 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:16:24 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>>> OK. Well apparently you're in the minority.
>>
>> No he is not. You impress me quite a bit. (Only your programming, you
>> understand :-)
>
>Damn. If only girls found Prolog sexy... I'd get laid! Laid, I say!! :-(
You're doomed, doomed I say! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:29:00 +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).
>
> OK, well maybe it's just a vocal minority that makes it seem otherwise
> then? (How many times is *that* the way??)
That's entirely possible. Some people are going to read "hey, I wrote a
raytracer" and think "neat, that's something I could never do, wouldn't
have the first idea how to write, or even what sorts of questions to ask
that wouldn't make me look stupid" and say nothing.
I've talked in here in the past about playing the violin. Two or three
other people joined in saying (essentially) "Hey, I play an instrument as
well". Everyone else was quiet. It's not a safe assumption to say
"everyone plays a musical instrument, so there's nothing special about
it" when the only people who replied were also experienced musicians and
nobody else had anything to say about it.
It's not unusual for a couple of talkative people to "shout down" what
you're saying and make it *seem* common. I've told you before, you've
got good skills, don't let anyone tell you differently. Are there things
you could learn? Dude, anyone who claims to know *everything* is either
deluded or a liar (or often both). There are things *everyone* can learn.
Everyone has things they're good at and they're bad at.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
