 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/11/09 03:16, Invisible wrote:
>>> From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
>>
>> Hadn't heard of Clean till today.
>
> Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.
And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about Erlang
is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.
>> Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over
>> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.
>
> I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?
I meant exceeds it in terms of online posts about it.
--
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-8-2009 10:18, Invisible wrote:
>>> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative
>>> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about
>>> languages on the Internet."
>>>
>>> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
>>
>> It is in this newsgroup. We even have two whole subnewsgroups devoted
>> to it even though this is a server about a totally different language.
>
> Heh. One person talking to himself doesn't count as "discussion",
> methinks. ;-)
I think you are confusing yourself with aQ
<ducks/>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Yes, that I'm familiar with. Good show, you should perhaps watch it
> sometime.
Definitely so.
BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would
have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).
Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined
by short-sighted TV bosses. Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one
of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD
collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even
better), though it's a totally different genre of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:23:41 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Yes, that I'm familiar with. Good show, you should perhaps watch it
>> sometime.
>
> Definitely so.
>
> BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
> liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would
> have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).
I liked the movie, but actually didn't get to see the release version
until after the DVD came out. We got to go to a pre-release screening of
it, and not all the sound effects or music were finished when we saw it.
But there was a lot in the TV series that didn't make it in, and of
course too bad about what happened to a couple of the main characters
(trying not to spoil) - I think that affected the feel quite a lot, too.
River still kicked ass, though, and that's always fun to watch. :-)
> Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined
> by short-sighted TV bosses.
Agreed.
> Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one
> of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD
> collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even
> better), though it's a totally different genre of course.
I remember watching a few eps of S:AaA but never really got into it. My
younger brother loves Band of Brothers, though - he's on a big WWII kick
at the moment because my dad was in Europe for part of it (though looking
at his discharge paperwork, only about 7 months or so, right around the
time the war ended).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/11/09 16:23, clipka wrote:
> BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
It was the contrary for me. The series was good, but the movie aimed to
be great, and succeeded.
--
Wear short sleeves! Support your right to bare arms!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative
> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about
> languages on the Internet."
>
> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
Whenever people refer to anything as "the most talked-about," they are
referring to the specific areas which they frequent, and apparently are
forgetting that there is a world outside of the one they know.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Whenever people refer to anything as "the most talked-about," they are
> referring to the specific areas which they frequent, and apparently are
> forgetting that there is a world outside of the one they know.
Yeah, Andrew is probably right. Though there's a decrease in intrest
in traditional programming languages lately.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=haskell+programming%2C+python+programming%2C+c+programming%2C+basic+programming%2C+pascal+programming&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood schrieb:
> Yeah, Andrew is probably right. Though there's a decrease in intrest
> in traditional programming languages lately.
>
http://www.google.com/trends?q=haskell+programming%2C+python+programming%2C+c+programming%2C+basic+programming%2C+pascal+programming&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1
Given where the vast majority of searches for the traditional
programming languages originate geographically, maybe all that this
graph shows is the saturation of 2nd and 3rd world countries with people
skilled enough to know enough of the basics that they don't have to
google for these terms on a frequent basis anymore...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps
>> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI
>> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance
>> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But
>> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in
>> the film.)
>
> Watch the third movie if you want better raptors. (Personally I like it.
> It's one of the very few third parts which are actually good.)
In the second movie in particular, they seemed like very clumsy
creatures. Their movements looks implausible to the eye. (Which,
obviously, isn't a conclusive result. Maybe it only looks fake because
you know it *is* fake...) I don't remember much of the third film. Aside
from the absurdity of hearing a cellphone from *inside* a 40-tonne
animal. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>>>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
>>>
>>> Hadn't heard of Clean till today.
>>
>> Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.
>
> And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about
> Erlang is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.
Mmm, interesting. I heard of Erlang way, way before I knew Haskell
existed. The whole "Ericson uses Erlang for all its mission-critical
infrastructure, which is a massive vote of confidence for FP". Except
that, obviously, it isn't, since Erlang is about as functional as Lisp -
i.e., not very.
It seems Haskell is everybody's least-favourit language.
>>> Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over
>>> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.
>>
>> I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?
>
> I meant exceeds it in terms of online posts about it.
Maybe.
Maybe that just means that Haskell is way harder to understand than
Lisp? :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
