Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14576 > unrolled thread

Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 15:09 +0200
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-17 09:23 -0400
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 17:26 +0200
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-05-17 16:19 +0000
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 19:57 +0200
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-17 18:33 +0000
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 23:25 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-17 14:52 -0700
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-17 14:58 -0700
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-17 17:59 -0400
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-05-17 22:13 +0000
                  Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-18 01:18 +0200
                    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-17 21:32 -0400
                      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-05-18 17:08 +0200
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 20:53 +0200
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 21:19 +0200
                          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-19 18:47 -0700
                            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-20 17:55 +0200
                      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 20:18 +0200
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 20:21 +0200
                          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 20:52 +0200
                          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:27 -0400
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-19 14:48 -0700
                          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-19 15:20 -0700
                            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-19 15:35 -0700
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:25 -0400
                        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2012-05-21 17:12 +0100
                    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-05-18 07:22 +0000
                    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-19 14:50 -0700
                    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:21 -0400
                    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:23 -0400
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-18 01:09 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:14 -0400
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 09:36 +0200
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-20 17:53 +0200
              Re: names for parameters of ranges Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:30 -0400
                Re: names for parameters of ranges Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-20 20:48 -0700
              Re: names for parameters of ranges (was: ...) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-23 09:43 +0000
                Re: names for parameters of ranges Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-23 11:07 +0000
                  Re: names for parameters of ranges Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-23 15:42 +0000
                Re: names for parameters of ranges Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-23 11:11 +0000
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-05-17 19:13 +0000
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-05-17 19:19 +0000
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-05-17 18:35 -0600
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 23:16 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:32 -0400
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 09:40 +0200
                  Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-21 10:05 -0400
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 14:41 -0400
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:12 -0400
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-20 16:38 -0700
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-20 18:52 -0700
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-20 19:21 -0700
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-05-21 08:24 +0000
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-05-23 14:34 -0400
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-05-20 21:46 -0600
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-21 00:04 -0700
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-05-21 08:25 +0000
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 09:46 +0200
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-17 18:54 +0200
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2012-05-17 12:06 -0500
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-17 10:11 -0700
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-17 14:43 -0700
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-17 16:13 -0700
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-17 16:42 -0700
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-05-18 02:27 +0200
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 15:06 -0400
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Marius" <sorry@nospamfor.me> - 2012-05-17 17:32 +0000
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-17 23:45 +0200
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Marius" <sorry@nospamfor.me> - 2012-05-17 22:16 +0000
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-18 00:47 +0200
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-24 14:11 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-24 14:17 +0200
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-05-18 02:57 -0700
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-05-18 05:26 -0500
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-18 08:08 -0400
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 14:46 -0400
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-05-18 12:25 +0100
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-18 10:46 -0700
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-19 21:01 +0200
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:33 -0400
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-05-20 16:30 -0700
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-20 20:36 -0700
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-05-21 04:28 +0000
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 09:55 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 09:49 +0200
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-21 10:08 -0400
            Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 10:45 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 11:13 +0200
              Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 11:19 +0200
                Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-21 11:40 -0700
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 18:10 -0400
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-21 10:00 +0200
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-21 10:10 -0400
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-05-23 05:40 +0000
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-05-23 08:46 -0600
      Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2012-05-24 14:03 +0200
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-24 09:56 -0700
        Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-05-26 00:52 +0000
          Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> - 2012-05-25 21:16 -0400
    Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;) Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-05-24 09:42 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#14585

In article <b3f1b$4fb4f87c$5419acc3$14079@cache60.multikabel.net>,
 "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> My hypothesis that a human being cannot write 10 lines of code without 
> making a mistake has been confirmed by either oracle or google or both 
> depending on what you believe ;)
> 
> The lawsuit apperently mentions these 9 lines of code:

Skybuck »apparently« proves humans cannot write 7 lines without an error 
in spelling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14586

On 5/17/2012 10:06 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article<b3f1b$4fb4f87c$5419acc3$14079@cache60.multikabel.net>,
>   "Skybuck Flying"<Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My hypothesis that a human being cannot write 10 lines of code without
>> making a mistake has been confirmed by either oracle or google or both
>> depending on what you believe ;)
>>
>> The lawsuit apperently mentions these 9 lines of code:
>
> Skybuck »apparently« proves humans cannot write 7 lines without an error
> in spelling.


Classic.

The internet: it's like an assembly factory for idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14596

markspace wrote:
> Mark Storkamp wrote:
>> "Skybuck Flying" wrote:
>>> My hypothesis that a human being cannot write 10 lines of code without
>>> making a mistake has been confirmed by either oracle or google or both
>>> depending on what you believe ;)
>>>
>>> The lawsuit apperently mentions these 9 lines of code:
>>
>> Skybuck *apparently* proves humans cannot write 7 lines without an error

or three

>> in spelling.

Plus other grammar errors.

> Classic.
> 
> The internet: it's like an assembly factory for idiots.

Isn't that spelled "Internet", being a proper noun and all?

But aren't the factual errors rather more significant, such as the false claims about the 
indexes going out of range, or about his skill?

My favorite line from the OP was, "Apperently [sic] only a skilled coder/debugger like me ..."

The tears of laughter flowed like a monsoon.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14606

On 5/17/2012 2:43 PM, Lew wrote:
> markspace wrote:
>>
>> The internet: it's like an assembly factory for idiots.
>
> Isn't that spelled "Internet", being a proper noun and all?



I haven't been in the habit of capitalizing "internet" in a long time. 
There appears to be some debate about it, which rather surprised me.  I 
would have thought by now it would be ubiquitous to not capitalize.

"In 2002, a New York Times column theorized that Internet has been 
changing from a proper noun to a generic term.[4] Words for new 
technologies, such as Phonograph in the 19th century, are sometimes 
capitalized at first, later becoming uncapitalized.[4] In 1999, another 
column suggested that Internet might, like some other commonly used 
proper nouns, lose its capital letter.[5]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_capitalization_conventions>

C.f. "Oxford comma."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14608

On 5/17/2012 4:13 PM, markspace wrote:

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_capitalization_conventions>


Here's an even better quote from the same Wikipedia link.  Perhaps not 
coincidentally, I read both The Economist and CNN rather obsessively.


"More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to 
not capitalizing the noun internet. Among them are The Economist, the 
Financial Times, The Times, the Guardian, the Observer[8] and the Sydney 
Morning Herald. As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to 
be located outside of North America, but the gap is closing. Wired News, 
an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004.[9] 
Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase 
spelling."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14609

markspace schrieb:
> On 5/17/2012 4:13 PM, markspace wrote:
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_capitalization_conventions>
>
>
> Here's an even better quote from the same Wikipedia link. Perhaps not
> coincidentally, I read both The Economist and CNN rather obsessively.
>
>
> "More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to
> not capitalizing the noun internet. Among them are The Economist, the
> Financial Times, The Times, the Guardian, the Observer[8] and the Sydney
> Morning Herald. As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to
> be located outside of North America, but the gap is closing. Wired News,
> an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004.[9]
> Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase
> spelling."

The english capitalization rules are anyway degenerate:

Traditionally, certain letters were rendered differently according to a 
set of rules. In particular, those letters that began sentences or nouns 
were made larger and often written in a distinct script. There was no 
fixed capitalization system until the early 18th century. The English 
language eventually dropped the rule for nouns, while the German 
language kept it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_case

Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14682

On 5/17/2012 1:11 PM, markspace wrote:
> The internet: it's like an assembly factory for idiots.

I would put it as: the knowledge required to post something
to the internet is not sufficient to guarantee that it is
worth reading.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14587

True, i have just written a few testcases for 4 year old sources and
was really amazed to find lots of (little) bugs (6 errors on 1100 lines
to be exact and i'm sure there a a few left which i haven't tested or
cannot test).

Though 10 lines seems really low (unless you're using that weird C
dialect <g>), 1 error each 20 to 50 sounds about right for experienced
programmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14597

"
"Marius"  wrote in message news:xn0hy7hu96p090r009@nntp.aioe.org...

True, i have just written a few testcases for 4 year old sources and
was really amazed to find lots of (little) bugs (6 errors on 1100 lines
to be exact and i'm sure there a a few left which i haven't tested or
cannot test).

Though 10 lines seems really low (unless you're using that weird C
dialect <g>), 1 error each 20 to 50 sounds about right for experienced
programmers.
"

I will have to disagree with you on the number of lines that an average 
human being can write flawlessly.

One could consider writing and reasoning about programming lines as an 
exercise in thinking ahead like "chess".

My hypothesis simply comes down to this: an average human being can at most 
think 10 steps ahead in a game of chess ;)

If you could truly think ahead in steps of 20 or 50 then that would make you 
a really strong chess player ! ;) I doubt it, more likely you are over 
estimating yourself ;) :)

(Even for a computer/desktop pc in 2012 a depth of 9 to 10 is already quite 
a lot ! ;))

Bye,
  Skybuck. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14603

>Though 10 lines seems really low (unless you're using that weird C
>dialect <g>), 1 error each 20 to 50 sounds about right for experienced
>programmers.
>"
>
>I will have to disagree with you on the number of lines that an
>average human being can write flawlessly.

You can, i don't think we will ever agree on the approx. amount of
errors made by an average programmer and experienced programmer. (i
deliberately wrote experienced programmer)

>One could consider writing and reasoning about programming lines as
>an exercise in thinking ahead like "chess".
>
>My hypothesis simply comes down to this: an average human being can
>at most think 10 steps ahead in a game of chess ;)
>
>If you could truly think ahead in steps of 20 or 50 then that would
>make you a really strong chess player ! ;) I doubt it, more likely
>you are over estimating yourself ;) :)

Chess is kind of a weird comparison but i do agree that a seasoned
programmer will think ahead like 2 units, 5 classes etc. Programmers
think more ahead in terms of algorithmes, processes etc and the details
of those dont need to be crystal clear (unlike chess).

;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14604

The chess comparision makes sense in the following way:

A good chess player will reason about dependent moves which can also be 
considered branches like a computer program.

For each possible move there are other possible moves which can be done, 
just like if else statements and case statements.

However it goes further, all parts of a computer program like indexes, 
values, constants influence each other.

Therefore code is one dependent mess, the more dependencies the more likely 
that something will break or become buggy if something is changed.

Therefore for a programmer to reason about a possible change to a single 
line of code it's necessary to think how this single change could impact all 
other dependencies just like a chess player must reason about dependencies 
of it's moves.
(The same applies to debugging a program, reasoning about potential bugs, 
potential wrong lines of code).

Doing the moves in the wrong order in chess might lead to "being checked" or 
even "stalemate" which can be considered in error in the reasoning or a bug 
;) :)

Think of the C program as being compiled to assembler instructions, each 
assembler instruction being a "chess move" or each branch as being a "chess 
move", also indexes/values/registers as being "a chess move".

Think of the indexes as being the squares on the chess board. This will 
quickly lead to the conclusion that the number of moves in a computer 
program could surpass a chess game.

It's quite amazing how complex an only 10 instruction program can be if 
allowed to copy itself, mutate itself, modify itself etc ;) (corewar hint 
here ;) :))

Bye,
  Skybuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14771

wrote in message 
news:dd1b7098-a605-4e06-9054-8eac7d2b7f53@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:47:06 PM UTC+1, Skybuck Flying wrote:

> The chess comparision makes sense in the following way:
>
> A good chess player will reason about dependent moves which can also be
> considered branches like a computer program.
>
> For each possible move there are other possible moves which can be done,
> just like if else statements and case statements.

"
the chess analogy makes no sense. There is no opponent activly conspiring to 
thwart your intentions (no, the compute isn't such an opponent).

Your attempt to stretch the analogy just makes it sillier
"

Chess does not need an active opponent. Chess is a logical problem. For each 
move there are counter moves.

A chess game can be considered a long chain of moves. Each chain has 
possible counter chains.

I guess for a chess program/ai the mission is to find a counter chain with 
the most possible victorious sub chains leading to the highest possibility 
of victory.

Bye,
  Skybuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14773

However once that goal for a computer program has been achieved then chess 
still remains a strategy/tactical game.

There are probably chains where the outcome is for example 60% victory sub 
chains and 40% defeat sub chains.

Once the move chain is commited the chess program has 60% chance of victory, 
however if the enemy proceeds and makes a 40% defeat chain then the chess 
program would still loose.

Thus the chess program does need to make a gamble on what the enemy will do, 
what will be the enemies strategy ?!?

It's unlikely that a human being can consider all possible sub chains so for 
a computer program playing chess it would make sense to keep switching 
strategy... to keep switching counter chains as to confuse the enemy to what 
it's ultimate goal is.

Therefore it almost becomes impossible for a human being to see through the 
chess program unless the chess program manouvers itself into a situation 
where the number of victorius sub chains are very few.

So switching between equal ammount of possible victorius sub chains seems 
best. This does not yet garantuee victory but would still offer a strong 
chess program ;)

The way a chess program ofcourse finds this is by trying out all branches 
(if statements)/possibilities in advance... ("playing head/reasoning").

Bye,
  Skybuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14615

On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>So this code seems highly buggy and does somewhat prove that it was copied 

Even if it were, so what.  Every time you write a sentence you copy
words from a dictionary.  Copying should only apply to complete works.
You are allowed to copy paragraphs of books.  So it seems to be
partial methods should be fair game.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
"Plants" with "leaves" no more efficient than today's solar cells 
could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an
inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous "bacteria" could out-compete 
real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicate 
swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.
Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and 
rapidly spreading to stop -- at least if we make no preparation. 
We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies. 
~ Eric Drexler (born: 1955-04-25 age: 57)  
Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology.
.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14616

In comp.lang.java.programmer Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
 
> You are allowed to copy paragraphs of books. 

Not as such, no. There are fair use exceptions to copyright, and how
much of the material you have copied is one factor that's taken into
account when judging if it's fair use, but it's not a sufficient
factor on its own. There's no blanket allowance that allows you to
you copy fragments of a work otherwise under copyright.

Basically, there's a difference between quoting the first five
paragraphs of a book as part of a review of that book, and copying
them wholesale into the start of your own book.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14618

On 5/18/2012 5:57 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
> <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com>  wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>> So this code seems highly buggy and does somewhat prove that it was copied
>
> Even if it were, so what.  Every time you write a sentence you copy
> words from a dictionary.  Copying should only apply to complete works.
> You are allowed to copy paragraphs of books.  So it seems to be
> partial methods should be fair game.

Uh, no. Copyright law can potentially apply to even a mere fragment of a 
sentence (although, in exceptionally small fragments, it is effectively 
impossible to actually enforce copyright). At least in US law, this is a 
notion of fair use which basically amounts to "you can copy 
small-to-substantial portions of a piece of work if you're not 
'intending' to replace it" (note: this is a very footloose summary and 
not expert legal advice. Please consult the US code before attempting to 
cite this in defense in court).
-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14679

On 5/18/2012 5:57 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
> <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com>  wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>> So this code seems highly buggy and does somewhat prove that it was copied
>
> Even if it were, so what.  Every time you write a sentence you copy
> words from a dictionary.  Copying should only apply to complete works.
> You are allowed to copy paragraphs of books.  So it seems to be
> partial methods should be fair game.

That is not how copyright works.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14617

On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:

>It's a bit unlikely that two programmers make the exact same dumb mistake ! 
>;)
>
>So the funny part is, the bugs in it kinda prove that it was copied ! ;)
Common errors are often used as legal proof of copying.  Many
encyclopaedias and directories include deliberate errors for just that
reason.

rossum

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14625

On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:25:28 +0100, rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
><Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:
>
>>It's a bit unlikely that two programmers make the exact same dumb mistake ! 
>>;)

     It happens so often that we have a name for it.  It is called an
off-by-one error or a fencepost error.  OK, *two* names.

>>So the funny part is, the bugs in it kinda prove that it was copied ! ;)
>Common errors are often used as legal proof of copying.  Many
>encyclopaedias and directories include deliberate errors for just that
>reason.

     Maps, too.  I once got a bit lost before I realised that the road
I was looking for did not exist.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14652

"Gene Wirchenko"  wrote in message 
news:1k2dr7527p5reqegfr8oln65q55bmvo4ar@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:25:28 +0100, rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:09:23 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
><Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:
>
>>It's a bit unlikely that two programmers make the exact same dumb mistake 
>>!
>>;)

"
     It happens so often that we have a name for it.  It is called an
off-by-one error or a fencepost error.  OK, *two* names.
"

True "off by one" is a common mistake.

However in this case, assuming it was a mistake, both programmers would have 
made the same mistake in exactly the same code, at exactly the same 
position.

Now that's a bit unlikely isn't it ?! ;)

Mistakes with > or >= are usually random, and not at a fixed position.

>>So the funny part is, the bugs in it kinda prove that it was copied ! ;)
>Common errors are often used as legal proof of copying.  Many
>encyclopaedias and directories include deliberate errors for just that
>reason.

"
     Maps, too.  I once got a bit lost before I realised that the road
I was looking for did not exist.
"

No comment.

Bye,
  Skybuck ;) :) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web