 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm more tolerant to some piracy than to people using "u" and "ppl"
>> and "coz" repeatedly >.<
>>
> Don't like it, don't read it.
You're winning a lot of friends here...
--
Beware of quantum ducks. Quark! Quark!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you are getting / are very involved with Haskell and
>> know at least more than me about its inner workings.
>>
>> FWIW Why not start writing some of the things that you just mentioned
>> down and make them available.
>>
>> You could provide a web site with simple articles explaining some of
>> these things.
>>
>> You could turn it into a <gasp> published book </gasp>.
>
> I have written one or two small things...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/332
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/49
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/40
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/37
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/38
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/39
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/34
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/32
>
> ....just the odd item. I stopped when I realised that nobody ever reads
> any of this stuff, because I am the only human alive who gives a ****
> about Haskell.
>
U assume too much, I'm another fan, and congratz on the blog, one of the
coolest I've ever seen that also will help me when i decide to do as
complicated as those.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:49430a1f$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
> > origins or beliefs
> Yeah like u ddn't do it first.
Difference is, I never mentioned "God" to suggest a belief in a deity on my
part. Little detail, but if "v" are going to be pedantic, let's get those
right.
> This proves u and and U is what matters,
> Fine by me.
Ah, something we can agree on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I had an idea that I could produce a kind of "portfolio" of
>> good-quality written documents (various subject areas and target
>> audiences) and I could show it to people and say "hey dude, I'm
>> clever!" The thing I posted here is a first attempt at one such
>> portfolio document.
>
> That's an excellent idea.
Yay, me!
>> (I'm polishing up my Parsec thing to make another such document. And I
>> may or may not to a layman's overview of computer hardware - I don't
>> know if I could do it justice...)
>
> Give it a go. Worst thing that happens is people say "don't put that one
> in your portfolio."
Yeah, I guess. (Oh, and on THAT subject there really WILL be some
large-scale simplifications!)
> Indeed, you might be in a good position to write documentation rather
> than programs. Consider looking for work as a technical writer.
You're not the first person to make this suggestion.
Unfortunately, technical writers seem to be even rarer than programmers! ;-)
> Yep. It often takes me three or four start-from-scratch rewrites of an
> outline before I fill it in. Often takes longer to do the TOC than the
> paper.
I've had *a tad* more than 4 rewrites on "explaining Haskell". Like, the
other day I found one version from 2004 or something, and I'm like
"JESUS, I've been using Haskell for THAT LONG?! I had no idea!"
But still, after all this time, I can't think of a good way to explain
it all in a coherant way. Have you looked at Real World Haskell? It's
very messy. And it's written by three experts!
Also, there's so many ways to explain Haskell... Do you want the "here's
the elegant theory that powers the language" intro? Or the "this is how
you write useful code" into? At which point to you mention lazy
evaluation? Monads? The type system? Concurrency primitives? Useful
libraries? Do you mention all the built-in list functions, or show how
to derive them from first principles? Does recursion come before ADTs?...
It's pretty hard to figure out! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Yep. It often takes me three or four start-from-scratch rewrites of an
>> outline before I fill it in. Often takes longer to do the TOC than the
>> paper.
>
> I've had *a tad* more than 4 rewrites on "explaining Haskell".
You didn't read. It takes me four complete rewrites of the *table of
contents* before I'm ready to write a 20 page paper.
> But still, after all this time, I can't think of a good way to explain
> it all in a coherant way. Have you looked at Real World Haskell? It's
> very messy. And it's written by three experts!
They may be *too* expert. That's often the problem. They already know it
all, so they can't easily put it down in an order that assumes you don't.
> It's pretty hard to figure out! o_O
All the more reason to give it a go, yes? :-) Just try to figure out what
order to introduce the concepts. Don't fear splitting up a concept into
smaller chunks that make sense in order.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once u understand how short can sentences be just by adding "u" instead
of "you" and other abbreviations u read faster and u write faster BUT
NO, u can't simply make a small mental effort and take it as an internet
slang and get use to it, if not imitate it... is all the same, our
newsgroup, our way, or the highway... fine, so be it. Bye.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
> news:49430a1f$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>
>>> as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
>>> origins or beliefs
>
>> Yeah like u ddn't do it first.
>
> Difference is, I never mentioned "God" to suggest a belief in a deity on my
> part. Little detail, but if "v" are going to be pedantic, let's get those
> right.
What has my belief in God anything to do with piracy, I cleared that
already, I believe in Him but I do wrong things to survive, read the
posts above and what about the pedantic? dude, u were saying u were
ready to take my word on why not pirating software would lead me to
suffering in my country and once I explained why, instead of actually
accept my word as u wrote u would u do exactly the opposite and I'm
pedant? hahaha.
>> This proves u and and U is what matters,
>> Fine by me.
>
> Ah, something we can agree on.
Again, I explained I have no choice and I'm right not coz I say so, but
coz my situation says so, but u again missed the point and come to make
redundant assumptions, so u take the fast and easy cynic highway to
criticize me, but I'm sure coz u r "legal" guy u will not cease to say u
r not the closed mineded but me, the infamous pirate, is laughable to
see how ppl that were once trying to understand u turns cynic and closed
mineded once u justify ur point and they can't beat the logic, so
keeping on writing to u is simply pointless, now I'm starting to notice
ur frustration and intolerant attitude calling me pedant when wasn't me
who broke his word about getting ready to take my word for it, dude the
more u write the more typically intolerant ur behave/attitude it is, so
be it; peace out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:25:44 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>Once u understand how short can sentences be just by adding "u" instead
>of "you" and other abbreviations u read faster and u write faster BUT
>NO, u can't simply make a small mental effort and take it as an internet
>slang and get use to it, if not imitate it... is all the same, our
>newsgroup, our way, or the highway... fine, so be it. Bye.
To a native English speaker it makes you sound juvenile or ignorant. Also other
people do not read your text faster.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7775013.stm
Hrd 2 rd
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:25:44 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>
>> Once u understand how short can sentences be just by adding "u" instead
>> of "you" and other abbreviations u read faster and u write faster BUT
>> NO, u can't simply make a small mental effort and take it as an internet
>> slang and get use to it, if not imitate it... is all the same, our
>> newsgroup, our way, or the highway... fine, so be it. Bye.
>
> To a native English speaker it makes you sound juvenile or ignorant. Also other
> people do not read your text faster.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7775013.stm
> Hrd 2 rd
"It's just another form of the Queen's English - not better, not worse,"
Once u get use to it u read a lot faster, but here most ppl presume of
making intellectual milestones writing or discovering intellectual
interesting stuff and mostly as a show-off of their mental capacity but
a small challenge and bam! oh is too hard... OK...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:25:44 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet>
> wrote:
>
>>Once u understand how short can sentences be just by adding "u" instead
>>of "you" and other abbreviations u read faster and u write faster BUT
>>NO, u can't simply make a small mental effort and take it as an internet
>>slang and get use to it, if not imitate it... is all the same, our
>>newsgroup, our way, or the highway... fine, so be it. Bye.
>
> To a native English speaker it makes you sound juvenile or ignorant. Also
> other people do not read your text faster.
I had to copy his message to a text editor and do s/u/you/ and other
replacements...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
