When i first heard about distributed revision control system about 2
years ago, i heard of Darcs, which is written in Haskell. I was hugely
excited, thinking about the functional programing i love, and the no-
side effect pure system i idolize, and the technology of human animal
i rapture in daily.
I have no serious actual need to use a revision system (RVS) in recent
years, so i never really tried Darcs (nor using any RVS). I just
thought the new-fangled distributed tech in combination of Haskell was
great.
About few months ago, i was updating a 6-year old page i wrote on unix
tools: ( http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/usoft.html ) and i was
trying to update myself on the current state of art of revision
systems. I read Wikipedia this passage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcs
« Darcs currently has a number of significant bugs (see e.g. [1]). The
most severe of them is "the Conflict bug" - an exponential blowup in
time needed to perform conflict resolution during merges, reaching
into the hours and days for "large" repositories. A redesign of the
repository format and wide-ranging changes in the codebase are planned
in order to fix this bug, and work on this is planned to start in
Spring 2007 [2]. »
This somewhat bursted my bubble, as there always was some doubt in the
back of my mind about just how Darcs is not just a fantasy-ware
trumpeted by a bunch of functional tech geekers. (i heard of Darcs in
irc emacs and haskell channels, who are often student and hobbiests
programers)
Also, in my light research, it was to my surprise, that Darcs is not
the only distributed systems, and perhaps not the first one neither,
contrary to my impressions. In fact, today there are quite a LOT
distributed revision systems, actually as a norm. When one looks into
these, such as Git ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) ) one
finds that some of them are already in practical industrial use for
large projects, as opposed to Darcs's academic/hobbist kind of
community.
In addition to these findings, one additional that greatly pissed me
off entirely about Darcs, is the intro of the author (David Roundy)'s
essay about his (questionable-sounding) “theory of patches” used in
Darcs. ( http://darcs.net/manual/node8.html#Patch )
Here's the 2 passages:
«I think a little background on the author is in order. I am a
physicist, and think like a physicist. The proofs and theorems given
here are what I would call ``physicist'' proofs and theorems, which is
to say that while the proofs may not be rigorous, they are practical,
and the theorems are intended to give physical insight. It would be
great to have a mathematician work on this, but I am not a
mathematician, and don't care for math.»
«From the beginning of this theory, which originated as the result of
a series of email discussions with Tom Lord, I have looked at patches
as being analogous to the operators of quantum mechanics. I include in
this appendix footnotes explaining the theory of patches in terms of
the theory of quantum mechanics. I know that for most people this
won't help at all, but many of my friends (and as I write this all
three of darcs' users) are physicists, and this will be helpful to
them. To non-physicists, perhaps it will provide some insight into how
at least this physicist thinks.»
I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
Mathematics. Who the fuck is this David guy, who proclaims that he's
no mathematician, then proceed to tell us he dosen't fucking care
about math? Then, he went on about HIS personal fucking zeal for
physics, in particular injecting the highly quacky “quantum mechanics”
with impunity.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
287.41347 mm is exact outside the nominal tolerances for a DIN A4.
What is your excuse ?
Cor
--
Alle schraifvauden zijn opzettelijk, teneinde ieder lafaard de kans te
geven over spelling te zeuren in plaats van in te gaan op de inhoud.
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> Mathematics.
Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in
algorithms.
And they almost never match the mental model that the average
user has about a problem.
On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
> > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> > Mathematics.
>
> Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
> the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
> much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
> world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in
> algorithms.
>
> And they almost never match the mental model that the average
> user has about a problem.
I read somewhere that for large primes, using Fermat's Little Theorem
test is *good enough* for engineers because the chances of it being
wrong are less likely than a cosmic particle hitting your CPU at the
exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the
primary difference between engineers and mathematicians.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:20:47 -0000, Daniel Pitts
<·············@coloraura.com> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
>> > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
>> > Mathematics.
>>
>> Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
>> the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
>> much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
>> world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in
>> algorithms.
>>
>> And they almost never match the mental model that the average
>> user has about a problem.
>
>I read somewhere that for large primes, using Fermat's Little Theorem
>test is *good enough* for engineers because the chances of it being
>wrong are less likely than a cosmic particle hitting your CPU at the
>exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the
>primary difference between engineers and mathematicians.
An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of
the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of
discrete steps during which you may close half the remaining distance
between yourself and the other person.
Mathematician: "But I'll never get there!"
Engineer: "I'll get close enough."
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner wrote:
> An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of
> the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of
> discrete steps during which you may close half the remaining distance
> between yourself and the other person.
>
> Mathematician: "But I'll never get there!"
>
> Engineer: "I'll get close enough."
Mechanician (to the researcher): Hey, you look pretty good. What's your sign?
--
Lew
On Oct 20, 6:20 pm, Daniel Pitts <·············@coloraura.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
>
> > > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
> > > Mathematics.
>
> > Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
> > the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
> > much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
> > world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in
> > algorithms.
>
> > And they almost never match the mental model that the average
> > user has about a problem.
>
> I read somewhere that for large primes, using Fermat's Little Theorem
> test is *good enough* for engineers because the chances of it being
> wrong are less likely than a cosmic particle hitting your CPU at the
> exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the
> primary difference between engineers and mathematicians.
Carmichael number are the ones who are making the problem , but they
are very rare.
There are 1,401,644 Carmichael numbers between 1 and 1018
(approximately one in 700 billion numbers.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_number If you want to be sure
use Miller-Rabin test.
Slobodan Blazeski
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:04:06 -0700, llothar <·······@web.de> tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
>
>> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to
>> Mathematics.
>
>Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are
>the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and
>much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact
>world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in
>algorithms.
>
>And they almost never match the mental model that the average
>user has about a problem.
I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
_not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer? Or maybe that learning
math is useless to a programmer? This must be the most ignorant post I've seen
this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education.
The programmers who don't know math are the ones who end up on DailyWTF.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
> I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
> _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
skills.
> Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer?
No and at least the mathematical idea of building a universe on a
basic set
of axioms is pretty exciting for a programmer. But it's the idea not
the real
wisdom (I never had to use any serious maths in my 25 years of
programming)
that you need as a programmer
> This must be the most ignorant post I've seen
> this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education.
Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
his total
failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
very
different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
like TeX - and
then trying to base a theory about software engineering (which is
based on changes)
is so absolutely stupid ...
llothar wrote:
> Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
> his total
> failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
Umm, the term is "literate" programmer and there is evidence that it is not a
"failure".
> very
> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
> like TeX - and
Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted many other
flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need evidence
for such a claim.
> then trying to base a theory about software engineering (which is
> based on changes)
"base a theory" on what? There's a clause missing here.
> is so absolutely stupid ...
Is that a technical evaluation? It looks like random inflammatory comments
without basis in logic or evidence. Can stupidity be absolute? What is the
metric of stupidity?
How would you disprove that assertion? Oh, wait, there wasn't an assertion.
The sentence was incomplete. What are you asserting?
A theory based on what, exactly, is "so absolutely stupid"?
--
Lew
Lew wrote:
>> very
>> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
>> like TeX - and
>
> Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted many
> other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need
> evidence for such a claim.
According to wikipedia the last version is from december 2002.
That level of activity could be considered dead.
It would for almost any other software. Tex has some
"absolute" over it, so I am not sure normal software
practices apply.
But you could argue based on that.
Arne
On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj <····@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> That level of activity could be considered dead.
For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
to call it non dead.
I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
not dead but this is not the point under discussion here.
llothar wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj <····@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
>> That level of activity could be considered dead.
>
> For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed
> to call it non dead.
>
> I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be
> not dead but this is not the point under discussion here.
No, there are two points - not whether Tex is "dead", but whether it's a "dead
end" (which do you mean?), and whether in any way that says anything about
Knuth's ability as a programmer.
Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence that
Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none (nor, I
expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as a programmer.
The switch from asserting "dead end" to asserting "dead" is sort of an
interesting rhetorical device. Just pick one or the other, or if you prefer,
assert both, but please be clear. Should we just accept that you meant, "less
than 2% of total line count changed"? Per year? Per century? What if the
code is perfect and has no need of change? Is it (a) dead (end)?
(Who uses line count as a metric of anything any more?)
--
Lew
On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <····@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
theory of
"literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software
development,
this is programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not
programming
in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the
small, sure you
can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting
algorithm, but
this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science -
well a few
people seem to like this.
And as an evidence that this theory works ("literate" programming) -
there is no
easy prove about efficient workflow - was his TeX program where only
some parts
are handled like this. But drawing an conclusion from a "developement
dead"
project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: fucking
stupid.
Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not
useable.
Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem
analysis you might
find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a
guy building
a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby.
llothar wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <····@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
>
> Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
> theory of
> "literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software
> development,
> this is programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not
> programming
> in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the
> small, sure you
> can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting
> algorithm, but
> this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science -
> well a few
> people seem to like this.
>
> And as an evidence that this theory works ("literate" programming) -
> there is no
> easy prove about efficient workflow - was his TeX program where only
> some parts
> are handled like this. But drawing an conclusion from a "developement
> dead"
> project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: fucking
> stupid.
No, I conclude that literate programming works from the prevalence of tools
like Javadoc and Doxygen, and the Sun and MS coding standards documents. I
see the direct benefits in my own work every day.
Proposing a straw-man argument then knocking it down with mere purple prose
like "just sorry: [sic] fucking stupid" is, sorry, just fucking stupid. See?
No logic there at all. Thus proving that there's no logic there at all.
> Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not
> useable.
Rrr? "Everythink" does, eh? Maybe what the world needs instead is literate
programmers, then.
Cite some specifics, please? And remember, when you say "everything" that
even one counter-example disproves.
There is evidence that aspects of "literate" programming do work. Besides,
that a theory is wrong is part of science, not a denigration of the scientist.
Even a wrong theory, like Newtonian mechanics, advances the science (e.g.,
physics) and is evidence that the scientist (Isaac Newton) is a genius. Like
Donald Knuth.
> Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem
> analysis you might
> find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a
> guy building
> a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby.
So you say, again with just rhetoric and complete lack of evidence or argument
to support the outrageous assertion. Many people, myself included, have seen
your so-called "real world" benefit significantly from academic results.
Object-oriented programming is an example. The fertilization works both ways;
check out how the science of computer graphics expanded thanks to LucasFilms.
Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely
shouting obscenities, hm?
--
Lew
On Oct 21, 3:11 pm, Lew <····@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely
> shouting obscenities, hm?
You're expecting logic from someone who asserts that
> llothar wrote:
> > only contribution to software development was the theory of
> > "literate" programming.
Good luck, mate.
-o
In article <························@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
>On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <····@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
>
>Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
>theory of
>"literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software
>development,
>this is programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not
>programming
>in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the
>small, sure you
>can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting
>algorithm, but
>this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science -
>well a few
>people seem to like this.
Boy, you really have to get a clue.
Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE
definitive series on computer algorithms (and that most people who need
these algorithms know those books... they document a fairly large set of
interesting facts about floating point arithmetic, and the designers of
cpu would do well to read them and not cut to many corners for IEEE754.
They also a document a large set of useful algorithms, some of them
fairly commonplace as soon as you need some efficiency), no, he hasn't
done anything smart.
No real world effect ? Ah! have a look inside your computer at some point.
You'll be surprised where you find those algorithms (your kernel is likely
to use some of them, for instance). And perl is probably better for
Knuth's study of hash algorithms...
As far as TeX being `dead' goes, it's just finished, from Knuth's point of
view. It doesn't prevent TeX-based distributions from thriving (TeXlive
being the latest fad), and TeX-derived projects from going forward...
From: Joachim Durchholz
Subject: Re: Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love
Date:
Message-ID: <fhfrva$nmk$1@online.de>
Marc Espie schrieb:
> Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE
> definitive series on computer algorithms
I don't wish to diminish Knuth's work, but it's definitely not timeless.
For an alternative, see Sedgewick's "Algorithms in C/Pascal/whatever".
Not as rigorous about proving the properties of algorithms, but the
selection of algorithms is more modern, and the presentation is
palatable (instead of the assembly/flowchart mix that Knuth is so fond of).
There are other algorithm collections.
The largest one is the Internet itself. A search engine or Wikipedia
would be my first stop when looking for an algorithm.
(Agreeing with the rest.)
Regards,
Jo
>>>>> Lew <···@lewscanon.com> (L) wrote:
>L> Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence
>L> that Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none
>L> (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as
>L> a programmer.
According to Knuth's definition the name 'TeX' is reserved for a program
that passes the trip test. Under this assumption TeX is dead by definition.
However in a broader sense TeX is still actively developed, but it may not
be called just 'TeX' because these new versions contain extensions. So
they get new names with 'tex' being part of their name. PdfTeX and LuaTeX
are new versions that are being developed right now.
--
Piet van Oostrum <····@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: ····@vanoostrum.org
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>>> very
>>> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software
>>> like TeX - and
>>
>> Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted
>> many other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You
>> will need evidence for such a claim.
>
> According to wikipedia the last version is from december 2002.
>
> That level of activity could be considered dead.
>
> It would for almost any other software. Tex has some
> "absolute" over it, so I am not sure normal software
> practices apply.
>
> But you could argue based on that.
No, you present good evidence that TeX is a dead end. It still doesn't
support the claim llothar wrote:
>> Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers.
Plenty of brilliant programmers have written software that is no longer used
(except in legacy use cases). Good software, too. I suppose what I was
reacting to was the notion that TeX was a dead end at the time Knuth came up
with it, and that that somehow invalidated the accomplishment of coming up
with TeX.
The fact that it is still in use even five years after cessation of
development does mitigate the "dead end" assessment at least potentially.
--
Lew
llothar wrote:
>> I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that
>> _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer?
>
> No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different
> skills.
Many things within programming have a foundation in mathematics
and mathematical logic.
>> Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer?
>
> No and at least the mathematical idea of building a universe on a
> basic set
> of axioms is pretty exciting for a programmer. But it's the idea not
> the real
> wisdom (I never had to use any serious maths in my 25 years of
> programming)
> that you need as a programmer
Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math.
Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational
database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc.
are all based on mathematics of different levels.
>> This must be the most ignorant post I've seen
>> this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education.
>
> Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
> his total
> failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
> very
> different.
I think you will find it very difficult to write a piece of code
that are not heavily influenced by Knuth.
Arne
>
> Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math.
>
> Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational
> database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc.
> are all based on mathematics of different levels.
Thats not i call serious maths. You just need a very little
understanding
here for all this concepts. A "extended high school degress" should be
well
enough (based on our education system in Germany - don't know how much
math
you do in a US high schoool). A little bit set theory and of course
boolean
algebra (on a very low level but unfortunately not teached in school).
But where do you need the way to prove mathematical theorems and this
is what
i call as serious math. You don't need to prove anything you just need
to
use it. (In 95% of all programming, except some embedded programming
with
DSP's or numeric.)
> > Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at
> > his total
> > failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something
> > very
> > different.
>
> I think you will find it very difficult to write a piece of code
> that are not heavily influenced by Knuth.
Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not
for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid
for this by this university employee.
But in the field of software enginering as i said before he
completely
failed. And for me programming is just another word for software
engineering these days.
llothar wrote:
> Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not
> for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid
> for this by this university employee.
What a curious thesis.
> But in the field of software enginering as i said before he
> completely
> failed.
As you said, but for which you provided absolutely no evidence, and the
counter evidence that Arne provided is that he has not "completely" failed for
any useful value of "failed". Statements of absolute only need one
counterexample. /The Art of Programming/ is arguably the most significant
contribution to the field of software engineering. By any reasonable
assessment, on the basis of that one work alone Knuth was a success.
Your rhetorical tack of unfounded assertions and inflammatory
characterizations, not to say complete disregard for the reality of the
situation, do not make a cogent case, much less a convincing one.
I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if anything, a
huge success in the field of software engineering, whether you rate it as
making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to perform the art.
--
Lew
From: Joachim Durchholz
Subject: Re: Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love
Date:
Message-ID: <ffg2jk$mj$1@online.de>
Lew schrieb:
> I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if
> anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether
> you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to
> perform the art.
Well, sort of.
Some of the code given is unreadable. (He obviously didn't take the
"structured programming" thing to heart.)
Worse, some of the code given is inscrutable, and remains unexplained
(e.g. the code for the spectral test algorithm).
Whole classes of algorithms were omitted. This is probably no fault of
Knuth as a programmer, but simply a field that's moving faster than a
single person can keep up with.
These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other
programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority.
It also has downsides, most notably the markup language is pure horror.
TeX's markup language is a dead end.
TeX's algorithm isn't. Actually it has been extracted from the software
and is available as a functional program, waiting to be embedded into a
typesetting system with more modern qualities.
Regards,
Jo
On 21 Okt., 19:34, Joachim Durchholz <····@durchholz.org> wrote:
> These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
> In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
> of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
> and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other
> programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority.
Acording to the Legend Of The Great Knuth ( derived from personal
confessions ) Knuth used a "Clean Room" approach. He specified and
verified the entire program before he started hacking it into the
machine. The result is accordingly. What has changed since then is
computer power and easeness of tool usage. One would rather use an
incremental approach today and specify + hack + test the program in
tiny pieces without struggling too much with the programming
equipment. So it also just incrementally improves.
TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.
i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
the basic thoughts are here:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html
it's slightly repeatitous there. But i think i might summarize in gist
the few fundanmental issues, all sterm from just the first one:
1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions
representation system.
2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the
entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of
stagnation.
3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of
mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling.
4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics)
5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
major ways.
Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. Fucking
asses and holes.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:07:37 -0400, Lew <···@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>Xah Lee wrote:
>> i have written ... No coherent argument,
I've long killfiled XL to the effect that all of his threads are
ignored altogether, since the guy is "nice" enough to only take part
to his own rants, but occasionally some posts slip out and now from
the Subject I infer that the new target for his hate is TeX, which
makes me wonder, given his views on Perl (and "unixisms in general"
iirc) what our "friend" would think about such a wonderful tool as
PerlTeX - from his POV certainly a synergy between two of the worst
devil's devices. :)
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
Lew wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> i have written ... No coherent argument,
Actually the modified title is wrong. It should be
The Xah Lee pestilence
Please see his posting history of off-topic random rambling for details.
Oh, and PLEASE
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@·@@·@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================
jue
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:50:30 -0700, Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.
>
>i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
>the basic thoughts are here:
>http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html
Knuth did a whole lot more for computing than you have or, probably,
ever will. Your arrogance is truly amazing.
>1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions
>representation system.
So?
>2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the
>entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of
>stagnation.
What the frac are you talking about?
>3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of
>mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling.
Like they wouldn't be doodling anyway. At least the TeX doodling is
likely to be readable (as if anyone cared).
>4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
>HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
>leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
>is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics)
HTML is unsuitable for representing most structure and semantics. And
legions of fumbling idiots compose brand new invalid HTML every day.
>5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
>language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
>major ways.
No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".
>Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. Fucking
>asses and holes.
Watch your language, there are children present.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>> 4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
>> HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
>> leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
>> is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics)
There's something a little fey about someone calling out a "programing [sic]
moron's ingorance [sic]" and then devolving right into blue speech.
I think Xah Lee should look into:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>
--
Lew
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.functional.]
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:51 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:50:30 -0700, Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
[...]
>>5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
>>language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
>>major ways.
>
> No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".
TeX is Turing compleate so it is quite valid to consider it a computer language. Though
Xah Lee is correct more by co-incidence.
George Neuner schrieb:
>> 5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
>> language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
>> major ways.
>
> No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".
But it is.
It's Turing-complete.
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
But no, I don't hold that against Knuth. It was designed in days when
domain-specific languages didn't have a roughly standardized syntax.
(Truth remains truth, regardless of who's upholding it.)
Regards,
Jo
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> And yes, it sucks in major ways.
>>
> Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
functional programming.
jue
J�rgen Exner wrote:
> Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
>> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>>> And yes, it [syntactically] sucks in major ways.
>>>
>> Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
>
> Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
> functional programming.
>
That's not an answer to my question and you know it.
But OK, F'up to c.l.tex (makes me wonder why Xah didn't ... well,
actually it doesn't, nevermind ;))
/W
Wildemar Wildenburger schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> And yes, it sucks in major ways.
>>
> Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?
First of all, irregularities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#The_typesetting_system:
"[...]almost all of TeX's syntactic properties can be changed on the fly
which makes TeX input hard to parse by anything but TeX itself."
Then: No locals.
In particular, processing is controlled via global flags. If you need a
different setting while a macro is processing, you have to remember to
reset it before macro exit.
Many packages just set the flags to a standard value.
In other words, if you didn't know that a specific flag affects the
operation of your macro, the macro may break when used with a different
package that sets the flag to a different default value. (This may be
one of the reasons why everybody just sticks with LaTeX.)
Four stages of processing, and you have to know exactly which is
responsible for what to predict the outcome of a macro.
This is more a documentation problem - for several features, there's no
description which stage is responsible for processing it. That can make
working with a feature difficult, since you don't know which processing
steps have already been done and which are still to happen.
My TeX days are long gone, so I may have forgotten some of the problems,
but I think these were the worst. (And, of course, I may have gotten
some details mixed up, so if you're seriously interested in the good and
bad sides of TeX, verify before taking anything for granted.)
Note that it's just the markup language that I object to. The
typesetting algorithms seem to be remarkably regular and robust.
I would have very much liked to see TeX split up into a typesetting
library and a language processor.
Unfortunately, that was beyond my capabilities at the time I came into
contact with TeX, and I never got around to revisiting the issue.
However, the TeX algorithm has been extracted and made available as a
Regards,
Jo
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: TeX pestilence (was Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love)
Date:
Message-ID: <ymi3avzavrh.fsf@blackcat.isi.edu>
Joachim Durchholz <··@durchholz.org> writes:
> However, the TeX algorithm has been extracted and made available
> as a
>
> Regards,
> Jo
Trying to tease us like Fermatt did?
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
OMouse wrote:
> For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional
> programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and
> link to it?
I expect you'll be ignored on that. Xah Lee reposts and reposts these essays
from years agone. I don't even read his posts, just the responses.
--
Lew
On Oct 20, 1:28 am, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> ...
> Who the fuck is this [KOOK], who proclaims that he's
> no [EXPERT ON FOO], then proceed to tell us he dosen't fucking care
> about [FOO]? Then, he went on about HIS personal fucking zeal for
> [BAR], in particular injecting the highly quacky [STUFF]
> with impunity.
Sounds like your run-of-the-mill Usenet kook. Feeling the strain of
competition?
>
> Xah
> ····@xahlee.org
> $B-t(Bhttp://xahlee.org/