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

Groups > comp.programming > #14305 > unrolled thread

What's new with the other programming models?

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  What's new with the other programming models? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-02 22:13 -0800
    Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-03 10:02 +0100
      Re: What's new with the other programming models? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-03 19:40 -0800
        Re: What's new with the other programming models? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-03 21:03 -0800
        Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-04 16:03 +0100
    Re: What's new with the other programming models? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-03 11:24 +0000
      Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-03 13:04 +0100
      Re: What's new with the other programming models? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-03 21:26 -0800
    Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-04 01:14 -0800
      Re: What's new with the other programming models? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-04 16:47 -0800
        Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-05 02:55 -0800
          Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-05 13:29 +0100
            Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-05 14:52 -0800
              Re: What's new with the other programming models? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-12-05 22:59 +0000
                Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-05 15:09 -0800
                Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-06 09:00 +0100
                  Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-06 00:05 -0800
                  Re: What's new with the other programming models? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-12-06 08:17 +0000
                    Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-06 00:20 -0800
                      Re: What's new with the other programming models? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-12-06 09:44 +0000
                    Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-06 11:25 +0100
                      Re: What's new with the other programming models? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-06 09:02 -0800
                        Re: What's new with the other programming models? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-06 18:51 +0100
                          Re: What's new with the other programming models? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-12-06 17:58 +0000
                            Re: What's new with the other programming models? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-12-06 18:05 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#14305 — What's new with the other programming models?

All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so
has been focus on the Church and Turing models. Considering
all functional stuff to be essentially Church and all Von Neumann
or procedural programming to be essentially Turing.

What's up with the other models? Anything new being done
with Post systems or Thue system? Are there other weirder ones?

I suppose Macro processors are in a sense a development
of Post string rewriting. But, .... not really. Nobody does 
Macro processing like that, right? You pack more built-in
power to the macro itself, with math and lists and control
structures and stuff, right? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14306

On 03/12/2021 07:13, luser droog wrote:
> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so
> has been focus on the Church and Turing models. Considering
> all functional stuff to be essentially Church and all Von Neumann
> or procedural programming to be essentially Turing.
> 

(Just to be clear, in case anyone is unsure - Church and Turing were
very interested in the theory of what could be computed, rather than how
to compute it, and their models along with all other models come up with
the same set of computable functions.  Different models, including
quantum computing, can all solve the same problems - they just do it in
different ways, and can have different efficiencies in terms of time and
size.)

> What's up with the other models? Anything new being done
> with Post systems or Thue system? Are there other weirder ones?
> 
> I suppose Macro processors are in a sense a development
> of Post string rewriting. But, .... not really. Nobody does 
> Macro processing like that, right? You pack more built-in
> power to the macro itself, with math and lists and control
> structures and stuff, right? 
> 

You are going to have to give some links, references or details here.
There are people here who have heard of some pretty unusual languages,
but no one has heard of everything!

The two big programming models that are fashionable these days are
quantum computing and neural networks.

Every now and again I also hear about some new chip designed around the
model of a sea of simple computing units that each do a small part of
the overall work.  This is different from cellular automata networks
(where each cell has the same program and configuration) and neural
networks (where each cell has the same program but different
configuration, or connections and weights).

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

#14311

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:02:26 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 07:13, luser droog wrote: 
> > All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> > has been focus on the Church and Turing models. Considering 
> > all functional stuff to be essentially Church and all Von Neumann 
> > or procedural programming to be essentially Turing. 
> >
> (Just to be clear, in case anyone is unsure - Church and Turing were 
> very interested in the theory of what could be computed, rather than how 
> to compute it, and their models along with all other models come up with 
> the same set of computable functions. Different models, including 
> quantum computing, can all solve the same problems - they just do it in 
> different ways, and can have different efficiencies in terms of time and 
> size.)
> > What's up with the other models? Anything new being done 
> > with Post systems or Thue system? Are there other weirder ones? 
> > 
> > I suppose Macro processors are in a sense a development 
> > of Post string rewriting. But, .... not really. Nobody does 
> > Macro processing like that, right? You pack more built-in 
> > power to the macro itself, with math and lists and control 
> > structures and stuff, right? 
> >
> You are going to have to give some links, references or details here. 
> There are people here who have heard of some pretty unusual languages, 
> but no one has heard of everything! 

Well, my "standard" list of models is just the table of contents from Minsky's
Finite and Infinite Machines.
  Finite State Automata
  Neural Networks with McCulloch-Pitts neurons
  Turing Machines
  Lisp/Lambda Calculus
  Post String Re-Writing Systems

I think Thue only comes in because Post's paper was a commentary on his
commentary on Godel. So pretty much anything not on this list, I'd consider
'weird' (and therefore "interesting").

I have an example of (AFAICT) a semi-Thue system in a short but weird
C program here: 
  https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/8734/2381

> The two big programming models that are fashionable these days are 
> quantum computing and neural networks. 
> 
> Every now and again I also hear about some new chip designed around the 
> model of a sea of simple computing units that each do a small part of 
> the overall work. This is different from cellular automata networks 
> (where each cell has the same program and configuration) and neural 
> networks (where each cell has the same program but different 
> configuration, or connections and weights).

That's interesting. That reminds me of one of the things Chuck Moore (Forth)
was working on, I think it was called GreenArrays.

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

#14312

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:40:57 PM UTC-6, luser droog wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:02:26 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote: 

> > You are going to have to give some links, references or details here. 
> > There are people here who have heard of some pretty unusual languages, 
> > but no one has heard of everything!
> Well, my "standard" list of models is just the table of contents from Minsky's 
> Finite and Infinite Machines. 
> Finite State Automata 
> Neural Networks with McCulloch-Pitts neurons 
> Turing Machines 
> Lisp/Lambda Calculus 
> Post String Re-Writing Systems 
> 

Oh, I forgot L-Systems. In a barebones configuration, I think they're not
particularly powerful. But with some supplemental doodads like passing
state around or stochastic repetition, you can make pretty flowers and trees.
But L-Systems do get interesting for modeling fractals. The simplest 
implementation IMO is with macro expansion <smirk>.

Cellular automata are a notable development of finite state machines.
I've a got a hefty Wolfram book. It's too long and dense to read. But it's
full of pretty pictures.

> I think Thue only comes in because Post's paper was a commentary on his 
> commentary on Godel. So pretty much anything not on this list, I'd consider 
> 'weird' (and therefore "interesting"). 

Well I remembered that story a little wrong. sigh.
 
> I have an example of (AFAICT) a semi-Thue system in a short but weird 
> C program here: 
> https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/8734/2381
> > The two big programming models that are fashionable these days are 
> > quantum computing and neural networks. 
> > 

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

#14318

On 04/12/2021 04:40, luser droog wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:02:26 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:

>>
>> Every now and again I also hear about some new chip designed around the 
>> model of a sea of simple computing units that each do a small part of 
>> the overall work. This is different from cellular automata networks 
>> (where each cell has the same program and configuration) and neural 
>> networks (where each cell has the same program but different 
>> configuration, or connections and weights).
> 
> That's interesting. That reminds me of one of the things Chuck Moore (Forth)
> was working on, I think it was called GreenArrays.
> 

Yes, that is an example of such things.  Utterly horrible.  I mean,
Forth is okay as a language if you want something very low level and
compact, and it's a good basis for minimal processors.  (4-bit
microcontrollers usually have a Forth-like assembly.)  But it is a
language that is easy to abuse to produce stuff that is incomprehensible
even to experts.  "Color Forth", Moore's latest idea, adds colour coding
to change the meaning of code, and splitting everything up into small
parts that you have to place and route manually makes it a complete
mess.  The result is something that can't be used sensibly for anything
that would traditionally be done in software, but can be used to make
software-defined peripherals that are massively more complex,
power-consuming and expensive than just using normal hardware
peripherals.  (An application note proudly demonstrates how to make a 10
MB Ethernet interface using most of the resources of the $20 chip and
software that is much more complex than you need for making a 100 MB MAC
in an FPGA at a fraction of the price - or that you can buy in a $2
microcontroller.)

It's good that people try different ideas from the mainstream - that is
often how innovation occurs.  Mostly, however, they are dead-ends.

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

#14307

luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> writes:

> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so
> has been focus on the Church and Turing models. Considering
> all functional stuff to be essentially Church and all Von Neumann
> or procedural programming to be essentially Turing.
>
> What's up with the other models?

Prolog didn't seem to lead anywhere.  It's still important, but there is
no vast collection of derivative languages.

Also, there are other models like the various kinds of register
machines.  These are both theoretically interesting and more directly
related to what we think of as a modern computer.  The line from Turing
machines to C is harder to trace than the line from the lambda calculus
to Scheme.

On the purely theoretical side, Boolean circuits were all the rage a
decade or two ago, but I don't know if there are still a hot topic.

> Anything new being done
> with Post systems or Thue system? Are there other weirder ones?

Not as far as I know, but I am out of the game now.

> I suppose Macro processors are in a sense a development
> of Post string rewriting.

Yes.  They were once very active areas of work/research -- trac, TeX, m4
and so on -- but I think the all interesting ideas have been worked out.
When that happens, an area needs a new spark to re-ignite interest.
That happened with functional languages when the deep theory of types
started to be investigated.

Other string processing languages like Snobol left a legacy in tools
like AWK, Icon and Perl but I don't know what, if anything, is really
new in that field.  (Raku, AKA Perl6, is really just a functional
language with a prominent string type.)

> But, .... not really. Nobody does 
> Macro processing like that, right? You pack more built-in
> power to the macro itself, with math and lists and control
> structures and stuff, right?

I think that's universal.  All of the formal models were adapted like
that to make real tools.  To get LISP from lambda calculus you add
built-in lists, numbers and symbols.  The practical macro processors all
do the same, even though such things can be modelled in the pure
theoretical system they are based on.

-- 
Ben.

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

#14308

On 03/12/2021 12:24, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> writes:
> 

> 
>> I suppose Macro processors are in a sense a development
>> of Post string rewriting.
> 
> Yes.  They were once very active areas of work/research -- trac, TeX, m4
> and so on -- but I think the all interesting ideas have been worked out.

In the TeX world, the modern direction is LuaTeX - complex functions are
written in Lua rather than TeX.  TeX macros maybe Turing complete, but
they are not always easy to program well - especially if you are
interested in efficiency.  Lua is an imperative language, rather than a
macro language.

> When that happens, an area needs a new spark to re-ignite interest.

Or it can just be left behind.  We don't need to work on /everything/ !

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

#14313

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:26:46 AM UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> luser droog <mij...@yahoo.com> writes: 
> > 
> > What's up with the other models?
> Prolog didn't seem to lead anywhere. It's still important, but there is 
> no vast collection of derivative languages. 
> 

Yeah, I keep meaning to look deeper into Prolog stuff. And I keep not
doing it. 

Hmmm.

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

#14315

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote:

> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> has been focus on the Church and Turing models.

You troll and piece of spamming shit.

ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#14319

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> 
> > All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> > has been focus on the Church and Turing models.
> You troll and piece of spamming shit. 
> 
> ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game. 
> 
> *Plonk* 
> 
> Julio

That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that?

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

#14320

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 01:47:22 UTC+1, luser droog wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote: 
> > On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> > 
> > > All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> > > has been focus on the Church and Turing models. 
> > You troll and piece of spamming shit. 
> > 
> > ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game. 
> > 
> > *Plonk* 
> 
> That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that?

ESAD, you fucking agents of the enemy.

*Spammers Alert*

Julio

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

#14321

On 05/12/2021 11:55, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 01:47:22 UTC+1, luser droog wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote: 
>>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
>>>
>>>> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
>>>> has been focus on the Church and Turing models. 
>>> You troll and piece of spamming shit. 
>>>
>>> ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game. 
>>>
>>> *Plonk* 
>>
>> That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that?
> 
> ESAD, you fucking agents of the enemy.
> 
> *Spammers Alert*
> 
> Julio
> 

Julio, I think you may be confusing posters.  This group /is/ plagued by
spammers, trolls, and assorted vandals.  luser droog is not one of them
- he is an active contributor to the group and very welcome here.

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

#14322

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 13:29:31 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 11:55, Julio Di Egidio wrote: 
> > On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 01:47:22 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> >> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> >>>> has been focus on the Church and Turing models. 
> >>> You troll and piece of spamming shit. 
> >>> 
> >>> ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game. 
> >>> 
> >>> *Plonk* 
> >> 
> >> That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that? 
> > 
> > ESAD, you fucking agents of the enemy. 
> > 
> > *Spammers Alert* 
> > 
> Julio, I think you may be confusing posters. This group /is/ plagued by 
> spammers, trolls, and assorted vandals. luser droog is not one of them 
> - he is an active contributor to the group and very welcome here.

No, he's not.  And this is not even the only group he is spamming.  While you are yet another fucking idiot who cannot smell shit when you step on it. 
 And politeness is simply over: nazi retards and/or agents of the enemy, there is no substantial difference anymore...

You've been warned.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#14323

On 05/12/2021 22:52, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 13:29:31 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/12/2021 11:55, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 01:47:22 UTC+1, luser droog wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so
>>>>>> has been focus on the Church and Turing models.
>>>>> You troll and piece of spamming shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Plonk*
>>>>
>>>> That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that?
>>>
>>> ESAD, you fucking agents of the enemy.
>>>
>>> *Spammers Alert*
>>>
>> Julio, I think you may be confusing posters. This group /is/ plagued by
>> spammers, trolls, and assorted vandals. luser droog is not one of them
>> - he is an active contributor to the group and very welcome here.
> 
> No, he's not.  And this is not even the only group he is spamming.

You are mistaken, and David is correct.

>  While you are yet another fucking idiot who cannot smell shit when you step on it.

Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of 
reason and can safely be ignored.

>   And politeness is simply over:

No. It costs nothing to be polite.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#14324

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 23:59:43 UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 22:52, Julio Di Egidio wrote: 
> > On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 13:29:31 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: 
> >> On 05/12/2021 11:55, Julio Di Egidio wrote: 
> >>> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 01:47:22 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> >>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-6, ju...@diegidio.name wrote: 
> >>>>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:13:49 UTC+1, luser droog wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> All the cool developments over the past 80 years or so 
> >>>>>> has been focus on the Church and Turing models. 
> >>>>> You troll and piece of spamming shit. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> ESAD you and the retarded cunts who are gonna play your game. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> *Plonk* 
> >>>> 
> >>>> That's not a very nice thing to say. Isn't there medication for that? 
> >>> 
> >>> ESAD, you fucking agents of the enemy. 
> >>> 
> >>> *Spammers Alert* 
> >>> 
> >> Julio, I think you may be confusing posters. This group /is/ plagued by 
> >> spammers, trolls, and assorted vandals. luser droog is not one of them 
> >> - he is an active contributor to the group and very welcome here. 
> > 
> > No, he's not. And this is not even the only group he is spamming.
> 
> You are mistaken, and David is correct.

No, he is not: but you are a piece of spamming shit indeed regularly feeding the cross-posting trolls...

> > While you are yet another fucking idiot who cannot smell shit when you step on it.
> Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of 
> > And politeness is simply over:
> No. It costs nothing to be polite. 

I'll be polite when you  morons stop polluting all ponds, you fucking nazi retards.

Fuck you and David Crocket.  ESAD.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#14325

On 05/12/2021 23:59, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
> Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of
> reason and can safely be ignored.
> 

Presumably now Julio will be plonking himself, somewhat like the
Jörmungandr (the Midgard serpent from Norsk mythology).

A quick look at the history in this group shows that Julio has been
making mostly on-topic and mostly polite posts for many years, most
recently in September.  Perhaps he's just having a tough time at the
moment, and will be back to form again soon.  (Politeness is not over,
nor is mindless optimism :-) )

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

#14326

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 09:00:15 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 23:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: 
> > 
> > Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of 
> > reason and can safely be ignored. 
> >
> Presumably now Julio will be plonking himself, somewhat like the 
> Jörmungandr (the Midgard serpent from Norsk mythology). 
> 
> A quick look at the history in this group shows that Julio has been 
> making mostly on-topic and mostly polite posts for many years, most 
> recently in September. Perhaps he's just having a tough time at the 
> moment, and will be back to form again soon. (Politeness is not over, 
> nor is mindless optimism :-) )

"In September", bunch of mindless fucking clueless monsters...

Fuck you, your empty skull, and the hypocritical bullshit that you'll keep spamming all over the globe...

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#14327

On 06/12/2021 08:00, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 23:59, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of
>> reason and can safely be ignored.
>>
> 
> Presumably now Julio will be plonking himself, somewhat like the
> Jörmungandr (the Midgard serpent from Norsk mythology).


As is so often the case, I have by reading your article learned 
something new and fascinating.

Please note, though, that if Loki and Angrboða wish to bring Jörmungandr 
to the UK they are going to need to obtain a licence. See 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2465/schedule/made for details.

> 
> A quick look at the history in this group shows that Julio has been
> making mostly on-topic and mostly polite posts for many years, most
> recently in September.

Will this damned September never end?


> Perhaps he's just having a tough time at the
> moment, and will be back to form again soon.  (Politeness is not over,
> nor is mindless optimism :-) )

A very gracious reply in the circumstances, and in my experience typical 
of you. It also gives the lie to Julio's outburst, which like you I am 
prepared to put down to a temporary aberration.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#14328

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 09:17:55 UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/12/2021 08:00, David Brown wrote: 
> > On 05/12/2021 23:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Anyone who describes David Brown as such has clearly lost the faculty of 
> >> reason and can safely be ignored. 
> >> 
> > 
> > Presumably now Julio will be plonking himself, somewhat like the 
> > Jörmungandr (the Midgard serpent from Norsk mythology).
> As is so often the case, I have by reading your article learned 
> something new and fascinating. 
> 
> Please note, though, that if Loki and Angrboða wish to bring Jörmungandr 
> to the UK they are going to need to obtain a licence. See 
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2465/schedule/made for details.
> > 
> > A quick look at the history in this group shows that Julio has been 
> > making mostly on-topic and mostly polite posts for many years, most 
> > recently in September.
> Will this damned September never end?
> > Perhaps he's just having a tough time at the 
> > moment, and will be back to form again soon. (Politeness is not over, 
> > nor is mindless optimism :-) )
> A very gracious reply in the circumstances, and in my experience typical 
> of you. It also gives the lie to Julio's outburst, which like you I am 
> prepared to put down to a temporary aberration.
> -- 
> Richard Heathfield 
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk 
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Usenet is a shithole since approx exactly that time, you permanently deranged nazi asshole.

You've been warned, Richard and co.: STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS !

Now let's see indeed...

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#14329

On 06/12/2021 08:20, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

> Usenet is a shithole since approx exactly that time, you permanently deranged nazi asshole.

Well! Be that as it may, here's an early Christmas gift for you, David 
if he's still awake, or anyone else who likes puzzles.

If you're bright you may find the numbers 31 and 41 to be helpful.

RN7,uDb( [-Vu|upcf
"7Mq|x+t 1w<W_Qy6tw
~}d7Q^<n vq:e!P-{!%
EAu}h;O4 $rI2?XcPS

yp;3G0: W6Gk< :!L1Cs?j[a*R7IyW$N3Eu>l#c)TF
!1Cs>p+ CuCZ# DHx\o@f+W$N3Eu>l#c)T9K0B^P5R
=%O4H1/ G0\pA /W$N3Eu>8JzB
6x\o:l( Cw@T[ (Q?Gw<n'eCs?j[a*R7Iy|p;g=X%O4Fv,lJV

](S8L5, P9E4 Fp@T+ P7Pm| a-p:r ~h&E!

)9K0Dx' B6/w u.Dv.zl0;w*a6sY)N%$ O kB
zq:h[e! PsP ?h=W

<'e-X(I X U
.]b(U^F T k'

K4K s+d{17M7 'u}Ud J3,2 b*&3/wT
%
   7T7M2 ]f%e 4UvK;g ( s<h/b
   N^N7I g]T[ L&B5l# X \s~n (W6o0

   s@*^f9F N V[
   e
     e}e $Os? ] VT[lA_>9IY\ j} fVUy O ^ B 2@
     [c*J 0F{ OxRj{p* 8 _U7Jt;"9a4T<P~n b{O3' ?h|1
     w|n+ X(X 3<6;k^ 8 _U@g*N?:x#qUnK! b{O3' ?h|1
     w|!D w;z X a9dv.1~'
     }b&I t|v c va
     1.o_R%Es :l_k !PN
     |t#s Rb_H B =0:g0
     v\m- d(V | S<
     Dd_W4ruGi_th-=bf kU ZJ Fv-Z_y Cr "c
     =
       }S# %W BeBJ

       BnZf@e*Bs.==bM1
       G
         N7G1GoF--ZK$
       F
       AwDe
       X
         a)G A L1|Z_0aa;R+% t\}l
         d&1!Nq Y[ 5Ms/|
         t
           {W& t xAd V S{J%z

           l:n U Z*Fv h {;wQ - yOpED5

           z?2 Z& )M+Fz':

           }VHo;U! 2C %~
           h
             o~g Jz U[L&#
           U
           a^S >l 3J5v
           u,c=c3p}aeN~ 9YzO.|n:,d;
         Y
         T&Wx
         q
           x|f[f6s#dhQ; "QB3
         T
       8
     I
     E3Fl;l$y^Po@r:] A(6e]n
   D
   \uBc
   V
     S(TzEz]$~d2D5F| OM[e[X ]K"P yAe- a9dv.1~ i(l!Pt4*VuAB}n.a_ O4?r 
,X!Z1QGzou0@tAg[Y %On/m ^b6 Z9A0]o [Y )T&a+U > Ct{Y % N"A4Lr>jc J 
y|mB-L4D.ncAwJ
   r

   z#q:d^ bG
o


-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web