Warp wrote:

>   I have learned to reread everything I write. I reread all my news posts
> before I send them (well, at least if they are longer than a few lines).
> Sometimes I spend more time re-editing and fine-tuning the text than
> I spent writing it for the first time... :P

I find that when I reread something I just wrote, I'm not "really" 
rereading it - because I still remember what I think I typed. If that 
makes sense...

If it's anything important, I have to wait long enough that I don't 
remember it properly, so I have to actually *read* it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Warp wrote:
>>   I have learned to reread everything I write. I reread all my news posts
>> before I send them (well, at least if they are longer than a few lines).
>> Sometimes I spend more time re-editing and fine-tuning the text than
>> I spent writing it for the first time... :P

And it shows, your posts are without exception fluent and well reasoned.

Invisible wrote:
 > I find that when I reread something I just wrote, I'm not "really"
 > rereading it - because I still remember what I think I typed. If that
 > makes sense...

Yup, I know what you mean. Especially if it's technical.

 > If it's anything important, I have to wait long enough that I don't
 > remember it properly, so I have to actually *read* it.

If I'm writing a paper, I tend to write a draft, leave it alone for a 
few days, then go back to it. Luckily it's convenient to work on 
different sections independently, or the whole thing takes me ages! When 
trying to get a reasoned point right I sometimes spend hours on less 
than a hundred words. :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
>> You might try to go for 'interesting'. I think that is much safer. And 
>> you do have some unique features.
> 
> Ah. Is *that* the polite term for "you're freakin' weird, dude"?
> 

No, you're not weirder than some of the others here (possibly including 
myself).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Look at it as if it is a program. The conclusions are the main routine.
> 
> That's what always killed me about mathematical proofs. They always 
> start with all the details, and finally tell you why you care. :-)

Indeed. Most mathematical proofs are like badly documented code. No 
useful comments. Only documenting *what* the final version does (if at 
all), never tell the reader *why* or *how*.

Actually, a possible reason I came up with the analogy in the first 
place is that it is the inverse of Donald Knuth's 'literate programming' 
quest. Don's concept is that code should be as readable as literature. 
To give examples to the community he published much of his source code 
as books.

> 
> I would clarify by saying the document should also *start* with the 
> conclusion, because people are going to be trying to recreate the 
> structure in their head as they read.
The abstract should serve that purpose. There is at least one 
presentation where I deliberately do not do that. I like to see the 
aha-erlebnis in the audience. If I tell them upfront they probably 
switch of falsely assuming that they won't understand it anyway.
> 
> That's what is killing me about reading the Erlang documentation: there 
> are all sorts of cross-references, and no obvious place to start 
> reading.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are circular references 
> throughout, either.
> 
Note to self: the official Erlang need not be included in the wish list,

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f9d99a@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > What bugs me no end is that some people don't want to learn. They're not
> > interested in understanding what the code does. They just want to get
> > something 'working' (for certain definitions of working) as fast as
> > possible.
>
> Well, some people have a "real job" to do, and a computer is just a tool
> to them.

I'm not talking about office workers. I'm talking about IT people for whom a
computer is their real job.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> My mum seriously wanted me to do a PhD. Because, I mean, 6 years in 

Most people here get paid to do a PhD, I can not imagine that it is much 
different in the UK. And your mum may be right a PhD would fit you 
better than your current job.
> And besides, 
> every year of my degree, my grades became lower and lower. Fortunately I 
> hit graduation before I started failing modules. Thus, a PhD is 
> obviously the correct next step - especially given my pathologically 
> weak writing skills.
> 
One major problem is that you don't want to move. Your current home town 
is not exactly a hot spot of computer science research.
Another problem is your pathological lack of self esteem (or at least 
the constant public display of it). Any sane person would not have 
referred to 'my pathologically weak writing skills' after all that has 
been said over the last few days.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> This strikes me as bad documentation, frankly...

For Erlang, I think it's forgivable. It started as a custom-built 
language for one company (where you'd expect to be hanging around with a 
bunch of people who can answer questions), and the actual flaws in the 
documentation I'm attributing at least in part to the fact that it was 
created in a country where English isn't the native language. (It makes 
some of the sentences where they're trying to be mathematically precise 
even more confusing than if they just stated what they meant informally.)

-- 
   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

>> Well, some people have a "real job" to do, and a computer is just a tool
>> to them.
> 
> I'm not talking about office workers. I'm talking about IT people for whom a
> computer is their real job.

In that case, my second set of comments apply - there really is no 
excuse for not bothering to learn your trade.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> No, you're not weirder than some of the others here (possibly including 
> myself).

There are few places where *that* could be said! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> Actually, a possible reason I came up with the analogy in the first 
> place is that it is the inverse of Donald Knuth's 'literate programming' 
> quest. Don's concept is that code should be as readable as literature. 
> To give examples to the community he published much of his source code 
> as books.

I wrote a post here about a logic programming system, which is also an 
executable logic programming system. ;-)

Post a reply to this message