With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
you can just learn F# itself:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
On Apr 17, 2:36 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
> of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
> you can just learn F# itself:
>
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> The F#.NET Journalhttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
Looks like it has about GBP59 every 6 months for the OP.
On Apr 17, 2:54 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:36 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>
> > With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
> > of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
> > you can just learn F# itself:
>
> > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
>
> > --
> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> > The F#.NET Journalhttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
>
> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
Microsoft's backing . (I don't know is this good or bad)
·················@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:54 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 17, 2:36 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
>>>of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
>>>you can just learn F# itself:
>>
>>> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
>>
>>>--
>>>Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
>>>The F#.NET Journalhttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
>>
>>What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
>
>
> Microsoft's backing . (I don't know is this good or bad)
>
Well, they sent a hardcore ex-lisper to ILC 2005 who suggested Lisp
could win big with .NET if we would only lose that silly CLOS thing and
learn The Joy of Strong Static Typing.
Jeez, at least deals with the real Devil /start out/ good...
Me, I saw the "Microsoft Research" oxymoron and did not get much
further. Unless by research they mean using Google to find out what
ideas other people have successfuly developed and commercialized so they
can copy it badly and crush them.
Not to worry, just starting my coffee, I should be less grumpy in a
minute. :)
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Apr 17, 8:53 am, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> Me, I saw the "Microsoft Research" oxymoron and did not get much
further.
I would not write-off haskell. Although completely agree on F# - ugly
twin of ugly ocaml.
Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> writes:
> Not to worry, just starting my coffee, I should be less grumpy in a
> minute. :)
For entertainment's sake, I hope not! :-)
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
On Apr 17, 4:53 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
> Me, I saw the "Microsoft Research" oxymoron and did not get much
> further. Unless by research they mean using Google to find out what
> ideas other people have successfuly developed and commercialized so they
> can copy it badly and crush them.
To be fair to them, I think MS research employ a lot of smart people
who do genuinely interesting stuff. How much of it makes it into
products is another question. Even on the copying other stuff
argument, I think it would be hard to argue that C# / .net copied
Java / JVM *badly*: I think they did rather a good job and for a
significant time were ahead (and may still be so). And, well, what
did Linux actually do but copy various Unices (very well, but dropping
behind now I think) for the OS stuff and Windows (pretty badly) for
the desktop?
None of that excuses the original post.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:53 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Me, I saw the "Microsoft Research" oxymoron and did not get much
>>further. Unless by research they mean using Google to find out what
>>ideas other people have successfuly developed and commercialized so they
>>can copy it badly and crush them.
>
>
> To be fair to them, ...
Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek deals?
> ...I think MS research employ a lot of smart people
> who do genuinely interesting stuff.
What do they have on dataflow? Even Frank Buss has a dataflow hack.
> How much of it makes it into
> products is another question.
If you are saying Micosoft is a black hole for ideas, we almost agree.
Explains the brevity of the list "Neat Ideas From Microsoft". Please do
not forget to divide by the amount of money they have available.
You know, the oil companies have developed a car that runs on carbon
dioxide and has like 800 horsepower. Where you can buy one is another
question.
> Even on the copying other stuff
> argument, I think it would be hard to argue that C# / .net copied
> Java / JVM *badly*
They copied something whose raison d'etre was portability and
universality and it came out non-portable. Just a hair outside?*
* Bob Uecker
> And, well, what
> did Linux actually do but copy various Unices (very well, but dropping
> behind now I think) for the OS stuff and Windows (pretty badly) for
> the desktop?
You want me to defend the FSF? And don't forget to divide by the amount
of money available.
No, really, your point is daft. How does RMS's deliberate copying of an
OS apply in any way? Is there an FSF OS Research Team I can ridicule?
Are you saying MesaGL is "unoriginal" because it came out the same as
OpenGL?
>
> None of that excuses the original post.
>
But it was fun hearing from the Microsoft Anti-Defamation League, if
only because I did not know there was one.
:)
kxo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Apr 18, 12:39 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek deals?
>
MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a monopoly
& then exploit it ruthlessly. They are not to blame for the dismal
failure of the legal and regulatory system to stop that happening.
No, that's the fault of the people who voted for the governments which
failed to deal with the problem.
> What do they have on dataflow? Even Frank Buss has a dataflow hack.
No idea. There is other stuff in the world of course.
> If you are saying Micosoft is a black hole for ideas, we almost agree.
> Explains the brevity of the list "Neat Ideas From Microsoft". Please do
> not forget to divide by the amount of money they have available.
Monopolies stifle innovation as is well known. That's half the reason
for anti-monopoly legislation.
> No, really, your point is daft. How does RMS's deliberate copying of an
> OS apply in any way? Is there an FSF OS Research Team I can ridicule?
> Are you saying MesaGL is "unoriginal" because it came out the same as
> OpenGL?
Mostly of course I was just making fun of the free software people in
the hope that at least one of them would have some kind of public fit
(I know, this is too easy). The serious point, if there was one was
that it isn't the case that there's this awful evil monopoly with a
few plucky free software people doing all the innovative stuff:
there's this monopoly, and the free software people both mostly doing
embrace-and-extend and in between there are companies exposed to
competition doing all the interesting stuff. This should not be
surprising other than to people whose heads have been eaten by the
worms of some cult.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:39 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek deals?
>>
>
>
> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a monopoly
> & then exploit it ruthlessly.
So it's OK to laugh at the posturing of "Microsoft Research", esp. when
contrasted with their products?
btw, if the subtext here is that you enojoy pints now and then with the
denizens of that intellectual powerhouse, I take it all back and want to
schedule a pub crawl.
kzo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Apr 18, 3:17 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> So it's OK to laugh at the posturing of "Microsoft Research", esp. when
> contrasted with their products?
certainly.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:39 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>> Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek deals?
>
> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a monopoly
> & then exploit it ruthlessly.
Most companies don't do that. (This is actually part of the problem that
many people seem to think that what they are doing is perfectly
acceptable behavior.)
> They are not to blame for the dismal
> failure of the legal and regulatory system to stop that happening.
Just because there is a gap in the legal system doesn't mean that you
_have_ to abuse it.
There is a fine line between legal and ethical behavior.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
> Most companies don't do that. (This is actually part of the problem that
> many people seem to think that what they are doing is perfectly
> acceptable behavior.)
Name a company that was in a position to establish a monopoly and
elected not to do so.
On Apr 18, 2:07 pm, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Just because there is a gap in the legal system doesn't mean that you
> _have_ to abuse it.
There is no gap: MS were taken to court *and lost*. However no
suitable remedy was imposed.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:07:03 +0200, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a
>> monopoly & then exploit it ruthlessly.
>
> Most companies don't do that.
That's because most companies don't have a monopoly, I'd guess.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:07:03 +0200, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>>> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a
>>> monopoly & then exploit it ruthlessly.
>> Most companies don't do that.
>
> That's because most companies don't have a monopoly, I'd guess.
Most companies don't try to gain a monopoly.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Apr 18, 3:56 pm, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Most companies don't try to gain a monopoly.
Name a company that was in a position to establish a monopoly and
elected not to do so.
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2007:
> Most companies don't try to gain a monopoly.
Actually, almost every well-run company in fact does try. "Monopoly" is a
bit of a loose concept, with shades of grey, so the real question is how
close your product is to some substitute that the consumer could use instead.
In commodity markets (corn, oil, gold), the purchaser probably can't even
identify which supplier provided the good. But any time there's a chance,
any reasonable company will make attempts at "product differentiation", which
is a version of saying that they are the sole supplier in the world for that
given thing.
Being the monopoly source of some widget is the route to excess profits,
which is (or should be) the goal of every for-profit company.
Microsoft is probably the most extreme case of this, and the power they wield
in their market(s) is incredible. But they're merely the most successful
example of what pretty much every company is trying to do.
I can't imagine a company that has an opportunity to acquire a monopoly, that
chooses not to. That's fiscal irresponsibility. The reason you don't see
more Microsofts is because they're hard to make (and the government sometimes
breaks them up), not because companies aren't seeking that state as a goal.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
A quiz: If I am my brother's keeper, who am I? (Answer: me.)
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:56:49 +0200, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Most companies don't try to gain a monopoly.
It's very hard to gain a monopoly, so for almost every company this is
certainly not a high priority goal. But I'd like to see a company
that actively refuses to acquire monopoly status if there's a chance.
Does Apple stop selling iPods in order to reduce their MP3 player
market share? Which steps did Adobe take recently to make sure other
vendors of image manipulation tools have a fair chance against
Photoshop?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:56:49 +0200, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Most companies don't try to gain a monopoly.
>
>
> It's very hard to gain a monopoly, so for almost every company this is
> certainly not a high priority goal. But I'd like to see a company
> that actively refuses to acquire monopoly status if there's a chance.
> Does Apple stop selling iPods in order to reduce their MP3 player
> market share? Which steps did Adobe take recently to make sure other
> vendors of image manipulation tools have a fair chance against
> Photoshop?
>
In classic Usenet fashion, the thread has gotten derailed in like one
counterpoint. What has the idea of monopoly got to do with the idea of
shoddy work? The resources available to MS would have supported
development of the Insanely Great, instead the resources go only into
gaining more resources while producing the worst product that will let
them do so. This actually hurts them because it slows adoption of
technology, and leaves them playing catch up with things like Google and
Playstation. It also wins them the enmity of the very community in which
they swim, so vast resources have to go into defending themselves from
attack. The Japanese auto industry proved that better really is better.
The question then is how MS ended up with such a crappy cultural ethic
in which quality comes last and innovation has to be isolated out in an
Ivory Tower lest it distract the real business.
kzo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Apr 18, 5:02 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> In classic Usenet fashion, the thread has gotten derailed in like one
> counterpoint. What has the idea of monopoly got to do with the idea of
> shoddy work? The resources available to MS would have supported
> development of the Insanely Great, instead the resources go only into
> gaining more resources while producing the worst product that will let
> them do so.
Actually, it hasn't, you just think it has. Monopolies have
everything to do with shoddy work because a very good way to ensure
good work turns out to be competition[*]: if you're not better than
the other guys then you will go to the wall. A monopoly does not have
that threat, and thus there is far less pressure on it to do good
work, since it can not easily be displaced by failing to do that.
This is one of the reasons monopolies need to keep moving into new
sectors as they appear: they must prevent competition happening
because then they might lose their monopoly, and thus start having to
produce good work, which is harder than doing shoddy work. That's why
MS are doing search and games consoles, etc.
> The question then is how MS ended up with such a crappy cultural ethic
> in which quality comes last and innovation has to be isolated out in an
> Ivory Tower lest it distract the real business.
This is all well understood. This is just what happens to systems
where there is no competition: look at (say) the USSR.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:02 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In classic Usenet fashion, the thread has gotten derailed in like one
>>counterpoint. What has the idea of monopoly got to do with the idea of
>>shoddy work? The resources available to MS would have supported
>>development of the Insanely Great, instead the resources go only into
>>gaining more resources while producing the worst product that will let
>>them do so.
>
>
> Actually, it hasn't, you just think it has. Monopolies have
> everything to do with shoddy work because a very good way to ensure
> good work turns out to be competition[*]: if you're not better than
> the other guys then you will go to the wall. A monopoly does not have
> that threat, and thus there is far less pressure on it to do good
> work, since it can not easily be displaced by failing to do that.
Ah, but even now we are undercomputerized. If one has a monopoly as pure
as MS's (what? 90+% of the market?) then the easiest way to grow is to
grow the market. A shoddy Windows has suppressed adoption. Simple
innovations like iTunes and iPhoto would have drawn in new users.
Instead, well, methinks Windows would look no different if MS was
actively campaigning to dissuade ordinary folks from getting into
computing. The crappiness of Windows /suppresses/ society's adoption of
technology, and in turn shareholder value.
> This is one of the reasons monopolies need to keep moving into new
> sectors as they appear: they must prevent competition happening
> because then they might lose their monopoly, and thus start having to
> produce good work, which is harder than doing shoddy work. That's why
> MS are doing search and games consoles, etc.
Nah, jumping in late to markets already established hence dominated by a
first-mover is the hard way to grow. Not to be passed over, but the real
bucks would have been in establishing an ethic of first quality and
then innovation.
kt (who spent twenty minutes on the phone today helping a digital
photographer friend find and email a JPG from his Windows box)
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Apr 18, 7:06 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, but even now we are undercomputerized. If one has a monopoly as pure
> as MS's (what? 90+% of the market?) then the easiest way to grow is to
> grow the market. A shoddy Windows has suppressed adoption.
But this again isn't because MS aren't trying: they are trying, it's
just that, absent competition, they've become flabby and useless and
they *can't* innovate. Look at the stupid amount of time it takes them
to ship an OS release.
I realise I'm failing to make my point very well. Monopolies really
aren't good for anyone at all, and in the long term *this includes the
monopolist*, because they rot. However they *are* local maxima of
profitability for the monopolist, and it is extremely hard for a
potential monopolist to avoid becoming an actual monopolist because
they it is *definitely* the case that you can extract monopoly rents,
while in theory you ought to be able to avoid the rot, but in practice
you never can, despite some heroic attempts.
>
> Nah, jumping in late to markets already established hence dominated by a
> first-mover is the hard way to grow. Not to be passed over, but the real
> bucks would have been in establishing an ethic of first quality and
> then innovation.
It's not about growing: it's about preventing others from developing a
market area which might impinge on your monopoly. Monopolists need to
do this even if it involves losing money (which it almost always
does). There's a good book about IBM which describes this in some
detail. It's significant that through a combination of internal rot
and failing to maintain control over neighbouring market segments
(minis and desktops) they eventually lost their monopoly. The IBM book
was written before this panned out, I don't know if there is anything
which describes the "fall" of IBM (which has unquestionably been good
for them as a company).
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote on 19 Apr 2007 03:1:
> Monopolies really aren't good for anyone at all, and in the long term *this
> includes the monopolist*, because they rot.
[...]
> while in theory you ought to be able to avoid the rot, but in practice you
> never can, despite some heroic attempts.
I assume you mean "rot" as in quality of product or something. But if you
mean that the company collapses from within and dies, and would have been
stronger and longer-lasting if it hadn't been such a monopoly, I don't think
that's true. Monopolies rarely die on their own. Sometimes the market moves
on eventually (IBM mainframes -> PCs); sometimes the government breaks them
up (Standard Oil, AT&T). But rarely does becoming a monopoly make you more
vulnerable to later collapse.
And in the case of Microsoft in particular, Bill Gates cemented his
reputation as one of the best CEOs in the world, with his reaction to
Netscape in the mid-1990's. Netscape was the biggest potential threat to the
MS operating system monopoly that the company had ever seen. For a few
years, there was a chance that all applications would migrate to the web, and
future software development would be "platform neutral"; the net effect would
be that the Netscape browser would become the new monopoly OS of PCs, and MS
Windows would no longer matter.
Gates saw this in time, and refocused the HUGE company that Microsoft is and
was to attack and defeat this threat. There were a whole bunch of angles to
Gates's counterattack, and I'll leave out the details here. But you
underestimate the skill of Gates if you think that Microsoft had "rotted" --
despite their software sucking in 1995 just as much as it does now.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
In judo: When pushed, pull; when pulled, push.
In aikido: When pushed, turn; when pulled, enter.
On Apr 19, 7:43 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> I assume you mean "rot" as in quality of product or something.
Well, quality of management etc etc yes.
> But if you
> mean that the company collapses from within and dies, and would have been
> stronger and longer-lasting if it hadn't been such a monopoly, I don't think
> that's true. Monopolies rarely die on their own.
No. But they get to the point where you don't have to push very
hard. It takes a while, of course: it took 500 years for the Roman
empire to rot, and probably almost another 500 before people really
realised it was dead. Companies don't take so long, fortunately.
> Gates saw this in time, and refocused the HUGE company that Microsoft is and
> was to attack and defeat this threat. There were a whole bunch of angles to
> Gates's counterattack, and I'll leave out the details here. But you
> underestimate the skill of Gates if you think that Microsoft had "rotted" --
> despite their software sucking in 1995 just as much as it does now.
Oh no, they won that battle. But I think they have probably lost the
war by now. Just as with the Roman empire we probably have not yet
noticed, but I think the Vista release will be seen as the moment at
which the decline from monopoly began.
--tim
(just in case: I'm not arguing that Linux will win or anything naive
like that.)
In article <························@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:06 pm, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ah, but even now we are undercomputerized. If one has a monopoly as pure
> > as MS's (what? 90+% of the market?) then the easiest way to grow is to
> > grow the market. A shoddy Windows has suppressed adoption.
>
> But this again isn't because MS aren't trying: they are trying, it's
> just that, absent competition, they've become flabby and useless and
> they *can't* innovate. Look at the stupid amount of time it takes them
> to ship an OS release.
>
> I realise I'm failing to make my point very well. Monopolies really
> aren't good for anyone at all, and in the long term *this includes the
> monopolist*, because they rot. However they *are* local maxima of
> profitability for the monopolist, and it is extremely hard for a
> potential monopolist to avoid becoming an actual monopolist because
> they it is *definitely* the case that you can extract monopoly rents,
> while in theory you ought to be able to avoid the rot, but in practice
> you never can, despite some heroic attempts.
>
> >
> > Nah, jumping in late to markets already established hence dominated by a
> > first-mover is the hard way to grow. Not to be passed over, but the real
> > bucks would have been in establishing an ethic of first quality and
> > then innovation.
>
> It's not about growing: it's about preventing others from developing a
> market area which might impinge on your monopoly. Monopolists need to
> do this even if it involves losing money (which it almost always
> does). There's a good book about IBM which describes this in some
> detail. It's significant that through a combination of internal rot
> and failing to maintain control over neighbouring market segments
> (minis and desktops) they eventually lost their monopoly. The IBM book
> was written before this panned out, I don't know if there is anything
> which describes the "fall" of IBM (which has unquestionably been good
> for them as a company).
>
> --tim
I'd say it is save to kill this thread in my newsreader now... ;-)
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2007:
> What has the idea of monopoly got to do with the idea of shoddy work?
Once a monopoly has been established, consumers generally "must" purchase the
good regardless of its quality. Hence, there is little incentive to improve
quality.
It's competition, and the failures of shoddy work, that gets quality work to
the fore. Without competition, quality work is more like a kind of charity,
which you can do if it makes you feel good, rather than a necessity of
survival.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], 'Pray, Mr.
Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come
out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that
could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
Don Geddis wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2007:
>
>>What has the idea of monopoly got to do with the idea of shoddy work?
>
>
> Once a monopoly has been established, consumers generally "must" purchase the
> good regardless of its quality. Hence, there is little incentive to improve
> quality.
>
> It's competition, and the failures of shoddy work, that gets quality work to
> the fore. Without competition, quality work is more like a kind of charity,
> which you can do if it makes you feel good, rather than a necessity of
> survival.
Hasn't this brilliant retort to that plausible argument percolated to
your new server?:
"The crappiness of Windows /suppresses/ society's adoption of
technology, and in turn shareholder value."
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2007:
> The crappiness of Windows /suppresses/ society's adoption of technology,
> and in turn shareholder value.
It's a tough call. I understand that argument, that a monopolist can
maximize profits mostly by growing the whole market. Which at least is
plausible. Although here you're making an indirect argument that the best
route to growing the market for PCs is improving some nebulous "quality"
metric on Windows, which for now they are only making at a "crappy" level.
Even that part is debatable, whether improving Windows "quality" really would
cause additional PCs to be sold.
But even if true, Microsoft has an unusual problem, compared to previous
monopolies. In past cases, such as Standard Oil or AT&T, the product
produced typically was consumed, and the consumers needed to continue buying
it over and over again. In that sense, it was somewhat similar to providing
a service.
I've heard Bill Gates give a few speeches about Microsoft strategy, and he
basically admits that (in most of their markets) they have no direct
competitors. He's not worried about Lotus 1-2-3 somehow taking market share
from Excel.
No, Microsoft's biggest competition is PREVIOUS VERSIONS of THEIR OWN
products! The problem with selling bucketloads of Windows Vista, is that
people _already_ own Windows XP, and it works pretty well for them.
The main problem that Microsoft works on from a strategic standpoint is
basically planned product obsolescence. This is why new versions of Word
save documents in a format that old versions of Word can't read. The hope is
that a few folks in an office will upgrade, and then start sending around
documents to their co-workers, but the co-workers won't be able to read the
new documents, so THOSE folks will need to upgrade Word also, EVEN IF they
have no compelling need to do so personally, based on new features.
This primary need to get people to buy the same software over and over again
is actually a drive that in some cases can be at odds with your suggestion of
improving overall "quality" of the product. In some cases, the Microsoft
software architects need to deliberately weaken their products, in order to
enable to upgrade wave that provides continual revenue.
(You see all these same motivations, and similar behavior, with Oracle in
databases, by the way. For all the same reasons. It's just that Microsoft
affects "ordinary" people, while Oracle "only" affects businesses.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Ineptitude: If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it
poorly. -- Despair.com
> > They are not to blame for the dismal
> > failure of the legal and regulatory system to stop that happening.
>
> Just because there is a gap in the legal system doesn't mean that you
> _have_ to abuse it.
If you run a corporation and if there is a chance to maximize
the profit, you have to exploit it, that's the prime directive.
>
> There is a fine line between legal and ethical behavior.
Microsoft is not a human. Therefore it does not have ethics.
Nor does other corporations.
Takehiko Abe wrote:
>>> They are not to blame for the dismal
>>> failure of the legal and regulatory system to stop that happening.
>> Just because there is a gap in the legal system doesn't mean that you
>> _have_ to abuse it.
>
> If you run a corporation and if there is a chance to maximize
> the profit, you have to exploit it, that's the prime directive.
>
>> There is a fine line between legal and ethical behavior.
>
> Microsoft is not a human. Therefore it does not have ethics.
> Nor does other corporations.
More fatal implicit assumptions that don't help to improve the situation.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Apr 18, 4:02 pm, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> More fatal implicit assumptions that don't help to improve the situation.
Maximizing profit (and hence shareholder value) is in no way implicit.
Le Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:48:42 -0700, Tim Bradshaw a écrit:
>> Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek
>> deals?
> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a monopoly
> & then exploit it ruthlessly.
Why couldn't a company just be willing to make money?
Curiously,
Pierre
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Le Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:48:42 -0700, Tim Bradshaw a écrit:
>>> Fairness? To Microsoft? Is this one of those turn the other cheek
>>> deals?
>> MS are just a company doing what companies do: try to gain a monopoly
>> & then exploit it ruthlessly.
>
> Why couldn't a company just be willing to make money?
Why couldn't a company just be willing to make good products?
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
>
> > ...I think MS research employ a lot of smart people
> > who do genuinely interesting stuff.
>
> What do they have on dataflow? Even Frank Buss has a dataflow hack.
>
Excel, which we all know is the most widely used functional
programming environment in the world. It was doing dataflow in the
80s.
Seriously though, they pay people to work on GHC so they can't be all
that bad.
fireblade wrote:
> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
Currently, the threads "Help me perfect this code" and "too many ifs"
contain hundreds of lines of hand-compiled pattern matches written in Lisp.
When pattern matching is built into the language, everyone uses it and it
makes your life much easier.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
On Apr 18, 7:57 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> fireblade wrote:
> > What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
>
> Currently, the threads "Help me perfect this code" and "too many ifs"
> contain hundreds of lines of hand-compiled pattern matches written in Lisp.
> When pattern matching is built into the language, everyone uses it and it
> makes your life much easier.
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> The F#.NET Journalhttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
When I need pattern matching I could always write a macro,
and i could even create my own embedded language that
will make my life a LOT easier.
What does F# has to say about symbol processing ,
dynamic typing , first order functions, closures , CLOS,
imperative programming (sometimes it's the right way od doing things)
and (since you mentioned lambda calculus) s-expressions.
bobi
fireblade wrote:
> When I need pattern matching I could always write a macro,
Thousands of lines of code and it will always be slower. Or you can leverage
35 years of language evolution...
> What does F# has to say about symbol processing,
Sum types.
> dynamic typing,
box
> first order functions,
Same as Lisp/Scheme
> closures,
Same as Scheme
> CLOS,
.NET
> imperative programming (sometimes it's the right way od doing things)
Same as Lisp
> and (since you mentioned lambda calculus) s-expressions.
Quotations supporting compilation to GPU, grid computing and SQL queries,
for example.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
On Apr 18, 12:38 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> fireblade wrote:
> > When I need pattern matching I could always write a macro,
>
> Thousands of lines of code and it will always be slower. Or you can leverage
> 35 years of language evolution...
>
> > What does F# has to say about symbol processing,
>
> Sum types.
>
> > dynamic typing,
>
> box
>
> > first order functions,
>
> Same as Lisp/Scheme
>
> > closures,
>
> Same as Scheme
>
>
> > imperative programming (sometimes it's the right way od doing things)
>
> Same as Lisp
>
> > and (since you mentioned lambda calculus) s-expressions.
>
> Quotations supporting compilation to GPU, grid computing and SQL queries,
> for example.
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> The F#.NET Journalhttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
Ok you persuade me to try F# , i don't want to sign off languages
before give them a chance.
I'll write my impressions afterwards.
But don't give me that about
> > CLOS,
> .NET
I've coded in c# since Visual Studio .net 2002 came around and i
still work with 2003 & 2005
sometimes .Net is a rich framework but it doesn't got anything even
close to CLOS ,
while Lispers have RNDZL to interface with .Net if they need them
bobi
Jon Harrop wrote:
> fireblade wrote:
>> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
>
> Currently, the threads "Help me perfect this code" and "too many ifs"
> contain hundreds of lines of hand-compiled pattern matches written in Lisp.
> When pattern matching is built into the language, everyone uses it and it
> makes your life much easier.
If that were the only thing important about programming, that would be a
real killer argument. ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:35:36 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> fireblade wrote:
>>> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
>>
>> Currently, the threads "Help me perfect this code" and "too many ifs"
>> contain hundreds of lines of hand-compiled pattern matches written in
>> Lisp. When pattern matching is built into the language, everyone uses
>> it and it makes your life much easier.
>
> If that were the only thing important about programming, that would be a
> real killer argument. ;)
Except that most of the schemes that I've looked at already have quite
complete match or even match-lambda macros/syntax already. I'd be very
surprised if there aren't some for CL too, but I haven't got that far in
my lispy adventure, yet...
[And for John's benefit: yes, since these are macros, they compile down
to exactly the same sort of tight trees of explicit ifs that your OCaml
and F# compilers give you.]
I haven't had occasion to use them yet, but there's a really neat similar
library that contains sxml-match (pattern-match XML parsed into s-
expressions): bind XML elements directly to variables by syntax/
structure, rather than mucking about with DOM expressions. Can F# do
that?
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> Except that most of the schemes that I've looked at already have quite
> complete match or even match-lambda macros/syntax already. I'd be very
> surprised if there aren't some for CL too, but I haven't got that far in
> my lispy adventure, yet...
Yes. I had a quick look and Schemes are typically much better than Lisps in
this respect.
> [And for John's benefit: yes, since these are macros, they compile down
> to exactly the same sort of tight trees of explicit ifs that your OCaml
> and F# compilers give you.]
Not quite the same. They lack type information, machine verified
documentation and the corresponding performance. Look up the recent thread
on symbolic simplification: Lisp was 50x slower with COND and still 5x
slower with a pattern matching library. Also, Lisp was about 2x more
verbose in non-whitespace bytes, IIRC.
> I haven't had occasion to use them yet, but there's a really neat similar
> library that contains sxml-match (pattern-match XML parsed into s-
> expressions): bind XML elements directly to variables by syntax/
> structure, rather than mucking about with DOM expressions. Can F# do
> that?
Yes. That is just a special case of F#'s pattern matching. Active patterns
allow you to provide views of non-native data structures (including
the .NET representation of XML data) so you can apply pattern matching to
XML or any other data transparently. Actually this is the exact topic of
the first journal article... :-)
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
Jon Harrop wrote:
> fireblade wrote:
>> What does F# has to offer what lisp doesn't already got ?
>
> Currently, the threads "Help me perfect this code" and "too many ifs"
> contain hundreds of lines of hand-compiled pattern matches written in Lisp.
> When pattern matching is built into the language, everyone uses it and it
> makes your life much easier.
>
But where is the F# Concentration game that you said you would write? If it was
easy in F# I assume you would have it done already.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> But where is the F# Concentration game that you said you would write? If
> it was easy in F# I assume you would have it done already.
Freaky. I was just thinking about doing that. :-)
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
This is disgusting SPAM of your commercial web site, that has nothing
to do with lisp whatsoever.
BTW I saw your announcement on paid access to your articles about F#
ROTLFMAO! You better switch to articles about VB and C# if you want
someone pay for them.
Vagif Verdi wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/
>
> This is disgusting SPAM of your commercial web site, that has nothing
> to do with lisp whatsoever.
True.
> BTW I saw your announcement on paid access to your articles about F#
> ROTLFMAO! You better switch to articles about VB and C# if you want
> someone pay for them.
Is there something similar for Lisp?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
> > On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>Is there something similar for Lisp?
There's abundance of high quality articles on wide variety of lisp
programming subjects from commercial vendors like Lispworks and Franz.
In free public access BTW.
Check their web sites.
Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> There's abundance of high quality articles on wide variety of lisp
> programming subjects from commercial vendors like Lispworks and Franz.
> In free public access BTW.
Hmmm...I was actually pretty excited when I read this; I hadn't
considered that the two leading proprietary implementations might have
some good articles to read. But when I checked, LispWorks Ltd. have two
papers online and Franz's stuff--while copious--appears to apply solely
to their products (which is perfectly reasonable).
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
But it's more than that, of course; bad spelling just isn't respectable.
You may, perhaps, want to lament this fact. You are free to do so. The
fact remains. --John Mitchell
On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
> of the features of the F# programming language
Check out Qi http://www.lambdassociates.org/
It is a lisp dialect with all the modern goodies of haskell such as
type inference, pattern matching, currying, partial application, list
comprehensions, short syntax for lamdba.
Except probably default lazy eval. But then again, F# also lacks in
this department.
Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
> With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
> of the features of the ** programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
> you can just learn ** itself:
>
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/**_journal/
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> The **.NET Journal
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/**_journal/?usenet
Hang on, weren't we poor benighted souls supposed to be loving O'Caml
already? Also, I believe you forgot to mention viagra and the need for
charity directed towards Nigeria in your informative, appropriately
on-topic, non-trolling message. Thanks for contributing to the Lisp
community anyway.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren "Too jaded to question stagnation"
(message (Hello 'Jon)
(you :wrote :on '(Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:36:42 +0100))
(
JH> With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have
JH> some of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft
JH> Research. Or you can just learn F# itself:
but i'm afraid it's practially not possible to extend F# to have some of
features of the Common Lisp.
so you'd better just learn Common Lisp itself
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"I am everything you want and I am everything you need")
On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> With enough effort it is theoretically possible to extend Lisp to have some
> of the features of the F# programming language from Microsoft Research. Or
> you can just learn F# itself:
Why does Harrop persist in CLL?
Even if he persuaded all CLL readers to switch, it wouldn't make his
hobby-horse popular. And, it's pretty obvious that those readers
aren't
influential enough to make a difference.
Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
better off
trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
Is it one of those self-esteem problems? If so, why does he want the
approval of a bunch of cretins who are clearly incapable of
appreciating
his genius?
On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
> better off
> trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
What on earth are you talking about? I'm quite sure that most of us
had not given F# even the tiniest glance before this eruption. Having
only briefly glanced at the MS page on it, it sounds like it's Caml
for .NET with the type inferencer integrated into the IDE. If, god
forbid, I find myself stuck doing .NET programming, it looks far, far
more bearable than the other language offerings for that platform, all
of which translate to "career change" for me.
As for the question of what decent Lisper could possibly need so much
help learning Caml that they'd want to pay this guy $20/month to
subscribe to his journal ...
On Apr 19, 4:01 am, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
> > better off
> > trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
>
> What on earth are you talking about? I'm quite sure that most of us
> had not given F# even the tiniest glance before this eruption.
The hobby-horse is O'Caml,which Harrop has been beating for
years. He's also told us repeatedly about F#, which is O'Caml
with the Microsoft treatment, so even if you believe that said
treatment makes a difference, it's same-old same-old. And, if
you care about the MS treatment, aren't you more likely to
get the relevant information through a MS channel?
What did CLL do to deserve such attention?
-andy
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
>> better off trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
He is claiming that Lispers are uninterested in other languages.
> As for the question of what decent Lisper could possibly need so much
> help learning Caml that they'd want to pay this guy $20/month to
> subscribe to his journal ...
See "Apparently, I don't understand pattern matching", for example:
http://cs.hubfs.net/forums/thread/2654.aspx
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
On Apr 19, 1:31 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
> >> better off trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
>
> > What on earth are you talking about?
>
> He is claiming that Lispers are uninterested in other languages.
Not at all.
I'm pointing out that, other that Harrop, there isn't much/any
interest
in discussing Caml-languages in CLL.
For better or worse, usenet is topic oriented. CLL isn't the place
for
discussing the virtues of Avaya phones or dalmations, even if lispers
happen to care about those things.
The first couple of messages can slide under the "hey, you guys
might be interested in this", but we're way past that. Folks who want
caml or relevant discussions know where to find it.
I note that Harrop hasn't bothered to tell us why he keeps posting
about Caml in CLL.
Perhaps there should be a newsgroup creation vote for
comp.lang.lisp.caml
(or lisp-caml) so Harrop can have a forum.
In article <·······················@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:31 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, Andy Freeman <······@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> Almost all of us have rejected said hobby-horse. Wouldn't he be
> > >> better off trying to convert folk who haven't seen it?
> >
> > > What on earth are you talking about?
> >
> > He is claiming that Lispers are uninterested in other languages.
>
> Not at all.
>
> I'm pointing out that, other that Harrop, there isn't much/any
> interest
> in discussing Caml-languages in CLL.
>
> For better or worse, usenet is topic oriented. CLL isn't the place
> for
> discussing the virtues of Avaya phones or dalmations, even if lispers
> happen to care about those things.
>
> The first couple of messages can slide under the "hey, you guys
> might be interested in this", but we're way past that. Folks who want
> caml or relevant discussions know where to find it.
Right. I would sometimes even tolerate messages like
'this is how I'd do it in X, what is the Lisp way?'.
But he seems to be totally uninterested in Lisp.
> I note that Harrop hasn't bothered to tell us why he keeps posting
> about Caml in CLL.
Yeah. There is a CAML mailing list where his postings
are on-topic.
Mostly he want to create traffic for his website
and create business with his F# stuff.
> Perhaps there should be a newsgroup creation vote for
> comp.lang.lisp.caml
> (or lisp-caml) so Harrop can have a forum.
Well, there are cross-language newsgroups
like comp.lang.functional . Everybody
who has an interest in Functional Programming
can read that (I do sometimes). comp.object is also
somehow relevant, since CAML is also an object-oriented language.
CAML also has its own mailing list which can be read
at fa.caml .
In comp.lang.lisp or comp.lang.lisp.* pure CAML (and for derived
languages like F#) postings like many of
Mr. Harrop are off-topic. Somehow he things Lisp users
haven't seen the light and he needs to evangelize
in c.l.l. Sometime ago it was Mathematica,
now it is F#. Advertising his F# business is
especially off-topic in c.l.l. I wish him well with his business,
but c.l.l is definitely not a newsgroup for any random
business that is mostly unrelated to Lisp.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> Mostly he want to create traffic for his website
> and create business with his F# stuff.
I hate it when people do that. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/ It is so
transparent. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo.html Who do they think
they are kidding? http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/about_us.html Not me!
kzo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
In article <···············@newsfe12.lga>,
Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > Mostly he want to create traffic for his website
> > and create business with his F# stuff.
>
> I hate it when people do that. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/ It is so
> transparent. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo.html Who do they think
> they are kidding? http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/about_us.html Not me!
>
> kzo
We'll better give the advertising space to you. ;-)
Btw., your website is not very clear what it is about.
I guess it is software I have to buy? Or not? Is it
for free? Is it ready? Soon?
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> In article <···············@newsfe12.lga>,
> Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rainer Joswig wrote:
>>
>>>Mostly he want to create traffic for his website
>>>and create business with his F# stuff.
>>
>>I hate it when people do that. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/ It is so
>>transparent. http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo.html Who do they think
>>they are kidding? http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/about_us.html Not me!
>>
>>kzo
>
>
>
> We'll better give the advertising space to you. ;-)
>
> Btw., your website is not very clear what it is about.
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/features.html
<g>
> I guess it is software I have to buy?
License.
> Or not? Is it
> for free?
Do I: http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/about_us.html
...look like RMS?:
http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-23/richard-stallman.html
The "free download" bit is just my best impersonation of porn sites: the
first thing it asks you do is give me money. Kidding. Some use available
before it demands your wallet or your life.
> Is it ready?
No.
> Soon?
There might be an alpha release for a privileged few in late June, then
look for something public in the Sept/Nov window.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> In article <···············@newsfe12.lga>,
> Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo.html
Nice demo. How much did you pay for the licences for using the sound
samples? I think at least one was from "2001: A Space Odyssey"
I wonder how the program knows all the time, which hint would be the best
for a wrong answer. Looks like much work to think of all possible failures
the student can make and a complicated program to detect it.
> Btw., your website is not very clear what it is about.
> I guess it is software I have to buy? Or not? Is it
> for free? Is it ready? Soon?
On the main page you can read: "Free download arrives: September 1, 2007"
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
>
>>In article <···············@newsfe12.lga>,
>> Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo.html
>
>
> Nice demo. How much did you pay for the licences for using the sound
> samples? I think at least one was from "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Those are my favorite. "Just what do you think you are doing, Dave?"
"This can only be attributable to human error." "I think you have
improved a great deal." "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that."
Just playing around. Might not ship with those. Might be fair use,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
definitely in a gray area: clear loss on being commercial, unclear on
second but might be OK, safe on last two of the four balancing tests.
Might license if anyone complains. There are so many clips out there
(and I can make my own) I really do not lose sleep over it. As per test
three, it is incidental to the program's functionality.
>
> I wonder how the program knows all the time, which hint would be the best
> for a wrong answer. Looks like much work to think of all possible failures
> the student can make and a complicated program to detect it.
Hints just tell them how to do the next step. They could type in 42 and
get the same hints. I do have an idea for actual error diagnosis, but
that will wait until version 2.0. This will be relatively easy because,
yes, the program is already complicated, I just have to teach it a new
stupid pet trick.
btw, your mistake is in thinking it has to detect all possible failures.
It will just try to identify common mistakes. Cake.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Hints just tell them how to do the next step. They could type in 42 and
> get the same hints.
Ok, then I overrated the program. If it just says "error" and gave useful
hints, which are related to the exercise and not the answer, it will be
easier to implement, but still lots of work to find good exercises and
hints.
> btw, your mistake is in thinking it has to detect all possible failures.
> It will just try to identify common mistakes. Cake.
You have the experience to know which failures the students make, so could
be a success. But I wonder if some more AI could save many manual work.
After all Lisp is *the* language for AI programming :-)
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>Hints just tell them how to do the next step. They could type in 42 and
>>get the same hints.
>
>
> Ok, then I overrated the program. If it just says "error" and gave useful
> hints, which are related to the exercise and not the answer, it will be
> easier to implement, but still lots of work to find good exercises and
> hints.
>
>
>>btw, your mistake is in thinking it has to detect all possible failures.
>>It will just try to identify common mistakes. Cake.
>
>
> You have the experience to know which failures the students make, so could
> be a success. But I wonder if some more AI could save many manual work.
God I love it watching Frank Buss assess technology.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen