 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so here's a few short questions... I guess asking here is going to
generate slightly skewed results, but here goes.
1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
heard the term before.)
4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, no no no no.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote in message news:494f8e2f@news.povray.org...
> Yes, no no no no.
>
+1
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, no no no no.
>
> +1
Hmm... exactly as I expected, then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
Yes.
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
Might have. But don't have a clue what it is.
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
See above.
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
Nope.
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
Nope.
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
Yes.
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
Yes.
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
Yes. (The programming language Icon uses coroutines for, like, everything.)
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
Yes.
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
Yes, because you've described it. I would have guessed it did existential
quantification.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Dec-08 13:52, Invisible wrote:
> OK, so here's a few short questions... I guess asking here is going to
> generate slightly skewed results, but here goes.
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
>
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
>
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
>
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
>
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know (because to know if my guess is right I
need to know what it does. This type of question can never be answered
with either yes or no)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
Yes to all, except for "existential quantification"... until some wikking
later... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification
Oh, I learned about it in predicate logic, just forgot. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
definitely / maybe / not really / no idea / well, I'd guess it does existential
quantification, what else :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
I do not consider myself a programmer, but I am "comfortable firing up
an editor and ..."
>
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
Not sure. Sounds vaguely familiar and so does the definition now that I
have looked it up.
>
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
No
>
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
Yes
>
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
I can guess.
some optimized condition|condition|condition ??
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, so here's a few short questions... I guess asking here is going to
> generate slightly skewed results, but here goes.
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
>
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
>
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
>
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
>
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
yes, no, no, no, no
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>OK, so here's a few short questions...
OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> don't know (because to know if my guess is right I
> need to know what it does. This type of question can never be answered
> with either yes or no)
Hmm... good point! I should have phrased that one differently...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Oh, I learned about it in predicate logic, just forgot. :P
Wait... you *learned* predicate logic?
Like, in a *class*?? o_O
Damn... Sometimes I forget just how incomplete my own education was...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> OK, so here's a few short questions...
>
> OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nono.mp3.dat' (76 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
> OK, so here's a few short questions... I guess asking here is going to
> generate slightly skewed results, but here goes.
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
>
If you include the most basic shell scripts, batch files, or excel
formulas, then yes. Haven't used a real compiler since 1996.
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
>
No.
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
>
Objection, Your Honour. Already answered.
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
>
I have no idea what you are talking about, so here's a bunny with a
pancake on its head.
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
42
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Oh, I learned about it in predicate logic, just forgot. :P
>
> Wait... you *learned* predicate logic?
University, Computer Science. Too bad it's not really used in IT jobs. So many
bugs and half-baked business rules would just be a thing of the past, I guess.
If only there were more educated people in IT jobs rather than semi-analphabet
grunts doing drag'n'drop and copy'n'paste...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:58:17 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so here's a few short questions...
>>
>> OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
Yip!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, so here's a bunny with a
> pancake on its head.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bunny-pancake.jpg' (19 KB)
Preview of image 'bunny-pancake.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-Dec-08 9:15, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:58:17 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, so here's a few short questions...
>>> OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
>
> Yip!
Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:27:16 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>On 23-Dec-08 9:15, Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:58:17 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, so here's a few short questions...
>>>> OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
>>
>> Yip!
>Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
Yes.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
Screw that - I want respect points, such that if I collect enough of
them, I can redeem them to buy actual respect! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-Dec-08 10:44, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
>
> Screw that - I want respect points, such that if I collect enough of
> them, I can redeem them to buy actual respect! o_O
In your case I'll convert them to respect points, ok?
Probably not relevant as long as you don't come up with the songtitle
and the performer(s). ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 23-Dec-08 10:44, Invisible wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
>>
>> Screw that - I want respect points, such that if I collect enough of
>> them, I can redeem them to buy actual respect! o_O
>
> In your case I'll convert them to respect points, ok?
> Probably not relevant as long as you don't come up with the songtitle
> and the performer(s). ;)
Damn. And I don't have any sound facilities here... So I guess unless
it's the varitable They Might Be Giants, I'm stuffed. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-Dec-08 10:55, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-08 10:44, Invisible wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shall I award brownie points to anyone who recognizes this?
>>>
>>> Screw that - I want respect points, such that if I collect enough of
>>> them, I can redeem them to buy actual respect! o_O
>>
>> In your case I'll convert them to respect points, ok?
>> Probably not relevant as long as you don't come up with the songtitle
>> and the performer(s). ;)
>
> Damn. And I don't have any sound facilities here... So I guess unless
> it's the varitable They Might Be Giants, I'm stuffed. :-P
nope
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Conditionally, no, no, no, yes.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: andrel [mailto:a_l### [at] hotmailcom]
> On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so here's a few short questions...
> >
> > OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
That sounds like Monty Python, but I'm not familiar with the clip.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> OK, so here's a few short questions... I guess asking here is going to
> generate slightly skewed results, but here goes.
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a "programmer"? (I.e., are you comfortable
> firing up an editor and writing a little code if the need arises?)
No and yes. If something is needed and not easily found but easily done,
I'll do it myself. But while I don't code regularly nor do it as my job,
most of my code looks hidious and I wouldn't call myself a programmer.
> 2. Have you ever heard of a "coroutine"?
Doesn't come to mind.
> 3. Do you know what a coroutine actually *is*? (Rather than just having
> heard the term before.)
I assume it's a routine to assist another routine.
> 4. Do you know what "existential quantification" means?
No.
> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
No. I know you've told it, 'cause Darren told that, but I'm too lazy to
look up for it.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-Dec-08 8:55, Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: andrel [mailto:a_l### [at] hotmailcom]
>> On 22-Dec-08 21:36, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:03 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, so here's a few short questions...
>>> OK then, no, no a thousand times no ;)
>
> That sounds like Monty Python, but I'm not familiar with the clip.
>
It is a part of a song by one of my favorite singer/songwriters, where
he is with every verse increasingly forcefully denying to do something.
Unfortunately he is not very well known, but I am sure I have mentioned
him here a couple of times.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, well... The results were unsurprising. Suffice it to say, most
average programmers are not well-versed in predicate calculus. And yet,
when I mentioned on the Haskell mailing list that maybe we should use
less opaque names, my suggestion was greeted with derision. "Well
*obviously* if you don't know what a coroutine is you can't be a 'real'
programmer then" and similar comments.
Tell me, which of these feature names do you consider more meaningful?
"Existential Quantification"
"Type variable hiding"
I got shouted at for suggesting the latter (which describes what the
feature *does*) because the former "is much clearer to understand and
has a far more precise meaning".
(Excuse me? Calling it "existential quantification" doesn't even tell
you that it's to do with data types! WTF?)
Apparently the Haskell guys are so immersed in advanced mathematics that
they have a completely skewed view of what "normal programmers" actually
know about. :-P
And then we get the elitist brigade out. "Well if people can't be
bothered to learn category theory, they have no business daring to use
our blessed Haskell in the first place. We don't need them." Personally
I find this attitude sad.
It's true that Haskell is a language for people who think about what
they're doing before they do it. If you're a "code grinder" - churning
out mile after mile of crudely hacked-together VB (or whatever) - then
Haskell has nothing to offer you. We really *don't* need these people.
If you're only interested in writing as much code as possible, as fast
as you can, you can keep VB. Haskell requires you to *think* before you
type.
But on the other hand, there is *no reason* why you need to learn
category theory just to write programs in Haskell. If you know category
theory, great. But there is no reason to make it *mandatory*! There's no
need for that.
Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our
database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra.
We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious
about using Oracle, you'll bother to make the effort to learn how to use
it properly. But why should you have to have a thorough knowledge of
relational algebra just to be able to understand the documentation? What
the hell??
(It seems to be a sad psychological case of certain people wanted to
keep Haskell "secret". Like only the Select Few are about to comprehend
the opaque documentation and grok the true meaning behind it.
Personally, I don't subscribe to such elitist ideas. I'd like to see the
documentation improved to the point where normal people can use it!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>
> Yes, because you've described it. I would have guessed it did
> existential quantification.
Existential quantification *of what*? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>
> I can guess.
> some optimized condition|condition|condition ??
Actually, it's to do with special type signatures. (Basically it allows
you to manipulate something in a way that it's data type isn't "visible"
from the outside, only the inside.) Wasn't that so obvious? :-S
Like I said, *I* would have called it TypeVariableHiding. But everybody
else seems to think that's a stupid name...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our
> database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra.
> We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious
Poor analogy. Haskell developers aren't trying to get rich by
developing it.
--
Factorials were made to make maths *look* interesting.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our
>> database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra.
>> We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious
>
> Poor analogy. Haskell developers aren't trying to get rich by
> developing it.
OK, well how about this: Do the POV-Ray developers laugh at people who
don't know how a Sturmian root solver works? No, I think not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>>
>> Yes, because you've described it. I would have guessed it did
>> existential quantification.
>
> Existential quantification *of what*? ;-)
Of expression! ;-) ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> "Existential Quantification"
> "Type variable hiding"
>
> I got shouted at for suggesting the latter (which describes what the
> feature *does*) because the former "is much clearer to understand and
> has a far more precise meaning".
The former has a precise meaning in the realm of logic, while the latter in the
realm of Haskell. How many PHP, C++ or Java programmers would know what is a
"type variable" anyway? But perhaps all of them had some basic predicate
calculus instruction... even if they don't remember exact terms like me. :P
> Apparently the Haskell guys are so immersed in advanced mathematics that
> they have a completely skewed view of what "normal programmers" actually
> know about. :-P
You only noticed now? ;)
hmm, not that Scheme guys are much better in their pure theoretical
approaches... XP
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
