Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

>
> Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> says...
>>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>> I advise checking Mr. Davidson's posting record in all groups on
>>> Google before engaging him in a conversation about "Eskimos"
>>> Oil drilling, or anything else related to Alaska. You will find
>>> that he spends most of his time engaging in nasty flame wars about
>>> subjects that are of no interest to 99.9% of the world's population.
>>
>>i know floyd from this ng, and while he has strong opinions on many topics
>>and enjoys expressing them at length, he always seems quite well-informed
>>about them, and nothing i've seen him post here would constitute a flame
>>war by my definition.
>>
>>so while you are perfectly free to put floyd in your kill file, forgive me
>>for not doing the same.
>
> I did not advocate putting Mr. Davidson in a killfile. I merely
> suggested checking his posting record in all groups before engaging
> him in a conversation about certain non-slackware-related subjects
> which he seems to have strong feelings about.

Is it time for my net-nanny crack yet?

Joost Kremers wrote:

> name wrote:

>> With regard computers, it would seem reasonable to assume that one either
>> talks to computers in a language the computer would understand, or one
>> should train the computer to understand a language humans would
>> understand. Probably the former makes more sense, as humans are more
>> adaptable than computers.
>
> i should point out that i do not think lisp is easier for humans to
> understand than C. probably they're just about equal. it's just that lisp
> is closer to how you would want to program a computer, not because it is
> easier to understand for humans, but because it allows you to do
> complicated things in an easy, sensible way.

I "came up" from a hardware background, and my first programming class
was something very much like machine code, which made sense to me at the
time since I could relate signal/no signal to 1/0, and from there you kind
of build up to the higher-level languages.

Don't get me wrong - high level languages are great - I've already
fallen in love with QT designer, for example.

But I wonder what it's like to grasp a high-level language without
knowing assembly language. I guess conceptually it's kinda like using
a pocket calculator, or doing algebra on paper. But then, for me,
that implies FORTRAN. But then again, back in those days, FORTRAN _was_
a high-level language! :-)

I guess I'm just old.

Cheers!
Rich

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
>In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
>> Translation: Unlike Guy Macon, I post articles with facts,
>> supported by credible references, on subjects that I know
>> something about.
>
>You should check Guy's posting history before making that accusation. I
>haven't known Guy to post about anything he didn't know a lot about.

You are not very discerning.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
> +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
> >In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
> >> Translation: Unlike Guy Macon, I post articles with facts,
> >> supported by credible references, on subjects that I know
> >> something about.
> >
> >You should check Guy's posting history before making that accusation. I
> >haven't known Guy to post about anything he didn't know a lot about.

> You are not very discerning.

Guy Macon _constantly_ shoots off his mouth while not knowing what
he is talking about that. Aside from that he is a grossly fat pig
and should be ignored for that fact alone.

cordially, as always,

rm

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

>Is it time for my net-nanny crack yet?

Naah.. You and I are too much alike to have public disagreements.
Even when I am wrong. Which I often am.

A better plan: next time you are in LA I buy you a beer.

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<_X7Sc.755$EQ5.570@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

> But I wonder what it's like to grasp a high-level language without
> knowing assembly language. I guess conceptually it's kinda like using
> a pocket calculator, or doing algebra on paper. But then, for me,
> that implies FORTRAN. But then again, back in those days, FORTRAN _was_
> a high-level language! :-)

Arguably, Fortran is *still* the highest-level compiled language for
numerical work. Fortran 90 and 95 handle multidimensional arrays at a
higher level than C or C++, where you typically use pointers to
pointers -- very low-level. Operations such as adding or subtracting
matrices or taking the exponential of every element can be done in one
line of code, without explicit loops.

G95, a free Fortran 95 compiler for Linux and Unix, is available from
www.g95.org.

Joost Kremers wrote:

> it's true, AFAIK even lisp systems have a C core. (most of any lisp
> system is written in lisp, but at the core there is C code to "get
> things going", so to speak.)

Depends. CMU Common Lisp (<URL:http://cons.org/cmucl/>) and SBCL
(<URL:http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>) need a host Lisp for bootstrapping.
The only C code in the sources is for interfacing with the host OS.
clisp has a C core, AFAIK, and gcl (GNU Common Lisp) compiles Lisp code
to C. Both clisp and gcl are included with Slackware 9.1 and above.

> but lisp compiles to machine code just as well as C does, (some claim
> even better...) so with tools like that it would be possible to build
> lisp out of lisp completely.

You *can* write C code that will be faster than Common Lisp code that
solves the same problem. But you'll spend an awful lot of time doing
this. Meanwhile, the Lisp code is long in production use, and the Lisp
programmer went on to something else.

--
Wolfgang Mederle

unset ALL_MY_PROBLEMS

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

>
> Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
>
>>Is it time for my net-nanny crack yet?
>
> Naah.. You and I are too much alike to have public disagreements.
> Even when I am wrong. Which I often am.
>
> A better plan: next time you are in LA I buy you a beer.

Maybe you and me and Watson should go to the ACP swap meet sometime. :-)
Anybody else in the LA/OC area? Let's have a picnic!

Cheers!
Rich

beliavsky@aol.com wrote:

> Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in message
> news:<_X7Sc.755$EQ5.570@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
>> But I wonder what it's like to grasp a high-level language without
>> knowing assembly language. I guess conceptually it's kinda like using
>> a pocket calculator, or doing algebra on paper. But then, for me,
>> that implies FORTRAN. But then again, back in those days, FORTRAN _was_
>> a high-level language! :-)
>
> Arguably, Fortran is *still* the highest-level compiled language for
> numerical work. Fortran 90 and 95 handle multidimensional arrays at a
> higher level than C or C++, where you typically use pointers to
> pointers -- very low-level. Operations such as adding or subtracting
> matrices or taking the exponential of every element can be done in one
> line of code, without explicit loops.

A whole line? In APL, you can do that in one _symbol_! :-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>
>> Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
>>
>>>Is it time for my net-nanny crack yet?
>>
>> Naah.. You and I are too much alike to have public disagreements.
>> Even when I am wrong. Which I often am.
>>
>> A better plan: next time you are in LA I buy you a beer.
>
>Maybe you and me and Watson should go to the ACP swap meet sometime. :-)
>Anybody else in the LA/OC area? Let's have a picnic!

Or perhaps lunch or dinner The Olde Ship British Pub and Restaurant
in Fullerton? After the almighty Bob turns down the heat, of course.