Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-05 16:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-11 14:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 202 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-05 16:03 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-06 08:04 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 10:31 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-07 23:29 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-08 02:49 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 13:18 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-08 16:58 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-08 10:35 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 22:07 +0100
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-06 08:40 +0100
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-06 10:31 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 08:47 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-06 21:33 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 13:44 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-07 12:24 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 09:34 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 10:14 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-08 10:37 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 22:09 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-06 22:50 +0200
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-07 12:31 +0100
Re: Language feature selection rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:45 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-06 08:39 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 08:39 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-06 17:27 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 13:30 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-03-06 11:11 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 13:38 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-03-07 12:18 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 10:28 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-06 13:33 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 13:36 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-06 22:15 -0500
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-06 22:22 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 00:27 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-08 12:20 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-08 11:23 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-10 13:43 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 16:49 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-11 04:17 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-12 18:08 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 17:25 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-16 17:23 -0700
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-17 23:59 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-17 23:25 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-18 12:05 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-18 04:04 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-18 04:39 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-18 03:55 -0700
Re: Language feature selection upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-18 16:00 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-11 16:35 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 15:39 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-06 18:59 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-06 12:36 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-07 19:02 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-07 19:18 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 12:38 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-07 22:10 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-07 20:35 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-08 20:43 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-07 23:48 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-08 20:48 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-08 21:15 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-09 01:33 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-09 14:47 +0000
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-09 16:15 +0000
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 22:04 +0100
Re: Language feature selection John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 07:46 +0000
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-10 13:21 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:16 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2017-03-10 20:39 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 13:32 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-03-11 14:58 +0200
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 13:02 +0100
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 10:46 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-08 20:33 -0600
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 11:08 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Britt <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 07:04 -0800
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 16:36 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-09 16:11 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-09 12:06 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-03-09 19:26 +0100
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 22:08 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-09 19:04 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-09 15:40 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-10 14:19 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:10 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:49 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-09 18:00 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-09 17:54 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-09 18:54 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-10 04:07 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-10 08:07 -0600
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-10 13:59 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 08:17 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:24 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 19:09 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 12:33 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 23:25 +0000
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-10 20:22 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 01:32 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 18:16 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 09:59 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-11 02:23 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 11:13 +0000
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-11 14:28 -0500
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-11 17:20 -0500
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-12 16:26 -0400
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 21:46 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-12 23:15 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-13 14:14 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-13 18:48 +0000
Re: Language feature selection "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 15:17 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-03-13 23:17 +0200
Re: Language feature selection "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 17:27 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 17:10 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-03-14 10:11 +0200
Re: Language feature selection "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:23 -0500
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:27 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 22:03 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-14 17:24 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-11 07:19 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 19:43 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-12 09:28 -0600
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-12 15:15 -0400
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-12 19:38 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 18:08 -0800
Re: Language feature selection George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-11 04:22 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 10:02 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-11 02:22 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 11:07 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-10 14:30 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 13:37 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-10 16:30 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 18:14 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-11 07:46 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 12:53 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-12 09:45 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 11:56 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-03-12 21:05 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 14:40 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-03-13 00:36 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 17:00 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 16:50 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 17:08 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 20:51 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 20:31 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 21:45 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-14 21:16 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-11 16:40 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 15:10 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-10 16:42 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 00:46 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 21:58 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 15:19 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 23:27 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-10 20:14 -0600
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 12:16 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-03-10 20:40 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-10 22:28 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2017-03-10 20:03 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-10 19:48 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2017-03-13 21:25 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-10 13:03 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2017-03-13 21:40 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 01:06 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-13 19:23 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 08:48 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-14 02:14 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 09:33 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-14 09:21 -0700
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 06:01 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 11:39 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 07:16 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 13:49 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-17 11:03 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-17 19:21 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-17 11:34 -0700
Re: Language feature selection David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-17 20:26 +0100
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 20:07 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 20:29 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 19:19 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-18 08:18 +0000
Re: Language feature selection Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-03-14 21:20 +0100
Re: Language feature selection jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-03-10 18:46 -0800
Re: Language feature selection Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-03-11 15:41 +0200
Re: Language feature selection jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-03-11 14:20 -0800
Re: Language feature selection upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-12 00:54 +0200
Re: Language feature selection jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-03-12 18:08 -0700
Re: Language feature selection upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-13 23:36 +0200
Re: Language feature selection Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 17:03 -0500
Re: Language feature selection Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 14:21 -0700
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oa953r$2tn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26071 |
On 3/14/2017 1:48 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >> >> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >> still don't get it!". > > We learned integration and differentials of polynomials > except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the > teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, > deriving the concepts from first principles. I'd already had two years (not semesters) of calculus before going to college (despite having skipped the last year of high school). A lot depends on the quality of the local (public!) school system and the types of teachers made available to you. > OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, > he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood > why people think calculus is inherently difficult. Many of SWMBO's female "artist" friends can't "get" perspective. This completely threw me for a loop: it's the *easiest* aspect of drawing -- it's MECHANICAL in nature, well-behaved, "linear", etc! So "basic" that its difficult to know where to begin when asked to explain it. They periodically pester me to give a "class" on it but I'm not keen on spending that much time with a bunch of female "artist types" :< (wrong side of the brain)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 06:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oagf8m$d1t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26071 |
Tom Gardner wrote: > On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >> >> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >> still don't get it!". > > :) > > We learned integration and differentials of polynomials > except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the > teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, > deriving the concepts from first principles. > > OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, > he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood > why people think calculus is inherently difficult. > Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 11:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EVPyA.160124$987.65515@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #26106 |
On 17/03/17 11:01, Les Cargill wrote: > Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >>> >>> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >>> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >>> still don't get it!". >> >> :) >> >> We learned integration and differentials of polynomials >> except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the >> teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, >> deriving the concepts from first principles. >> >> OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, >> he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood >> why people think calculus is inherently difficult. >> > > > Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You > have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. Work? Yes, good :) Difficult? Yes, there is a graunch; It probably took 40mins of teaching and discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 07:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oagjlt$ucj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26108 |
Tom Gardner wrote: > On 17/03/17 11:01, Les Cargill wrote: >> Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>>>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >>>> >>>> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >>>> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >>>> still don't get it!". >>> >>> :) >>> >>> We learned integration and differentials of polynomials >>> except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the >>> teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, >>> deriving the concepts from first principles. >>> >>> OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, >>> he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood >>> why people think calculus is inherently difficult. >>> >> >> >> Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You >> have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. > > Work? Yes, good :) > > Difficult? Yes, there is a graunch; It probably took > 40mins of teaching and discussion. I remain highly skeptical of that figure. That was for the initial gloss; it takes a considerably longer time to gain a working knowledge of limits. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1QRyA.383891$F83.360216@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #26112 |
On 17/03/17 12:16, Les Cargill wrote: > Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 17/03/17 11:01, Les Cargill wrote: >>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>>>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>>>>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >>>>> >>>>> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >>>>> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >>>>> still don't get it!". >>>> >>>> :) >>>> >>>> We learned integration and differentials of polynomials >>>> except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the >>>> teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, >>>> deriving the concepts from first principles. >>>> >>>> OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, >>>> he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood >>>> why people think calculus is inherently difficult. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You >>> have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. >> >> Work? Yes, good :) >> >> Difficult? Yes, there is a graunch; It probably took >> 40mins of teaching and discussion. > > > I remain highly skeptical of that figure. That was > for the initial gloss; it takes a considerably longer > time to gain a working knowledge of limits. It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, and to be able to understand the explanation of how polynomials (except 1/x) could be differentiated. We then went on to use differentiation for the O-level exams at 16. Well, I say 16 because that was the normal age, but everybody in my school (a selective state "Grammar" school) took maths and English language a year early, so that if we failed we could have another go :) Curiously, 15/20 years after that I was talking to a secondary school maths teacher who refused to believe we did calculus at O-level. Now it was an unusual syllabus (University of London Syllabus D), but I have since seen a copy of the textbook we used, and it did indeed have exactly what I remembered in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r31vpyqq.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #26113 |
Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, and to be able to > understand the explanation of how polynomials (except 1/x) could be > differentiated. I think that might have been a less rigorous treatment than is usually seen in calculus classes where students get confused by limits. Here's a cute problem that can let you check your understanding. It's about continuity rather than limits per se, but if you understand one you probably understand the other. Consider the function f(x) defined as follows: if x is a rational number p/q in lowest terms, then f(x) = 1/q. if x is irrational, then f(x) = 0. Questions: 1) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) continuous? 2) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) discontinuous?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 19:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oah990$f6c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26120 |
On 17/03/17 19:03, Paul Rubin wrote: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, and to be able to >> understand the explanation of how polynomials (except 1/x) could be >> differentiated. > > I think that might have been a less rigorous treatment than is usually > seen in calculus classes where students get confused by limits. > > Here's a cute problem that can let you check your understanding. It's > about continuity rather than limits per se, but if you understand one > you probably understand the other. > > Consider the function f(x) defined as follows: > > if x is a rational number p/q in lowest terms, then f(x) = 1/q. > > if x is irrational, then f(x) = 0. > > Questions: > > 1) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) continuous? > > 2) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) discontinuous? > Just off the top of my head, I'd say it is continuous at all irrational x, and discontinuous at all rational x. But I am not entirely sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87mvcjpxal.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #26121 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > Just off the top of my head, I'd say it is continuous at all irrational > x, and discontinuous at all rational x. But I am not entirely sure. Congrats, you win a cookie ;-).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oahd3u$tfj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26122 |
On 17/03/17 19:34, Paul Rubin wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> Just off the top of my head, I'd say it is continuous at all irrational >> x, and discontinuous at all rational x. But I am not entirely sure. > > Congrats, you win a cookie ;-). > What did I get right? The bit about not being entirely sure? :-) I used to enjoy playing with functions like that, but I'm a couple of decades out of practice. Here's another fun use of limits: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn> It is a 3D figure with finite volume, but infinite surface area.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mmXyA.142495$y83.91671@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #26120 |
On 17/03/17 18:03, Paul Rubin wrote: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, and to be able to >> understand the explanation of how polynomials (except 1/x) could be >> differentiated. > > I think that might have been a less rigorous treatment than is usually > seen in calculus classes where students get confused by limits. Yes, that's why I stated the audience and the limits of what was being taught! But it was sufficient to enable 14 year olds to be able to understand and apply simple calculus to chemistry, physics and applied maths topics. ...in other words, the interesting stuff :) > Here's a cute problem that can let you check your understanding. It's > about continuity rather than limits per se, but if you understand one > you probably understand the other. > > Consider the function f(x) defined as follows: > > if x is a rational number p/q in lowest terms, then f(x) = 1/q. > > if x is irrational, then f(x) = 0. > > Questions: > > 1) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) continuous? > > 2) For what values of x, if any, is f(x) discontinuous? It was 34 years ago, and I've neither been nor wanted to be a pure mathematician :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rGXyA.96080$0L.24840@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #26124 |
On 17/03/17 20:07, Tom Gardner wrote: > It was 34 years ago, and I've neither been nor wanted > to be a pure mathematician :) Ahem. 45 years ago :(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 19:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oahu2l$qam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26113 |
Tom Gardner wrote: > On 17/03/17 12:16, Les Cargill wrote: >> Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 17/03/17 11:01, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>>>>>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >>>>>> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >>>>>> still don't get it!". >>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> We learned integration and differentials of polynomials >>>>> except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the >>>>> teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, >>>>> deriving the concepts from first principles. >>>>> >>>>> OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, >>>>> he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood >>>>> why people think calculus is inherently difficult. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You >>>> have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. >>> >>> Work? Yes, good :) >>> >>> Difficult? Yes, there is a graunch; It probably took >>> 40mins of teaching and discussion. >> >> >> I remain highly skeptical of that figure. That was >> for the initial gloss; it takes a considerably longer >> time to gain a working knowledge of limits. > > It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, > and to be able to understand the explanation of how > polynomials (except 1/x) could be differentiated. Sure. > We then went on to use differentiation for the > O-level exams at 16. Well, I say 16 because that > was the normal age, but everybody in my school > (a selective state "Grammar" school) took maths > and English language a year early, so that if we > failed we could have another go :) > :) > Curiously, 15/20 years after that I was talking to > a secondary school maths teacher who refused to > believe we did calculus at O-level. Now it was an > unusual syllabus (University of London Syllabus D), > but I have since seen a copy of the textbook we > used, and it did indeed have exactly what I remembered > in it. > I recall now a high school in a neighboring town that offered something similar. I went to a small school; we were luck to to have a trig class. They had to bring in a substitute to teach it. And he had to walk uphill in the snow 30 miles both ways... :) -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 08:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <y36zA.288327$QJ4.202561@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #26127 |
On 18/03/17 00:19, Les Cargill wrote: > Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 17/03/17 12:16, Les Cargill wrote: >>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 17/03/17 11:01, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>> On 14/03/17 02:23, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>>> "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I became 21 I >>>>>>>> was amazed at how much he had learned in the past 7 years" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the profs at my old school said at his retirement dinner "I've >>>>>>> been teaching these kids freshman calculus for FORTY YEARS and they >>>>>>> still don't get it!". >>>>>> >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> We learned integration and differentials of polynomials >>>>>> except 1/x for exams at 15. I can still visualise the >>>>>> teacher taking a double period (80 mins) for each, >>>>>> deriving the concepts from first principles. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, he was a good teacher (but not a good mathematician, >>>>>> he knew his limits!), but even so I've never understood >>>>>> why people think calculus is inherently difficult. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Limits are conceptually difficult. It takes work. You >>>>> have to be able to suspend disbelief in things like infinity. >>>> >>>> Work? Yes, good :) >>>> >>>> Difficult? Yes, there is a graunch; It probably took >>>> 40mins of teaching and discussion. >>> >>> >>> I remain highly skeptical of that figure. That was >>> for the initial gloss; it takes a considerably longer >>> time to gain a working knowledge of limits. >> >> It was sufficient for us to believe in the concepts, >> and to be able to understand the explanation of how >> polynomials (except 1/x) could be differentiated. > > Sure. > >> We then went on to use differentiation for the >> O-level exams at 16. Well, I say 16 because that >> was the normal age, but everybody in my school >> (a selective state "Grammar" school) took maths >> and English language a year early, so that if we >> failed we could have another go :) >> > > :) > >> Curiously, 15/20 years after that I was talking to >> a secondary school maths teacher who refused to >> believe we did calculus at O-level. Now it was an >> unusual syllabus (University of London Syllabus D), >> but I have since seen a copy of the textbook we >> used, and it did indeed have exactly what I remembered >> in it. >> > > I recall now a high school in a neighboring town that offered something > similar. I went to a small school; we were luck to to have a trig class. They > had to bring in a substitute to teach it. Parents chose (and still choose) where they lived based on the schools. For O-levels, my school had ~90 people/year divided into three sets loosely based on ability. Most people went onto A-levels and university, since the intake was the top 10% of pupils based on IQ tests at 10 (the 11+ tests). I also sat some exams for a local public (i.e. fee-paying) school (and got a scholarship), principally in case I failed the 11+. > And he had to walk uphill in the snow 30 miles both ways... :) It *was* uphill both ways to my daughter's school, but not 30 miles, not on foot, and she enjoyed the few occasions we got snow :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9f58678a-274b-4eae-3824-44bcb8ec623e@t-online.de> |
| In reply to | #26066 |
Am 14.03.2017 um 02:06 schrieb Tom Gardner: > "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When > I became 21 I was amazed at how much he had learned > in the past 7 years" Or as some clever guy put it: the most reliable indication that you've turned into a grown-up is when you catch yourself just having done something _despite_ your parents having told you so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim.brakefield@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 18:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0e8bf705-215d-4593-9aa8-7cb4d4002952@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25896 |
On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote: > A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll: > > What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most > valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique > to *a* language or class of languages) A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia. That is: array and vector operators baked into the language. I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms use the fewest operators possible/practical. Writing loops and subscript expressions are mostly gone! In theory, such renditions of algorithms can be optimized and/or parallelized by the compiler to a greater extent than for normal code. There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming in the small"): the fundamental data structure is, say, an eight dimensional array (possibly non-contiguous). A scalar is such an array with the extent in each dimension equal to one. A vector has one dimension with the extent greater than one, etc. Of course, the array element can be something other than a scalar (integer, float, etc) such as a record or list or hash table. Jim Brakefield
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 15:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <eiid55Fqo5dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #26002 |
On 17-03-11 04:46 , jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
>> A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll:
>>
>> What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most
>> valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique
>> to *a* language or class of languages)
>
> A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia.
> That is: array and vector operators baked into the language.
In a language that allows operator overloading, programmers can define
their own array operators.
> I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with
> less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms
> use the fewest operators possible/practical.
I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple
cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking
it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer
products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to
understand.
> There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming
> (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming
> in the small"):
You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand
these large/small terms differently; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the_small.
--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim.brakefield@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 14:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d4d5b1b-766c-4eb4-84bd-72421ba2d3a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26013 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:42:00 AM UTC-6, Niklas Holsti wrote: > On 17-03-11 04:46 , jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote: > >> A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll: > >> > >> What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most > >> valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique > >> to *a* language or class of languages) > > > > A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia. > > That is: array and vector operators baked into the language. > > In a language that allows operator overloading, programmers can define > their own array operators. > > > I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with > > less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms > > use the fewest operators possible/practical. > > I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple > cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking > it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer > products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to > understand. > > > There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming > > (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming > > in the small"): > > You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand > these large/small terms differently; see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the_small. > > > -- > Niklas Holsti > Tidorum Ltd > niklas holsti tidorum fi > . @ . ]> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand ]> these large/small terms differently; see Was not aware of this definition. Tend to consider this type of "programming in the large" as solving an organizational problem and an architectural problem. Another form of programming in the large is characterized by provisioning a complete 64-bit computer: e.g. one with a complete 64-bit address space. ]> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple ]> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking ]> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer ]> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to ]> understand. My experience was with scientific programming, so yes this argument has some validity. Am still convinced that it is a useful exercise: Push low level details down into the operators and data structures, consider the various ways of doing this so that the high level operators (that need to be written) emerge. Also consider programming well with "array" operators to require greater experience, know-how and good judgement than doing low level coding. Jim Brakefield
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | upsidedown@downunder.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 00:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oov8cch7sb6c7a8u75p3glhl93ia8th265@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #26024 |
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:20:27 -0800 (PST), jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:42:00 AM UTC-6, Niklas Holsti wrote: >> On 17-03-11 04:46 , jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: >> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote: >> >> A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll: >> >> >> >> What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most >> >> valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique >> >> to *a* language or class of languages) >> > >> > A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia. >> > That is: array and vector operators baked into the language. >> >> In a language that allows operator overloading, programmers can define >> their own array operators. >> >> > I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with >> > less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms >> > use the fewest operators possible/practical. >> >> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple >> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking >> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer >> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to >> understand. >> >> > There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming >> > (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming >> > in the small"): >> >> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand >> these large/small terms differently; see >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the_small. >> >> >> -- >> Niklas Holsti >> Tidorum Ltd >> niklas holsti tidorum fi >> . @ . > >]> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand >]> these large/small terms differently; see > >Was not aware of this definition. Tend to consider this type of "programming in the large" as solving an organizational problem and an architectural problem. > >Another form of programming in the large is characterized by provisioning a complete 64-bit computer: e.g. one with a complete 64-bit address space. > >]> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple >]> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking >]> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer >]> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to >]> understand. > >My experience was with scientific programming, so yes this argument has some validity. Am still convinced that it is a useful exercise: Push low level details down into the operators and data structures, consider the various ways of doing this so that the high level operators (that need to be written) emerge. > >Also consider programming well with "array" operators to require greater experience, know-how and good judgement than doing low level coding. > >Jim Brakefield FORTRAN had complex number support from the beginning. The array support has been added more recently. It seems that array support was added ,more recently.. IMHO Fortran is still a viable option for solving mathematical problems after recent updates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim.brakefield@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b99c868-8077-4a74-825c-d5966dfafc09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26029 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-6, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: > On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:20:27 -0800 (PST), jim.brakefield@ieee.org > wrote: > > >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:42:00 AM UTC-6, Niklas Holsti wrote: > >> On 17-03-11 04:46 , jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: > >> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote: > >> >> A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll: > >> >> > >> >> What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most > >> >> valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique > >> >> to *a* language or class of languages) > >> > > >> > A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia. > >> > That is: array and vector operators baked into the language. > >> > >> In a language that allows operator overloading, programmers can define > >> their own array operators. > >> > >> > I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with > >> > less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms > >> > use the fewest operators possible/practical. > >> > >> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple > >> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking > >> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer > >> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to > >> understand. > >> > >> > There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming > >> > (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming > >> > in the small"): > >> > >> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand > >> these large/small terms differently; see > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the_small. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Niklas Holsti > >> Tidorum Ltd > >> niklas holsti tidorum fi > >> . @ . > > > >]> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand > >]> these large/small terms differently; see > > > >Was not aware of this definition. Tend to consider this type of "programming in the large" as solving an organizational problem and an architectural problem. > > > >Another form of programming in the large is characterized by provisioning a complete 64-bit computer: e.g. one with a complete 64-bit address space. > > > >]> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple > >]> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking > >]> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer > >]> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to > >]> understand. > > > >My experience was with scientific programming, so yes this argument has some validity. Am still convinced that it is a useful exercise: Push low level details down into the operators and data structures, consider the various ways of doing this so that the high level operators (that need to be written) emerge. > > > >Also consider programming well with "array" operators to require greater experience, know-how and good judgement than doing low level coding. > > > >Jim Brakefield > > FORTRAN had complex number support from the beginning. > > The array support has been added more recently. It seems that array > support was added ,more recently.. IMHO Fortran is still a viable > option for solving mathematical problems after recent updates. ]> FORTRAN had complex number support from the beginning. Fortran IV did not have a complex number type? Had expected Fortran 90 to compete well against C/C++. What happened? Julia uses 1 origin subscripts, same as Fortran. It can be difficult to convert a Fortran program to C/C++/etc: e.g, preserving correctness while converting from 1 origin to 0 origin subscripts. Jim Brakefield
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | upsidedown@downunder.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 23:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j51ecct7mefqfcip3146fja37hmmfjuat1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #26045 |
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:08:52 -0700 (PDT), jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-6, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:20:27 -0800 (PST), jim.brakefield@ieee.org >> wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:42:00 AM UTC-6, Niklas Holsti wrote: >> >> On 17-03-11 04:46 , jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 8:43:28 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote: >> >> >> A quick/informal/UNSCIENTIFIC poll: >> >> >> >> >> >> What *single* (non-traditional) language feature do you find most >> >> >> valuable in developing code? (and, applicable language if unique >> >> >> to *a* language or class of languages) >> >> > >> >> > A plug for array operators: as in Numpy, IDL/PV~wave, APL and Julia. >> >> > That is: array and vector operators baked into the language. >> >> >> >> In a language that allows operator overloading, programmers can define >> >> their own array operators. >> >> >> >> > I've found that programming at this level yields shorter programs with >> >> > less debugging: You windup making your data structures and algorithms >> >> > use the fewest operators possible/practical. >> >> >> >> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple >> >> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking >> >> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer >> >> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to >> >> understand. >> >> >> >> > There is a theoretical vantage point for this style of programming >> >> > (which I call "programming in the large" as opposed to "programming >> >> > in the small"): >> >> >> >> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand >> >> these large/small terms differently; see >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the_small. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Niklas Holsti >> >> Tidorum Ltd >> >> niklas holsti tidorum fi >> >> . @ . >> > >> >]> You may call it that, but I hope you know that most people understand >> >]> these large/small terms differently; see >> > >> >Was not aware of this definition. Tend to consider this type of "programming in the large" as solving an organizational problem and an architectural problem. >> > >> >Another form of programming in the large is characterized by provisioning a complete 64-bit computer: e.g. one with a complete 64-bit address space. >> > >> >]> I agree that array operators are useful, but only for relatively simple >> >]> cases such as the basic arithmetic operations on arrays. However, taking >> >]> it to the APL extreme with complex vector/matrix restructurings (outer >> >]> products, lamination, ...) can create code that is hard for others to >> >]> understand. >> > >> >My experience was with scientific programming, so yes this argument has some validity. Am still convinced that it is a useful exercise: Push low level details down into the operators and data structures, consider the various ways of doing this so that the high level operators (that need to be written) emerge. >> > >> >Also consider programming well with "array" operators to require greater experience, know-how and good judgement than doing low level coding. >> > >> >Jim Brakefield >> >> FORTRAN had complex number support from the beginning. >> >> The array support has been added more recently. It seems that array >> support was added ,more recently.. IMHO Fortran is still a viable >> option for solving mathematical problems after recent updates. > >]> FORTRAN had complex number support from the beginning. >Fortran IV did not have a complex number type? FORTRAN IV definitively had COMPLEX data type. > >Had expected Fortran 90 to compete well against C/C++. >What happened? > >Julia uses 1 origin subscripts, same as Fortran. > It can be difficult to convert a Fortran program to C/C++/etc: >e.g, preserving correctness while converting from >1 origin to 0 origin subscripts. The opposite conversion is trivial from stupid old C/C++ to Fortran 77 and later. integer A (0:3, 0:4, 0:5) thus you can (optionally) define the lower li,it for each array dimension. If I understood correctly, recent Fortran versions also allow your own operators like defining an operator such as .dot. (dot product) and then you could write something like Complex A, B C = A .dot. B Regarding Julia, is it possible to overload various operators to a single Unicode character such as the center dot ? While this might be useful for some common operators, the new Fortran .operator. syntax might be more versatile and readable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web