Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: revisiting a prgramming problem
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:01:22 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <op.xn7bckhamk81un@localhost>
References: <2ccb76c4-b929-43fe-b53e-9fd85ace01a6@googlegroups.com> <43dda9f8-27b0-4014-aa4a-9d534193ba1a@googlegroups.com> <5446822d$0$2885$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <7xsiih2yn3.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <5446bef7$0$2838$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <m2blr1$m7c$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:34124

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:44:10 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:

>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>>
>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
>> Back to the drawing board!
>
> Not trying to pick on anyone, [...]

You not picking on someone?  And, within this
semi-hostile group? ...  OK.  Alex W. is now
complaining about Hugh, but Alex M. isn't.

> [...] but this illustrates the fallacy of testing to prove the absence  
> of errors.

Well, testing worked for me, and I'm definately
pro-C.  So, I think that disproves that claim.

Rather, it indicates that:
1) failures which can occur do (Murphy's law), or
2) it confirms Knuth's quip on premature optimization.

The use of the word "premature" in this context conveys
extra meaning, alluding to sexual failure, insulting the
technique.  Most people would simply use the word "early".

Personally, I see the failure as the latter case.  If
Hans and others hadn't been attempting to produce the
most compact or fastest representation, they might've
produced something which was easier to verify and safer
to implement, and which is more likely to be correct
even without any testing.

Somehow, we can't seem to escape the "laws" lately...


Rod Pemberton