 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > Once you've embraced the OO paradigms, you'll no longer wonder whether it's a
> > step back or sideways - you'll know that it's a step forward.
>
> This is where I mutter something about functional programming being the
> future, and everybody agrees with me...
I have the uncanny feeling that in some years from now I might even agree with
you... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The question is... are any POV-Ray "programs" large enough to benefit
> from the extra structuring? I believe the answer is yes, but it's
> somewhat debatable.
I'm quite sure they are - provided we count in a nice set of standard data
containers (variable-size arrays, stacks, queues, lookup lists aka associative
arrays, and maybe some more geometry-oriented like BSP trees, octrees or the
like), and don't want to code them all "hard" into the language or want to stay
flexible for users adding their own (graphs as you might need for physics
simulations, just to give one example of where one could go).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [Now the old MS-DOS *.com files really *are* just bare machine code,
> always loaded at a specific machine address...]
Not quite true: They could be loaded at any segment address... OS calls would be
done via invoking INT 21h with particular register values though, if that's what
you mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:05:45 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> but it
> apparently allows,
> maybe encourages, writing code so complex as to be almost
> undecipherable.
Google "IOCCC" for some wonderful examples of this. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:37:28 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> What can be off-topic to off-topic?
Why, anything that's on-topic, of course. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:00:37 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> shit-chatting
Wonderful faux pas. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 22-7-2009 1:26, David H. Burns wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>
>>> That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.
>>
>> Thanks. Did you see it? I did when I read my own post. I don't think
>> it shows up in the text in
>> my "sent" file. These matters get complicated.
>> :) (smiley ?)
>>
>
> I do. In your post, not when replying :) , neither yours nor mine.
> The point I tried to make earlier is that it depends on the mail reader
> of the person *reading*. You don't have an influence on it. You type a
> colon followed by a bracket, that is what you sent and what is supported
> by NNTP. After that somebody is trying to cleverly replace them by
> rotated smileys, which is OK as long as they get it right :/
> IIRC they have problems with exotic ones like \o/ perhaps because they
> can conceivably be in a real post or in /ASCII art/.
>
> In short, there is a big chance that what you will see is not what I
> wrote. Perhaps it is what I intended.
Thanks, again, Andrel. The smileys work, :/ and \o/ came through as the
Ascii characters.
I'm using Thunderbird.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:37:28 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
>
>> What can be off-topic to off-topic?
>
> Why, anything that's on-topic, of course. ;-)
>
> Jim
Obviously, but I hadn't thought of it that way.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Once you've embraced the OO paradigms, you'll no longer wonder whether
>> it's a
>> step back or sideways - you'll know that it's a step forward.
>
> This is where I mutter something about functional programming being the
> future, and everybody agrees with me...
There is still some debate about that, of course :)
For one, OOP more closely models how many people think of problems,
while functional programming more closely models how mathematicians
think of problems. It is not yet clear which one is better for managing
large, complex programs in general (especially since there are many
things a computer does that are still more closely aligned with
imperative programming. These things are easier to wrap in OOP, which
has concepts for both data and actions).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> the buck does *not* stop here.
Shouldn't that be "the Buck"? ;)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
