they gave up on Ada.
Well, there's coerce and there's coerce. Some aquisitions SPECIFIED that
software would be delivered in Ada. To this day, those programs still have
software written in, and maintained in Ada. However, since Ada did not
"catch on" in the COMMERCIAL world, the relative cost of having a program
use Ada vs. some more pragmatically inexpensive language (e.g., C++, Java)
made it a budgetary decision to drop the Ada requirement. Also, the vast
majority of software produced on a given program (these days) is NDI or
essentially something not developed by the contractor (e.g., Windows,
Solaris...). Thus, it is whatever it is, be it Pascal, Java, or Lisp. Then
the question is, how best to tie together such NDI into a coherent
system-of-systems. Here Ada was not the solution either.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <usm11ov9z.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
"Gorbag" <······@invalid.acct> writes:
> "Christopher C. Stacy" <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
> ··················@news.dtpq.com...
> > The language was called "DOD-1", but was then renamed Ada,
> > which is more poetic. Then they tried to coerce all the other military
> > contractors, which have always been the leading elements of the computer
> > industry, into using Ada. It didn't catch on and they gave up on Ada.
>
> Well, there's coerce and there's coerce. Some aquisitions SPECIFIED
> that software would be delivered in Ada.
You are mistaken. Contrary to what you suggest, this was not a
case-by-case specifiction. There was a general requirement that
ADA would be used for _all_ new software. Read DoD DIRECTIVE 3405.1,
"Computer Programming Language Policy", dated April 2, 1987.
"The Ada programming language SHALL BE THE SINGLE, common, computer
programming language for Defense computer resources used in
intelligence systems, for the command and control of military forces,
or as an integral part of a weapon system. Programming languages
other than Ada that were authorized and being used in full-scale
development may continue to be used through deployment and for
software maintenance, but not for major software upgrades.
ADA SHALL BE USED for all other applications, except when the use of
another approved higher order language is more cost-effective over the
application's life-cycle, in keeping with the long-range goal of
establishing Ada as the primary DoD higher order language (HOL)."
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uoebpotoa.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> specifiction
Freudian, eh?
+ ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy):
| Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
| > but who invented (are) the DOD?
|
| I don't understand your question.
Sure you do, you just have a hard time realizing that many
non-Americans don't recognize the acronym DOD. (Which stands for
"Department of Defense", to answer Lars's question.)
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:53:28 +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> + ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy):
>
> | Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> | > but who invented (are) the DOD?
> |
> | I don't understand your question.
>
> Sure you do, you just have a hard time realizing that many
> non-Americans don't recognize the acronym DOD. (Which stands for
> "Department of Defense", to answer Lars's question.)
hm - i meant that almost everything is made for someone or something
else, but that there has to be someone (person or people) who one still
can say "created it".
just because i sell stuff to others doesn't mean it's they who created it
and even if someone funds me for creating or developing stuff, it's still
me (or a team, with someone leading in that team) that creates it
i guess i don't like the whole non-individuality-thing
i knew - or guessed it stood for "Department of Defence" btw. :)
--
mvh,
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Christopher C. Stacy:
>
>
>>>Not true, Ada was designed by a Frenchman, Jean Ichbiah.
>>
>>"Not true?" Gee, Who do you think he was working for?
>
>
> By your standards, Lisp was invented by the U.S. armed forces.
Of course. Who invented the Internet after all? Do you think it was Al
Gore all by himself? :)
Cheers
--
Marco
From: André Thieme
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <d57koa$mhv$1@ulric.tng.de>
Christopher C. Stacy schrieb:
> There was an article on Slashdot the other day about a new language
> called "Fortress", which might maybe have something like that.
Ah yes, this is Guy Steeles (Suns) new language:
http://www.sun.com/presents/minds/2005-0302/
Andr�
--
On Tue, 03 May 2005 04:06:24 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon
<···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>"Eric Lavigne" <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
>>>FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
>>>http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
>>
>> FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
>> all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
>> plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
>> heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering (computer
>> engineering is probably an exception) and science.
>
>I'm surprized. Why not ADA?
ADA is American Dental Association. Programming language is named
Ada
A.L.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uwtqg5e2i.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
A.L. <·················@hotfuck.com> writes:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 04:06:24 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon
> <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
> >"Eric Lavigne" <············@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>>In the origins, Lisp programmers were quiche eaters too, but now that
> >>>FORTRAN programmers leave us, we remain the only real men in town.
> >>>http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore6.htm
> >>
> >> FORTRAN is far from gone. In my own field, nuclear engineering, almost
> >> all of the new programming is done in FORTRAN 90, and there is still
> >> plenty of legacy code in FORTRAN 77 and even earlier versions. I have
> >> heard that the same is true in other branches of engineering (computer
> >> engineering is probably an exception) and science.
> >
> >I'm surprized. Why not ADA?
>
> ADA is American Dental Association. Programming language is named Ada
"Americans with Disabilities Act".
From: Florian Weimer
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <87wtqgg0cr.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
* Pascal Bourguignon:
> I'm surprized. Why not ADA?
The language is called "Ada".
> Or does Fortran 90 include safety features like in ADA or Modula-3?
Ada compiler vendors do not target the HPC market, really. Until
recently, there were no Ada compilers available for most
supercomputers, and certainly none which were optimized for typical
HPC workloads.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> I'm surprized. Why not ADA? Or does Fortran 90 include safety
> features like in ADA or Modula-3?
I guess 'nuclear engineering' here means number crunching code for neutron
transport and such, used for simulation and reactor design and such. In
this case Fortran is the natural choice, because the main need is
numerical speed. Not much need for safety.
So they use Fortran for numerics, but I have no idea what they use for
safety critical control systems in the actual power plants. That may well
be something else than Fortran there.
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <ymiacnax4f1.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Sampo Smolander <·························@helsinki.fi> writes:
> So they use Fortran for numerics, but I have no idea what they use for
> safety critical control systems in the actual power plants. That may well
> be something else than Fortran there.
But then again, maybe not.
Although not nuclear engineering, a long time ago I worked on a project
for the control system for natural gas delivery in Germany. That was
coded mostly in Fortran. (The rest was Vax assembler....)
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Sampo Smolander <·························@helsinki.fi> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>> I'm surprized. Why not ADA? Or does Fortran 90 include safety
>> features like in ADA or Modula-3?
>
> I guess 'nuclear engineering' here means number crunching code for neutron
> transport and such, used for simulation and reactor design and such. In
> this case Fortran is the natural choice, because the main need is
> numerical speed. Not much need for safety.
>
> So they use Fortran for numerics, but I have no idea what they use for
> safety critical control systems in the actual power plants. That may well
> be something else than Fortran there.
Good. Indeed, I didn't make the distinction.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
>I guess 'nuclear engineering' here means number crunching code for
neutron
>transport and such, used for simulation and reactor design and such.
That is my area of experience.
>So they use Fortran for numerics, but I have no idea what they use for
>safety critical control systems in the actual power plants. That may
well
>be something else than Fortran there.
Probably not. In any specialty within nuclear engineer most of the
software will be written by nuclear engineers. Guess what language they
learned in school.
>In this case (number crunching) Fortran is the natural choice, because
the main need >is numerical speed.
That is a common conclusion. People who want their code to be fast tend
to look for a fast language. I'm not sure that I agree with this
approach though. Choice of algorithms is also important, and using a
low-level language encourages programmers to choose the simplest
algorithms rather than the fastest. Nuclear engineers are well aware of
the problem, but they tend not to be aware of how much easier it would
be to solve in other languages. I am learning Lisp in hopes of creating
better software for number crunching, neutron transport, simulation,
and reactor design. Lisp has a disadvantage in numerical speed, which
is certainly important, but I think its flexibility will make up for
that.
Was it written in ICAD or using Flavors? That can put quite a syntax
spin on things. Share and some of the lads can help. -M
From: alex goldman
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <1894099.WHVInqOAOD@yahoo.com>
········@comcast.net wrote:
> Was it written in ICAD or using Flavors? That can put quite a syntax
> spin on things. Share and some of the lads can help. -M
That was an Amazon.com customer review of Practical Common Lisp. I just
quoted it.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <uwtqftkw7.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
alex goldman <·····@spamm.er> writes:
> That was an Amazon.com customer review of Practical Common Lisp.
> I just quoted it.
It would have been a good idea to have mentioned in your
post that you were quoting someone, and what it was.
But it sounded so weird that nobody paid much attention to it,
anyway, and then they started talking about FORTRAN instead.
From: alex goldman
Subject: Re: hilarious (you can't make up stuff like that)
Date:
Message-ID: <6731466.WMpRMeC992@yahoo.com>
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> alex goldman <·····@spamm.er> writes:
>> That was an Amazon.com customer review of Practical Common Lisp.
>> I just quoted it.
>
> It would have been a good idea to have mentioned in your
> post that you were quoting someone, and what it was.
> But it sounded so weird that nobody paid much attention to it,
> anyway, and then they started talking about FORTRAN instead.
I realize my mistake. Even though the review started with "I really like
this book" and was signed "Stephen", one must not underestimate the power
of USENET to misinterpret.