Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo 1.0 released!
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list... Digg, anyone? Cheers, Adrian On Apr 15, 2010, at 17:06 , Daniel Birkinshaw wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Great!!! finally we did it :)
Now...if someone know how to do it, it would be really cool to post in reddit or slashdot
I was just about to but someone beat me to it: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/brb2y/want_to_try_smalltalk_pha...
_______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list Pharo-users@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users
On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:33 31PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list...
Cheers, Adrian
Gotta love reddit... 3 most repeated/discussed topics in comments: - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!" - "SUCKS, I can't use my favourite text-editor and git!" - "1 + 2 * 3 = 9 WTF SMALLTALK" :D Cheers, Henry
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list...
Cheers, Adrian
Gotta love reddit... 3 most repeated/discussed topics in comments: - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!" - "SUCKS, I can't use my favourite text-editor and git!" - "1 + 2 * 3 = 9 WTF SMALLTALK"
:D
The good news is that at least two know a bit :) Stef
On Friday, April 16, 2010, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:33 31PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list...
Cheers, Adrian
Gotta love reddit... 3 most repeated/discussed topics in comments: Â - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!"
reddit constantly tickles me. Anyway, I added a link to the wikipedia Smalltalk page which I think articulates quite well what it is. Cheers mike
Henrik Johansen wrote:
Gotta love reddit... [...] - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!"
That one I think is legitimate - and not just for Pharo but for almost every Open Source project out there. I think every project's home page should keep first time in visitors in mind. (My very least favourite thing for the first page of a site is to see the project commit log - talk about unwelcoming!). And to say something positive - Pharo 1.0 looks great - solid and serious and workable. A couple of my co-workers have called my bluff and asked for a Smalltalk tutorial, and I'll be happy to show them Pharo.
Henry
Steve
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Stephen Taylor wrote:
Henrik Johansen wrote:
Gotta love reddit... [...] - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!"
That one I think is legitimate - and not just for Pharo but for almost every Open Source project out there. I think every project's home page should keep first time in visitors in mind. (My very least favourite thing for the first page of a site is to see the project commit log - talk about unwelcoming!).
Good remark. Thanks. Does anybody have some text we could reuse?
And to say something positive - Pharo 1.0 looks great - solid and serious and workable. A couple of my co-workers have called my bluff and asked for a Smalltalk tutorial, and I'll be happy to show them Pharo.
Excellent. :) Now I hope that in the future we will be able to amazed smalltalkers themselves... because this is the key point. If we succeed to have so a cool (I mean really cool) system then we will have done a good job Stef
On Apr 19, 2010, at 09:10 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Stephen Taylor wrote:
Henrik Johansen wrote:
Gotta love reddit... [...] - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!"
That one I think is legitimate - and not just for Pharo but for almost every Open Source project out there. I think every project's home page should keep first time in visitors in mind. (My very least favourite thing for the first page of a site is to see the project commit log - talk about unwelcoming!).
Good remark. Thanks. Does anybody have some text we could reuse?
I think that anybody that is enough interested will be able to type "Smalltalk" into Google. Next, people are going to ask what a programming language is, and we have to explain that too ;) Anyway, couldn't we just link the first occurrence of "Smalltalk" to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk?
And to say something positive - Pharo 1.0 looks great - solid and serious and workable. A couple of my co-workers have called my bluff and asked for a Smalltalk tutorial, and I'll be happy to show them Pharo.
Thanks :) Cheers, Adrian
On Monday, April 19, 2010, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 09:10 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Stephen Taylor wrote:
Henrik Johansen wrote:
Gotta love reddit... [...] - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!"
That one I think is legitimate - and not just for Pharo but for almost every Open Source project out there. I think every project's home page should keep first time in visitors in mind. (My very least favourite thing for the first page of a site is to see the project commit log - talk about unwelcoming!).
Good remark. Thanks. Does anybody have some text we could reuse?
I think that anybody that is enough interested will be able to type "Smalltalk" into Google. Next, people are going to ask what a programming language is, and we have to explain that too ;)
Anyway, couldn't we just link the first occurrence of "Smalltalk" to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk?
I already did that ;-) Cheers mike
And to say something positive - Pharo 1.0 looks great - solid and serious and workable. A couple of my co-workers have called my bluff and asked for a Smalltalk tutorial, and I'll be happy to show them Pharo.
Thanks :)
Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 16 April 2010 13:10, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:33 31PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list...
Cheers, Adrian
Gotta love reddit... 3 most repeated/discussed topics in comments: Â - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!" Â - "SUCKS, I can't use my favourite text-editor and git!" Â - "1 + 2 * 3 = 9 WTF SMALLTALK"
Oh yeah.. there are two guys battling to the death, each defending own point.. The guy who claims that precedence rules is a must, must be forgot, how much pain it was took to learn them in a childhood :)
:D
Cheers, Henry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Sig, Lack of precedence *is* a weakness of the language and ridiculing someone who cites it won't help anything. IMHO, the best response we have is that consistency is among Smalltalk's great strengths, and arithmetic precedence was and remains a deliberate casualty of that design goal. I am not saying we should change the situation, but grant the point. If the other side is not willing to accept an extra set of parentheses here and there in the name of consistency, you might subsequently try pointing out that a nice mix is to do logic, memory management and GUI implementation in Smalltalk and to do number crunching in C++ with the functions exposed as extern "C". Not only is it faster than a pure-Smalltalk solution, the equations translate much as one exects, and C's memory management woes are largely irrelevant. Precedence was indeed a pain to learn as a child, but we all did learn it, and the best of us will at times get bitten when the compter does not "know" those same rules. The trick, is to respectfully challenge people to try this wonderful system that is nice enough on balance to get people to re-think arithmetic - or at least pitch it that way. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:07 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo 1.0 released! On 16 April 2010 13:10, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:33 31PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Thanks, Daniel, for posting on reddit! We currently are almost at the top of the list...
Cheers, Adrian
Gotta love reddit... 3 most repeated/discussed topics in comments: Â - "I don't know what Smalltalk is, and the site doesn't tell me, not even the about page!" Â - "SUCKS, I can't use my favourite text-editor and git!" Â - "1 + 2 * 3 = 9 WTF SMALLTALK"
Oh yeah.. there are two guys battling to the death, each defending own point.. The guy who claims that precedence rules is a must, must be forgot, how much pain it was took to learn them in a childhood :)
:D
Cheers, Henry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 19 April 2010 15:20, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
Lack of precedence *is* a weakness of the language and ridiculing someone who cites it won't help anything. Â IMHO, the best response we have is that consistency is among Smalltalk's great strengths, and arithmetic precedence was and remains a deliberate casualty of that design goal. Â I am not saying we should change the situation, but grant the point.
If the other side is not willing to accept an extra set of parentheses here and there in the name of consistency, you might subsequently try pointing out that a nice mix is to do logic, memory management and GUI implementation in Smalltalk and to do number crunching in C++ with the functions exposed as extern "C". Â Not only is it faster than a pure-Smalltalk solution, the equations translate much as one exects, and C's memory management woes are largely irrelevant.
Precedence was indeed a pain to learn as a child, but we all did learn it, and the best of us will at times get bitten when the compter does not "know" those same rules. Â The trick, is to respectfully challenge people to try this wonderful system that is nice enough on balance to get people to re-think arithmetic - or at least pitch it that way.
the thing is, that smalltalk expression a+b*c not necessary related to arithmetics. I could create own class with #+ and #* selectors which can do anything i want, doing things way different to be any kind of math. Also, in a school terms, a precedence rules is defined for very small set of operators, while in smalltalk we could define a new one at any time using binary selector syntax. Now imagine, that each time you creating a new operator, you must a) define its precedence b) remember how to use it. Now think, how hard it would be for someone to read your code and understand the semantics, since he doesn't knows what precedence you are defined for new operator(s). Another problem that if you defining a new operator and its precedence, a precedence tends to be globally applied. Now what you would do, if you filing in the code, in which a precedence for some operators doesn't matching the precedence of those, which already in image? Also, mathematicians using different kinds of algebras for different domains, and defining different and weird looking operators in that algebras. So, that's why i think its completely pointless to even think about supporting precedence rules in smalltalk, by breaking its uniform and _simple_ syntax rules.
Bill
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Sig, You are missing the point: I *agree* that supporting precedence rules would very likely be bad and I would probably argue against any such change. Where you are doing damage to us all is by ridiculing someone who is raising a valid concern rather than debating that person with reasoned arguments. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:41 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo 1.0 released! On 19 April 2010 15:20, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
Lack of precedence *is* a weakness of the language and ridiculing someone who cites it won't help anything. Â IMHO, the best response we have is that consistency is among Smalltalk's great strengths, and arithmetic precedence was and remains a deliberate casualty of that design goal. Â I am not saying we should change the situation, but grant the point.
If the other side is not willing to accept an extra set of parentheses here and there in the name of consistency, you might subsequently try pointing out that a nice mix is to do logic, memory management and GUI implementation in Smalltalk and to do number crunching in C++ with the functions exposed as extern "C". Â Not only is it faster than a pure-Smalltalk solution, the equations translate much as one exects, and C's memory management woes are largely irrelevant.
Precedence was indeed a pain to learn as a child, but we all did learn it, and the best of us will at times get bitten when the compter does not "know" those same rules. Â The trick, is to respectfully challenge people to try this wonderful system that is nice enough on balance to get people to re-think arithmetic - or at least pitch it that way.
the thing is, that smalltalk expression a+b*c not necessary related to arithmetics. I could create own class with #+ and #* selectors which can do anything i want, doing things way different to be any kind of math. Also, in a school terms, a precedence rules is defined for very small set of operators, while in smalltalk we could define a new one at any time using binary selector syntax. Now imagine, that each time you creating a new operator, you must a) define its precedence b) remember how to use it. Now think, how hard it would be for someone to read your code and understand the semantics, since he doesn't knows what precedence you are defined for new operator(s). Another problem that if you defining a new operator and its precedence, a precedence tends to be globally applied. Now what you would do, if you filing in the code, in which a precedence for some operators doesn't matching the precedence of those, which already in image? Also, mathematicians using different kinds of algebras for different domains, and defining different and weird looking operators in that algebras. So, that's why i think its completely pointless to even think about supporting precedence rules in smalltalk, by breaking its uniform and _simple_ syntax rules.
Bill
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 19 April 2010 16:53, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
You are missing the point: I *agree* that supporting precedence rules would very likely be bad and I would probably argue against any such change. Â Where you are doing damage to us all is by ridiculing someone who is raising a valid concern rather than debating that person with reasoned arguments.
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else. And i don't care about what such people thinking, because they will never try to think different. They are found that moving in direction where crowd moves, is a best way. Its not interesting to them, if there are other directions, and some even doesn't interesting in what direction they are currently moving. They are told to move in that way and they moving. Fine. Let this mindless crowd go its way. I don't feel a loss.
Bill
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Sig, Never argue with an idiot - others might not be able to tell the difference. I beg you to raise the level of your arguments beyond name calling. Whether you see it that way or not, you mention "childhood" and it's over. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:27 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo 1.0 released! On 19 April 2010 16:53, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
You are missing the point: I *agree* that supporting precedence rules would very likely be bad and I would probably argue against any such change. Â Where you are doing damage to us all is by ridiculing someone who is raising a valid concern rather than debating that person with reasoned arguments.
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else. And i don't care about what such people thinking, because they will never try to think different. They are found that moving in direction where crowd moves, is a best way. Its not interesting to them, if there are other directions, and some even doesn't interesting in what direction they are currently moving. They are told to move in that way and they moving. Fine. Let this mindless crowd go its way. I don't feel a loss.
Bill
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 19 April 2010 18:10, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
Never argue with an idiot - others might not be able to tell the difference. Â I beg you to raise the level of your arguments beyond name calling. Â Whether you see it that way or not, you mention "childhood" and it's over.
I am not using reddit. And indeed, a flame wars it a least interesting thing i wanna be part of. The point is, that smalltalk gives a clear answer (as to me), why it has such syntax: uniformity, simplicity and consistency. While in many other languages such answer could be depicted as: because others do. So, a central question in such discussions should be _why_ some language having such rules, and those who don't bother asking it, but instead, from a very start saying that its awfully bad, not worth my attention :)
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:27 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo 1.0 released!
On 19 April 2010 16:53, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sig,
You are missing the point: I *agree* that supporting precedence rules would very likely be bad and I would probably argue against any such change. Â Where you are doing damage to us all is by ridiculing someone who is raising a valid concern rather than debating that person with reasoned arguments.
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else. And i don't care about what such people thinking, because they will never try to think different. They are found that moving in direction where crowd moves, is a best way. Its not interesting to them, if there are other directions, and some even doesn't interesting in what direction they are currently moving. They are told to move in that way and they moving.
Fine. Let this mindless crowd go its way. I don't feel a loss.
Bill
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Hi, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else.
but Syntax, dearest Igor, is key! And Note The Capital "S"! You see, Lisp clearly sucks because it has too many brackets. Python and Haskell are most unfavourable because they have whitespace with semantics. Pascal, Modula-2, and Ada are way too verbose. Forth organises programs in pages - now *that* is bureaucratic and old-fashioned, aye? Smalltalk obviously doesn't know how to compute with natural numbers properly. Smalltalk, Self, and Io share the indignity of not even having proper keywords. Java, Scala, C, and C++ ... don't even get me started, man: curly braces are sooooo 80s. Erlang does not end sentences with an exclamation mark, it puts it in their midst - how messy, bah. In Prolog, you have to write your own rules, which makes it seem as if the language didn't have any: yuck! If you consider all these points wisely, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the only language with a proper, clear, civilised, and tidy syntax out there is brainfuck. Some argue it's unacceptable due to its name, but that is not a syntactical argument and hence invalid. I win. Best, Michael
On 19 April 2010 19:40, Michael Haupt <mhaupt@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else.
but Syntax, dearest Igor, is key! And Note The Capital "S"!
You see, Lisp clearly sucks because it has too many brackets. Python and Haskell are most unfavourable because they have whitespace with semantics. Pascal, Modula-2, and Ada are way too verbose. Forth organises programs in pages - now *that* is bureaucratic and old-fashioned, aye? Smalltalk obviously doesn't know how to compute with natural numbers properly. Smalltalk, Self, and Io share the indignity of not even having proper keywords. Java, Scala, C, and C++ ... don't even get me started, man: curly braces are sooooo 80s. Erlang does not end sentences with an exclamation mark, it puts it in their midst - how messy, bah. In Prolog, you have to write your own rules, which makes it seem as if the language didn't have any: yuck!
If you consider all these points wisely, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the only language with a proper, clear, civilised, and tidy syntax out there is brainfuck. Some argue it's unacceptable due to its name, but that is not a syntactical argument and hence invalid. I win.
I agree. all languages having bright and dark sides. And people free to choose what they like (or not). I wonder, how a computer languages would look like for europeans, if they are first were invented by Chinese or Japanes cultures. ( you know, they would use glyphs in it ;). Still, there are an univestal laws and concepts which come from mathematics, and will not change depending on cultural/educational nuances: computers are finite state machines with strictly defined order of operations. Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence. If we ever will meet aliens, then to start communicating we, no doubt, should use an universal rules & semantics, which can be interpreted without any chances to be ambiguous. And precedence, obviously is not a univesal :)
Best,
Michael
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Hi Igor, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence.
... enter quantum computers. :-P
If we ever will meet aliens, then to start communicating we, no doubt, should use an universal rules & semantics, which can be interpreted without any chances to be ambiguous. And precedence, obviously is not a univesal :)
Hear, hear! Best, Michael
On 19 April 2010 20:29, Michael Haupt <mhaupt@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Igor,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence.
... enter quantum computers. :-P
let me rephrase that: by building any machine, we using a certain set of principles, on which it will function. So then, we could _predict_ how it will behave, if we provide a set of instructions. That's why i put 'knows'. Computers, obviously don't know anything. Knowledge comes from the fact, on which principles you built a machine, so you can predict what will happen if you instruct it to do one or another operation.
If we ever will meet aliens, then to start communicating we, no doubt, should use an universal rules & semantics, which can be interpreted without any chances to be ambiguous. And precedence, obviously is not a univesal :)
Hear, hear!
Best,
Michael
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Em 19/04/2010 14:53, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 20:29, Michael Haupt wrote:
Hi Igor, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence. ... enter quantum computers. :-P let me rephrase that: by building any machine, we using a certain set of principles, on which it will function. So then, we could _predict_ how it will behave, if we provide a set of instructions.
NO. As historical counter examples there are the Neural net based computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons which was built as a machine, or the homeostat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostat (ditto). my 0.019999... -- Cesar Rabak
On 19 April 2010 22:04, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
Em 19/04/2010 14:53, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 20:29, Michael Haupt wrote:
Hi Igor, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what  next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence. ... enter quantum computers. :-P let me rephrase that: by  building any machine, we using a certain set of  principles, on  which it will  function.  So then,  we could _predict_ how it  will behave, if we provide  a set of instructions.
NO. As historical counter examples there are the Neural net based computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons
And where is a contradiction? A first two paragraphs on that page describing a principles on which it built. And then, you saying that you can't predict how it behaves after you built it using these principles?
which was built as a machine, or the homeostat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostat (ditto).
my 0.019999...
-- Cesar Rabak
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Em 19/04/2010 16:13, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 22:04, wrote:
Em 19/04/2010 14:53, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 20:29, Michael Haupt wrote:
Hi Igor, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence. ... enter quantum computers. :-P let me rephrase that: by building any machine, we using a certain set of principles, on which it will function. So then, we could _predict_ how it will behave, if we provide a set of instructions. NO. As historical counter examples there are the Neural net based computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons
And where is a contradiction? A first two paragraphs on that page describing a principles on which it built. And then, you saying that you can't predict how it behaves after you built it using these principles?
Igor your post makes me believe you read only the paragraphs you quoted (and are rightfully entitled to) and aren't willing to drill down into perceptrons or homeostats. So to avoid a lengthy detour from the essential argument, let's think of a simple device, say a non loaded (a.k.a. 'honest') die or a roulette built to Monte Carlo standards: You build any of them according to very well known principles, can you predict the outcomes except for the platitude that the dice can come from one to six each trow or similar for the roulette?
which was built as a machine, or the homeostat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostat (ditto). my 0.019999...
I tried to use computing devices to be in the realm...
Em 19/04/2010 14:21, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 19:40, Michael Haupt wrote:
Hi, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
I am serious. If you can't learn the simplest syntax rules, you can't learn anything else. but Syntax, dearest Igor, is key! And Note The Capital "S"! You see, Lisp clearly sucks because it has too many brackets. Python and Haskell are most unfavourable because they have whitespace with semantics. Pascal, Modula-2, and Ada are way too verbose. Forth organises programs in pages - now *that* is bureaucratic and old-fashioned, aye? Smalltalk obviously doesn't know how to compute with natural numbers properly. Smalltalk, Self, and Io share the indignity of not even having proper keywords. Java, Scala, C, and C++ ... don't even get me started, man: curly braces are sooooo 80s. Erlang does not end sentences with an exclamation mark, it puts it in their midst - how messy, bah. In Prolog, you have to write your own rules, which makes it seem as if the language didn't have any: yuck! If you consider all these points wisely, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the only language with a proper, clear, civilised, and tidy syntax out there is brainfuck. Some argue it's unacceptable due to its name, but that is not a syntactical argument and hence invalid. I win.
I agree. all languages having bright and dark sides. And people free to choose what they like (or not). I wonder, how a computer languages would look like for europeans, if they are first were invented by Chinese or Japanes cultures. ( you know, they would use glyphs in it ;).
I could not be totally positive on this, but I think the better proxy we have for that is APL which used some special symbols and even needed a special keyboard for it! -- Cesar Rabak
I subscribe :). Doru On 20 Apr 2010, at 00:55, Stephen Taylor wrote:
Igor Stasenko wrote:
Fine. Let this mindless crowd go its way. I don't feel a loss.
I do. I would prefer the "mindless crowd" as you call them to be on our side.
Steve
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Beauty is where we see it."
"Schwab,Wilhelm" == Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> writes:
Wilhelm> Lack of precedence *is* a weakness of the language and Wilhelm> ridiculing someone who cites it won't help anything. Until you're able to reframe it as a problem of familiarity. Sure, most people learned programming (and algebra) with precedence rules. But precedence is not inherently the most natural thing. And this is what you must make clear. Look at the contortions that happen when you have a language that has either user-defined operators (prolog comes to mind) or just a hella lotta levels (Perl has 40 levels of precedence). The point is that you *cannot*, even as a reasonably intelligent human being, parse such languages *locally* to tell what the order of ops are. You *must* consult something external, which can be pretty crazy if it means hunting through source code instead of just looking it up on a ref card. Smalltalk's way is very simple. Sure, it's not optimized for the most common case (multiplication over addition), but it's optimized for *all* the other cases. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
participants (11)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
csrabak＠bol.com.br -
Henrik Johansen -
Igor Stasenko -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Michael Haupt -
Michael Roberts -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stephen Taylor -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba