 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Damn. If only girls found Prolog sexy... I'd get laid! Laid, I say!! :-(
I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> OK. Well apparently you're in the minority. It seems every time I talk
> about my various ray tracer programs, all anybody can say is "yeah, but
> it doesn't have feature X" or "oh, you're wasting your time, it'll never
> be as fast as Y" or "I think that's a stupid way to do it, why don't you
> give up now?" or...
Jealousy, or you're talking to people with a very narrow focus on their
own lives as well. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
Such as...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jealousy, or you're talking to people with a very narrow focus on their
> own lives as well. :-)
I'm talking about this forum.
Seriously, I just said "I made a kind of working Prolog interpretter",
and so far not one single person has said "hey, that's kinda neat".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:23:17 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> OK. Well apparently you're in the minority. It seems every time I talk
> about my various ray tracer programs, all anybody can say is "yeah, but
> it doesn't have feature X" or "oh, you're wasting your time, it'll never
> be as fast as Y" or "I think that's a stupid way to do it, why don't you
> give up now?" or...
I think you'd find that a lot of computer *users* don't write raytracers
in their spare time. I can think of a handful of users here who probably
haven't (just off the top of my head).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:13:38 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jealousy, or you're talking to people with a very narrow focus on their
>> own lives as well. :-)
>
> I'm talking about this forum.
>
> Seriously, I just said "I made a kind of working Prolog interpretter",
> and so far not one single person has said "hey, that's kinda neat".
Um, excuse me, I said it was clever. Did you miss that?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:50:51 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Damn. If only girls found Prolog sexy... I'd get laid! Laid, I say!!
>> :-(
>
> I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
Best line of the day. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK. Well apparently you're in the minority. It seems every time I talk
>> about my various ray tracer programs, all anybody can say is "yeah, but
>> it doesn't have feature X" or "oh, you're wasting your time, it'll never
>> be as fast as Y" or "I think that's a stupid way to do it, why don't you
>> give up now?" or...
>
> I think you'd find that a lot of computer *users* don't write raytracers
> in their spare time. I can think of a handful of users here who probably
> haven't (just off the top of my head).
OK, well maybe it's just a vocal minority that makes it seem otherwise
then? (How many times is *that* the way??)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, excuse me, I said it was clever. Did you miss that?
Heh. You wanna know how it works? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:29:26 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Um, excuse me, I said it was clever. Did you miss that?
>
> Heh. You wanna know how it works? ;-)
Well, I read the message you wrote, and that seemed to cover a fair bit
of it. But sure, I'd be interested in more details....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
