Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.ruby > #1942 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-03-30 02:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-04-14 05:01 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.ruby
[OT] functional paradigm taking over Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 02:29 -0500
Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-30 04:38 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:19 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-30 12:27 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda 7stud -- <bbxx789_05ss@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-30 20:49 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 22:30 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-31 05:08 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-02 15:07 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-03 00:29 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 02:48 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 12:58 +0200
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 06:50 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 13:59 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 15:06 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:56 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-03 07:17 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 07:47 -0500
Why should I be a programmer, to program? Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-03 13:44 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 14:45 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 15:58 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:21 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:34 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? - OT Chris <chris@s-4-u.net> - 2011-04-03 15:53 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 16:01 -0500
Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? - OT Chris <chris@s-4-u.net> - 2011-04-03 16:42 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-04 04:23 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 04:52 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 06:19 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 00:55 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 10:16 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Iain Barnett <iainspeed@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 15:50 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:07 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 06:05 -0500
Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-31 13:56 -0500
Re: [OT] functional paradigm taking over Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:46 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-04 04:05 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 04:21 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 04:25 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-04 04:28 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 06:49 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 05:00 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 05:15 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 05:18 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-04 06:31 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 07:17 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 07:29 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 10:42 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-04 12:43 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 11:59 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:18 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:22 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:09 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:11 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:47 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:40 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 00:53 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:02 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:38 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:46 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 02:46 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 03:52 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 09:59 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 10:16 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 11:18 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 14:41 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:34 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Peter Hickman <peterhickman386@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 10:17 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 18:44 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:32 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-14 05:06 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-15 01:25 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 07:41 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-04 07:56 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-05 03:58 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-05 04:12 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-05 16:57 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-07 10:51 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:42 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Alex Stahl <astahl@hi5.com> - 2011-04-07 20:26 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-07 22:14 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-08 06:10 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-08 13:58 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-08 16:04 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 19:12 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-12 07:31 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:22 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Gregory Vella <gregory_vella@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-13 14:49 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:59 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-14 02:28 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-14 03:29 -0500
Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 05:01 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 02:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimrfSvK87Zs0Ygp10D2mOHUs0T1Gw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2734 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am > using incorrect in any way? > > Yes. In the way that your equivocal definition is meaningless in context. Why don't you quit playing with words take an explicit position: "puts 'hello world'" is a program, are you willing to say it is also a programming language, according definition 12 at your own link ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 03:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTi=t-f8ubpowh5FBZV-az=uVj5YJcA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2734 |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > > That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am > using incorrect in any way? It's worse: They are not applicable. -- Phillip Gawlowski Though the folk I have met, (Ah, how soon!) they forget When I've moved on to some other place, There may be one or two, When I've played and passed through, Who'll remember my song or my face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 09:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTik_n=rJHMTH84Pi=GsNkQ5E7_u4RA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2740 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] @Phillip: Yes they are applicable, jargon does not supersede the rest of the language. Especially not when the subject being discussed (In part) whether or not Excel can be considered a programming language is answered by those definitions. Why do you think that the word language is even a part of the phrase "programming language"? It is because of the way the word language could be and is used by people who are not a part of this field. It was not in any way random that such a phrase came to describe tools like Ruby, or C++. @Josh: It would not be according to definition twelve, but Excel would be in fact. Seeing as how it provides symbols and ways to deliver instructions to a computer. You can even use it to create animations. Also the other definitions I pointed out do not cease to exist because definition twelve exists, the definitions are not even contradictory. They are complimentary. Also people are not equivocating just because they do not use the definition you want them to (Ultimately incorrectly to boot.) That you do not understand why the phrase "programming language" is possible let alone why it is used does not make the definitions being applied meaningless in context. In the context of whether something is a programming language one must examine what a language even is before deciding that question. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Phillip Gawlowski < cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am > > using incorrect in any way? > > It's worse: They are not applicable. > > -- > Phillip Gawlowski > > Though the folk I have met, > (Ah, how soon!) they forget > When I've moved on to some other place, > There may be one or two, > When I've played and passed through, > Who'll remember my song or my face. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 10:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTik_UfLZTqhSSkL+yo6-LasKENxL+Q@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2766 |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > @Phillip: Yes they are applicable, jargon does not supersede the rest of the > language. jargon*, n.: - (uncountable) A technical terminology unique to a particular subject. - (countable) Language characteristic of a particular group. - (uncountable) Speech or language that is incomprehensible or unintelligible; gibberish. Yes, it does. That's why jargon develops in the first place. > Especially not when the subject being discussed (In part) whether > or not Excel can be considered a programming language is answered by those > definitions. language*, n: (computing, countable) A computer language. That's the definition that applies. If you want to use another one: that's called "moving the goal posts". > Why do you think that the word language is even a part of the > phrase "programming language"? It is because of the way the word language > could be and is used by people who are not a part of this field. It was not > in any way random that such a phrase came to describe tools like Ruby, or > C++. *facepalm* Language is ambiguous to start with (compare US English and American English on the use of the word "fag" in slang). Words evolve, and change meaning (see also: "gay"). "programming language" is used for the same reason that airplanes use a similar terminology to ships: The words match, at least roughly, and get everyone on the same page with ease. From there, additional meanings develop. Just ask Google about how happy they are that "googling" is a verb now, or ask Kleenex about what "trademark dilution" means. Or are you really suggesting that, since the words are the same, a captain of a ship is as qualified to navigate the seas as a ship's captain, just because the spelling is the same? Is driving a car the same as driving a nail? Is a meter the same as 1 meter? This whole thing is called "semantics". You are, in fact, arguing semantics (in English: meaning). Badly. * definitions sourced from Wiktionary.org -- Phillip Gawlowski Though the folk I have met, (Ah, how soon!) they forget When I've moved on to some other place, There may be one or two, When I've played and passed through, Who'll remember my song or my face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 11:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTi=Ew+_hs5PZsMh08zP4_OCD2S82YA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2768 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] No a jargon or slang does not put aside the language it exists inside of. To try and argue this is ridiculous, the definitions used within the standard language do not become invalid just because you speak to a specific group. Now you accuse me of moving the goal posts because I utilize standard as opposed to nonstandard meanings of terminology to point out that one may feel free to call any program a language? A jargon only supersedes the standard usage of a term when it is no longer specific to a single group, at which point it stops being a jargon. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Phillip Gawlowski < cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Phillip: Yes they are applicable, jargon does not supersede the rest of > the > > language. > > jargon*, n.: > - (uncountable) A technical terminology unique to a particular subject. > - (countable) Language characteristic of a particular group. > - (uncountable) Speech or language that is incomprehensible or > unintelligible; gibberish. > > Yes, it does. That's why jargon develops in the first place. > > > Especially not when the subject being discussed (In part) whether > > or not Excel can be considered a programming language is answered by > those > > definitions. > > language*, n: > (computing, countable) A computer language. > > That's the definition that applies. If you want to use another one: > that's called "moving the goal posts". > > > Why do you think that the word language is even a part of the > > phrase "programming language"? It is because of the way the word > language > > could be and is used by people who are not a part of this field. It was > not > > in any way random that such a phrase came to describe tools like Ruby, or > > C++. > > *facepalm* > > Language is ambiguous to start with (compare US English and American > English on the use of the word "fag" in slang). Words evolve, and > change meaning (see also: "gay"). > > "programming language" is used for the same reason that airplanes use > a similar terminology to ships: The words match, at least roughly, and > get everyone on the same page with ease. From there, additional > meanings develop. Just ask Google about how happy they are that > "googling" is a verb now, or ask Kleenex about what "trademark > dilution" means. > > Or are you really suggesting that, since the words are the same, a > captain of a ship is as qualified to navigate the seas as a ship's > captain, just because the spelling is the same? Is driving a car the > same as driving a nail? Is a meter the same as 1 meter? > > This whole thing is called "semantics". You are, in fact, arguing > semantics (in English: meaning). Badly. > > * definitions sourced from Wiktionary.org > > -- > Phillip Gawlowski > > Though the folk I have met, > (Ah, how soon!) they forget > When I've moved on to some other place, > There may be one or two, > When I've played and passed through, > Who'll remember my song or my face. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 14:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTinCLc8Ymxf9pXEobPrh5VKgTPSNYQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2773 |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP THE FSCKING FLAME WAR!!!! THIS OT POST HAS BECOME OT FOR ITSELF!!!! (recursively OT??) i'm sure we all understand that a decently powerful spreadsheet program can do interesting things. i've heard of people using them as databases & running a companies banking in excel. but that is not the point. the point is that - like any other flame war - this argument is going to get EVERYONE NOWHERE! so if you all would please: STOP THIS MADNESS BEFORE YOU BREAK OPEN A RIFT AND RELEASE CTHULHU FROM HIS WATERY PRISON AND HE DEVOURS US ALL!!!!!! thank you for your time and attention... hex On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 01:18:58AM +0900, Kevin wrote: > > No a jargon or slang does not put aside the language it exists inside > > of. To try and argue this is ridiculous, the definitions used within > > the standard language do not become invalid just because you speak to a > > specific group. Now you accuse me of moving the goal posts because I > > utilize standard as opposed to nonstandard meanings of terminology to > > point out that one may feel free to call any program a language? A > > jargon only supersedes the standard usage of a term when it is no > > longer specific to a single group, at which point it stops being a > > jargon. > > In short . . . yes, you're saying that driving a nail is the same as > driving a car. When I ask "Can you drive?" and you say "Yes," thinking > you know how to pound nails into wood, you think I should loan you my > car. > > You give a whole new meaning to the comment that when all you have is a > hammer, everything looks like a nail. I am not, however, inclined to let > you pound the crap out of my car with a hammer. > > By the way . . . the way you want to use "programming language" is > definitely the nonstandard usage in this context. Context matters. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 15:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimPZ0rdbMwhe2QmQEr+LpPMqaqvXw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2781 |
This post was less constructive than any of the others I have seen so far. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM, serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> wrote: > > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > STOP THE FSCKING FLAME WAR!!!! THIS OT POST HAS BECOME OT FOR ITSELF!!!! > (recursively OT??) i'm sure we all understand that a decently powerful > spreadsheet program can do interesting things. i've heard of people using > them as databases & running a companies banking in excel. but that is not > the point. the point is that - like any other flame war - this argument is > going to get EVERYONE NOWHERE! > > so if you all would please: STOP THIS MADNESS BEFORE YOU BREAK OPEN A RIFT > AND RELEASE CTHULHU FROM HIS WATERY PRISON AND HE DEVOURS US ALL!!!!!! > > thank you for your time and attention... > hex > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 01:18:58AM +0900, Kevin wrote: > > > No a jargon or slang does not put aside the language it exists inside > > > of. To try and argue this is ridiculous, the definitions used within > > > the standard language do not become invalid just because you speak to a > > > specific group. Now you accuse me of moving the goal posts because I > > > utilize standard as opposed to nonstandard meanings of terminology to > > > point out that one may feel free to call any program a language? A > > > jargon only supersedes the standard usage of a term when it is no > > > longer specific to a single group, at which point it stops being a > > > jargon. > > > > In short . . . yes, you're saying that driving a nail is the same as > > driving a car. When I ask "Can you drive?" and you say "Yes," thinking > > you know how to pound nails into wood, you think I should loan you my > > car. > > > > You give a whole new meaning to the comment that when all you have is a > > hammer, everything looks like a nail. I am not, however, inclined to let > > you pound the crap out of my car with a hammer. > > > > By the way . . . the way you want to use "programming language" is > > definitely the nonstandard usage in this context. Context matters. > > > > -- > > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Hickman <peterhickman386@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 10:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTin71ON3-bkKE9YGm0K7vVEyrE-n_w@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2766 |
"When in a hole, stop digging" There seems to be an inverse relationship between number of words being used and what is being communicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 18:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimaMPU_6FkmWHKDGwnM8n=DWcv7tA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2734 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] Ah yes, the old "Oh look specific context" therefore stop reading definition. You cannot properly understand the phrase "programming language" without understanding both terms. The most important term in this case being language. The entire reason the phrase programming language works is because language is recognized as an expressive system. In reality definition twelve takes for granted the kind of input that could be used to deliver instructions to a machine, it assumes that the method used to deliver the instructions is of a symbolic nature. What happens if you are dealing with a computer that is not digital such as one that functions with gears? What happens if some genius manages to use specific frequencies of sound to deliver instructions to the machine? Is the system of sounds that the instructions take the form of not to be considered a language? You say I shot myself in the foot but here is something that might interest you: By your own logic Ruby is not a programming language. Here's why. You wish to separate the Excel environment from the macro system or interpreter that it contains. Ruby and all other programming languages can theoretically be separated in this way as well, the problem here is that if you separate these things your input is meaningless because the system is incomplete. How could you give instructions with Ruby style input without something that can tell the machine what all those instructions mean? The interpreter or compiler allows the computer to understand the directions you give it in a particular language. In other words a unit of a system is not the system. You cannot separate the Excel environment from the interpreter and retain results that are meaningful to a computer. By the same token C++ or Ruby code cannot be separated from the compiler or interpreter and remain meaningful to a computer. Just for your information a computer used to refer to a person that did computations. Around the time that digital computers were coming online one of the major reasons for their adoption in military circles was the fact that the mathematics human computists had to deal with were just too difficult to deal with accurately and in a timely fashion. Oh and for the record if we did have a good enough system for interpreting english for a computer the communication process would be programming because program as in giving instructions is not limited to machines, we program humans all the time. Humans are conditioned (programmed) to read characters almost instantly, we are not born doing that, the necessary instructions are inserted by being spoken to or made to go through drills that explain the formal rules of a language. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:38:23PM +0900, Kevin wrote: > > That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am > > using incorrect in any way? > > It does not make them incorrect definitions. It does, however, pertain > to this specific context, whereas the definitions you identified do not > pertain to this specific context that way. > > > > > > Does it necessarily make the suggestion that excel is a programming > > language incorrect? > > You *just* shot your argument in the foot. You said "programming > language" which, in the specific, is not the same as "language" in the > generic. By saying "programming language", you have confined your usage > of "language" to the particular case of definition 12, thus excluding the > generalities of definitions three, four, five, and seven. It's like the > difference between "card" and "greeting card", where referring to the > latter, more specific usage of card excludes the ace of spades, my > busines cards, and a 3x5 notecard with notes on it related to some kind > of eXtreme Programming construct. > > Even if you did not exclude them, though, they do not really apply to > your usage except by bending them so far out of shape as to render them > almost meaningless. > > > > > > Someone posted a link to an animation done in Excel (I've seen > > something similar in the past.), is that not giving instructions to a > > computer as per definition twelve? > > No, not really. > > Is pushing the power button on my laptop not giving instructions to a > computer? What about pressing the J key while typing this sentence? You > might as well call the power button and the keyboard "programming > languages" the way you're trying to define the term. The whole problem > with your approach to using the terms "language" in general and > "programming language" in particular is that you are hand-waving away any > specificity and context of meaning and usage, stretching the terms into > such generic, all-encompassing shapes as to strip them of any substantive > meaning at all. By the time you're done, we'll probably be able to > define death as a programming language. > > Is not the fact of brain death, which causes the EEG to change its > behavior, not instructions given to a computer, making it a programming > language by your hopelessly inclusive "definition"? > > (Scare quotes used here because I'm stretching the definition of > "definition" just to accomodate the way you define things.) > > > > > > Heck if you were to speak to a computer using English you could give > > instructions to a computer. As voice recognition technology gets > > better and hopefully cheaper people who are not great at typing may do > > just that in order to create programs that would be no different from > > the ones we type currently. > > If we get to the point where all communication with computers is done via > natural language, that will not make English a programming language. > That will make the communication process no longer "programming". > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 00:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTi=Qcw4Avxayyh=kmm2Ro3tfr1aGTw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2798 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] So I take it you are taking your ball home now? You invent a magic restriction and I applied your restriction to something that you would consider a programming language to illustrate the problem with your restriction. Namely that the language does not exist unless the machine can interpret it, a delivery system is required before something can be considered a language since you want to ignore the human who is also capable of deriving meaning from code. I also pointed out problems with the definition you want so badly to misread. You routinely use examples that have nothing to do with anything being discussed here and I am the one guilty of "moving the goal posts" and sophistry? I have maintained from the beginning that all programs are systems of expression, I haven't moved any goal posts. When I mentioned your easy chair example I was trying to point out that your statements about an easy chair being a mechanism while not being a language were unimportant because I wasn't saying that all systems are languages, I have been saying that all systems that can/do express human thoughts are languages and that a computer program (and not the physical computer itself) is such a system. Earlier you said that I was making an analogy with pictures and language and that said analogy was false because pictures are statements and not language this is false. I said that pictures can form the basis of a language I did not say that they were the language itself. Furthermore you claimed that definition seven in set one was being used metaphorically in the sense that it is not literally applicable. The problem with that is that no symbol can be literally applied to anything. In point of fact symbol and metaphor are synonymous with one another. So according to you language is a set of metaphors that stand for instructions in this context but definition seven in set one of language is invalid because it is metaphorical even though rejecting definition seven in this manner requires you to also reject definition twelve since it says that within this context language is a set of metaphors applied with certain rules that can be used to give instructions to a computer. (A system that is expressive.) In short according to you definition twelve is not appropriate for this discussion since you reject the use of metaphorical definitions. Even if you don't accept that there really is a set of definitions for flowers so no definition seven in set one was not being used metaphorically (As a simile.) it was being used quite literally, the language of flowers being an example of a communication system. If you look at the second example "the language of art"; depending on which definition of art you use, such a statement may be understood in terms of definition one of language since definition one of language pretty much defines jargon. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:44:05AM +0900, Kevin wrote: > > [snip] > blah blah blah sophistry > [/snip] > > I have no interest in continuing this discussion, where your rhetorical > techniques basically consist of moving the goal posts every six minutes. > > > > > > Just for your information a computer used to refer to a person that did > > computations. > > I'm aware of this. > > Oh, look -- the goalposts are moving again. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 05:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimWQpcjy=H0rDOtNv5u1Lfu-F0QTQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2798 |
On 14 April 2011 09:28, Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> wrote: > Longest post for at least a year. > > It would appear people are comfortable with discussing details but once > you stray into challenging their worldviews, you see quite different > behaviour patterns. > This is not about world views, it's about term borders nitpicking, really. On 14 April 2011 01:44, Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah yes, the old "Oh look specific context" therefore stop reading > definition. You cannot properly understand the phrase "programming > language" without understanding both terms. The most important term in this > case being language. The entire reason the phrase programming language > works is because language is recognized as an expressive system. In reality > definition twelve takes for granted the kind of input that could be used to > deliver instructions to a machine, it assumes that the method used to > deliver the instructions is of a symbolic nature. What happens if you are > dealing with a computer that is not digital such as one that functions with > gears? What happens if some genius manages to use specific frequencies of > sound to deliver instructions to the machine? Is the system of sounds that > the instructions take the form of not to be considered a language? > > You say I shot myself in the foot but here is something that might interest > you: By your own logic Ruby is not a programming language. Here's why. You > wish to separate the Excel environment from the macro system or interpreter > that it contains. Ruby and all other programming languages can > theoretically be separated in this way as well, the problem here is that if > you separate these things your input is meaningless because the system is > incomplete. How could you give instructions with Ruby style input without > something that can tell the machine what all those instructions mean? The > interpreter or compiler allows the computer to understand the directions you > give it in a particular language. In other words a unit of a system is not > the system. You cannot separate the Excel environment from the interpreter > and retain results that are meaningful to a computer. By the same token C++ > or Ruby code cannot be separated from the compiler or interpreter and remain > meaningful to a computer. This distinction was made because earlier somebody said that "true S# programmers use the macro language only as the last resort". Indeed, the macro language(s) that can be used from excel are definitely programming languages but VBA is not funtional or otherwise interesting in any way. The expressions you put into the cells are kind of functional with a solver which might somewhat remind one of Prolog and constraint solving systems based off it but I have no idea how it works internally and how formulating problems to be solvable in Excel compares to formulating problems to be solvable in constraint solvers. As for Turing completeness, game of life or x86 machine code is Turing complete and nobody in their right mind would call it a programming language. Calling something a programming language does in my book imply that - it is meant to be used by humans - it is meant to give instructions to some system, such as a computer, an application, etc. This implies that Excel is not a programming language but the expressions in its cells or VBA which can be used from Excel might, meaning that Excel is an application that includes or integrates one or more languages. Since this is further strengthened by the fact the same or similar expressions can be used in other applications (VBA in other parts of MS office, cell expressions in OpenOffice Calc) I would say Excel is not the language but an implementation or a runtime or a development environment for it. Note that a language can be defined eg. in mathematical sense as a set of words which in turn are defined as succession (or string if you want) of symbols of an alphabet which in turn is defined as a set of symbols While this definition is useful for analyzing properties of programming language grammar it is not the definition which makes something a programming language. Regards Michal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 01:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <8e754c14fbfe35586553310f5f2f4041@ruby-forum.com> |
| In reply to | #2838 |
>Michal Suchanek wrote in post #992724: > Calling something a programming language does in my book imply that > - it is meant to be used by humans > - it is meant to give instructions to some system, such as a > computer, an application, etc. > > This implies that Excel is not a programming language Michal, there have been many such non-sequiturs in this thread, but that is the most elegantly simple. I apologise for bringing Excel into the discussion - which was supposed to be about people's thoughts on functional programming languages. Excel - like functional languages - makes you come up with new patterns. My defence is it's like introducing a new recruit to the village cricket team, then people find out he's gay. I'm not to know in advance whether they find that peripheral aspect irrelevant, interesting or an extremely serious matter. Going back to functional languages in the normal sense, few people on this thread seem to be that interested, and when I've mentioned them in a work context (typically .NET), nobody's bothered. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-04 07:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTikSxOsETXhKKpN1JGqiL1iJTrA1=w@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2258 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote: > is this a good book to read to grok functional programming, > http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html > > I have done some lisp but interested in gaining the skillset with ruby, > > any nice thick comp sci books for recommendation? > > I haven't gone through it yet, but I have a PDF version I can upload if you don't like the html format of that one. It should be understood, though, that Ruby's functional support isn't the same as that of the purely functional languages. That isn't to suggest you won't get insights from that book, I know a lot of relevant people who have recommended it (ie Uncle Bob, and Rick DeNetale). On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net>wrote: > *You have restated my point in much more pleasant language, and with > commendable precision. > > Hmm, I thought he deserved to be chastised for making a post almost 90% of which was about databases. It fits quite nicely with the hypothesis that he's just trolling. On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com>wrote: > > I've seen some absolutely amazing things done with befunge! Networked > > programs, even. Which is more than excel can do. > > Sorry, what with all the bullshit I forgot to provide any evidence of > this fact: > http://zem.fi/~fis/fungot.b98.txt > > Amusingly, you added this on a whim, but it's more evidence than the Excel proponents (sorry, I mean "S# programmers") have provided, despite several explicit requests for clarification and examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-04 07:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimFSfwf=iTFDu3Qg_L91aj0dE+ung@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2265 |
On 4 April 2011 14:41, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote: > >> is this a good book to read to grok functional programming, >> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html >> >> I have done some lisp but interested in gaining the skillset with ruby, >> >> any nice thick comp sci books for recommendation? >> >> > I haven't gone through it yet, but I have a PDF version I can upload if you > don't like the html format of that one. It should be understood, though, > that Ruby's functional support isn't the same as that of the purely > functional languages. That isn't to suggest you won't get insights from that > book, I know a lot of relevant people who have recommended it (ie Uncle Bob, > and Rick DeNetale). > It is not HTML vs PDF, it is the problems inherent in SICP which are even detailed in some paper. Basically SICP expects that you take and understand some mildly advanced math courses before you take the course SICP was written for. There are chapters with quite obscure examples which could be instead constructed of problems easier to understand and more accessible to the general public. Some also argue that the book suffers from one awesome feature of LISP - it does not differentiate between data and code. While the feature is interesting and useful it may make the coding more confusing for newcomers and make some of the examples needlessly difficult and hard to understand due to quoting. Thanks Michal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-05 03:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTi=9oFRK3cFTc3XCkPh-bBH3v74Kyw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2265 |
I'd be interested in the pdf formatted version. Thank you. On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote: > >> is this a good book to read to grok functional programming, >> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html >> >> I have done some lisp but interested in gaining the skillset with ruby, >> >> any nice thick comp sci books for recommendation? >> >> > I haven't gone through it yet, but I have a PDF version I can upload if you > don't like the html format of that one. It should be understood, though, > that Ruby's functional support isn't the same as that of the purely > functional languages. That isn't to suggest you won't get insights from that > book, I know a lot of relevant people who have recommended it (ie Uncle Bob, > and Rick DeNetale). > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Everett L Williams II > <rett@classicnet.net>wrote: > >> *You have restated my point in much more pleasant language, and with >> commendable precision. >> >> > Hmm, I thought he deserved to be chastised for making a post almost 90% of > which was about databases. It fits quite nicely with the hypothesis that > he's just trolling. > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com>wrote: > >> > I've seen some absolutely amazing things done with befunge! Networked >> > programs, even. Which is more than excel can do. >> >> Sorry, what with all the bullshit I forgot to provide any evidence of >> this fact: >> http://zem.fi/~fis/fungot.b98.txt >> >> > Amusingly, you added this on a whim, but it's more evidence than the Excel > proponents (sorry, I mean "S# programmers") have provided, despite several > explicit requests for clarification and examples. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-05 04:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTimPjLtVspFvg5n1HjBUPtaqbgWaTg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2309 |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote: > I'd be interested in the pdf formatted version. Thank you. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4294562/15556326-Structure-and-Interpretation-of-Computer-Programs-SICP.pdf Here you go. :) And before anyone asks: SICP is Creative Commons licensed. -- Phillip Gawlowski Though the folk I have met, (Ah, how soon!) they forget When I've moved on to some other place, There may be one or two, When I've played and passed through, Who'll remember my song or my face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-05 16:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTikQvV5hvWwE7sUA6DnRAJ3zZqUWkg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2311 |
thank you very much! On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote: >> I'd be interested in the pdf formatted version. Thank you. > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4294562/15556326-Structure-and-Interpretation-of-Computer-Programs-SICP.pdf > > Here you go. :) > > And before anyone asks: SICP is Creative Commons licensed. > > -- > Phillip Gawlowski > > Though the folk I have met, > (Ah, how soon!) they forget > When I've moved on to some other place, > There may be one or two, > When I've played and passed through, > Who'll remember my song or my face. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 10:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <4D9DDD7F.70407@classicnet.net> |
| In reply to | #2258 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] Chad Perrin wrote: >> Denigrating another person's choice of tools will certainly not make >> that person likely to seek your advice again, nor consider you helpful. >> > I don't think anyone is denigrating the use of spreadsheets for problems > best solved by spreadsheets. People just object to describing MS Excel > as a better programming language than Ruby -- a pretty tall order, given > it is woefully inadequate to many tasks for which programming is done, > and is not in fact a "language" by any definition short of the sort of > mental gymnastics necessary to discuss 4GLs with a straight face. > *Somebody earlier suggested listening to Robert Martin's address to the RailsConf, and I did. It speaks to what can destroy a language, and it pretty much delineates the types of attitudes that are being brought forward here. Excel is being denigrated here, and that is foolish. Many people use spreadsheets all day long to accomplish their work. They are good with spreadsheets and comfortable with them. What is being said here is that they should throw away all that goodness and go to Ruby or something like Ruby, because it is better for some classes of problems. That's a little like taking a jackhammer out to get rid of the spots on your garage floor. Since most of these people will never need to program something that they cannot do in Excel, even if awkwardly, that seems foolish. Because of their familiarity with the tool they use most often, they can accomplish more with it in an hour than they could in days working with Ruby. No matter what tools you use to work with Ruby, it is a complete paradigm shift, and that is difficult for the average person who does not consider themselves a professional programmer. It may have taken them years to learn how to do what they now do in Excel, and Excel is only a stalking horse for a wider point here. If your current tools, whatever they may be, are slowing or blocking you sufficiently that you must go to a new tool, or if you need an excellent tool for future work, something like Ruby makes all the sense in the world, but every advocate of something like Ruby should realize that Ruby is not an endpoint. In the fairly near future, we are going to progress to machines that never turn off and never reboot, and that do not distinguish applications. Ruby nor any other current language is equipped to deal with that type of environment. Things like genetic programming and fuzzy logic and really, machines that "think" like we do are the goal. Now I realize that eyes are rolling and so forth, but what I am trying to say is that Ruby is not nor will it be in that world, and that future is coming far faster than most imagine. If you get your nose so stuck down to the grindstone that all you can see is Ruby, then you will eventually suffer the same criticism as is being thrown at the guy who is using Excel at the moment. Working like the devil to make Ruby better, and to make it more accessible, are worthy expenditures of energy. Being offensively defensive about it and parsing definitions about what is and is not a programming language are complete wastes of time, and are self defeating. At the moment, Ruby is not threatening to displace even COBOL and ForTran, much less C/C++ and Assembler, and there are hosts of simple tasks that really should not be done in Ruby or anything but a 4GL, you know, that target of a derisive earlier comment. I used one of the very first 4GL's, Easytrieve, and it allowed me to do in 15 minutes, what COBOL programmers were taking weeks or months to accomplish (note that I did not say good COBOL programmers). For reasonably complex data changes or for reports, it was literally an order of magnitude or two better than COBOL, and there are days that I would give my right arm to still have it. It is commercial and costs more than I can afford for my purposes. In the mean time, I really don't want to write reports in Ruby, though I realize that it is quite possible, and simple data fixes in Ruby, especially on new files for which I don't have schemas, aren't. Everett L.(Rett) Williams II ** *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 18:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <BANLkTinoXOKnCLPpTE7_Yo3mqLCjNXr5PA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #2470 |
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net>wrote: > Excel is being denigrated here, and that is foolish. > > I haven't seen it denigrated at all, I'm honestly surprised that people have been as accommodating as they have. > > Many people use spreadsheets all day long to accomplish their work. They > are good with spreadsheets and comfortable with them. What is being said > here is that they should throw away all that goodness and go to Ruby or > something like Ruby, because it is better for some classes of problems. > > Certainly no one said what you just paraphrased, all anyone has done is to reject the claims that Excel is a programming language (named S#) that should be used for everything (including web applications), that we don't need real programming languages and that recursion is always harder and inferior to "a more linearly coded function". But, we've also said that you are free to show us how Excel could be a programming language -- I even went and tried to find an example, and offered several suggestions of programs I had written this semester that you could duplicate in Excel to prove your point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Stahl <astahl@hi5.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 20:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: functional paradigm taking over |
| Message-ID | <5E8E89C34155CB4596A67105831EAB3D7FE288C9F3@AUSP01VMBX27.collaborationhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2489 |
Not that I've been following this thread, but I saw the comment at the end regarding Excel as a programming language and thought I'd supply an example
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.ruby
csiph-web