 | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) I don't know the original specs for either language, but I *think* COBOL's data-description capabilities were much richer than FORTRAN's. Steve (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) I think that's when it was first released, right? Hopper began working on it much earlier than that, yes? 1955 was what I read somewhere a couple hours ago. (...) Hey cool -- so you're a second-gen too? We'll have to invent a secret handshake. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) Oy vey, der camps. I alvays vorget der camps. Und der suits und der schlide-rules and der schtuff. (...) Wasn't COBOL started in 1959? By the time COBOL was developed, my dad (1) was writing FORTRAN compilers for whatever platform he needed (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) Well, hey, aren't we all -- and as well we should all be (IMHO) in 1999, especially with all this Double-Byte COBOL, OO-COBOL, and COBOL-Java stuff going on as perverse attempts to keep COBOL alive and milking the Y2K cash cow. But I thought (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) I have to admit, I'm something of an anti-COBOL bigot. That has obviously clouded my judgement, but I can't see what COBOL could do that FORTRAN wasn't already doing more cleanly and efficiently, on the same platforms. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) Hey, don't be dissin' COBOL for that :-( It served a purpose in its time (~40 years ago) and it's not COBOL's fault that it's still being used. (...) LOL! (OTOH, I've written 'printf' a couple of times when I'd meant to write 'print' :-) (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
(...) "What The--?! Why don't we use words we already know?" And thus the evil in Grace Hopper begat COBOL. ... Can you imagine the spelling errors that would pop up in code if programming languages were spoken? :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
|
[removed lugnet.off-topic.debate from ng-post list] (...) I had 2 years of German and didn't end up learning too much of it because it was from books and tapes and a little bit of conversation in class. I can still write some simple sentences and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) I was that way too. That's why god invented spellcheck. (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) It's a good thing human minds are good at language -- can you imagine if parents actually had to teach their children to speak? That would be painful. Believe me, I know -- I tried for 4 years. *Then* my kid decided he was ready to talk. But (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Luckily human beings are very good at that. In fact, the rules seem to be mostly descriptive -- we naturally say things a certain way, and then retroactively we look and say, "ok, that's the right way to say it because of such-and-such-rule". (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) It also means there are 50 thousand rules to learn, and 50 million exceptions to those rules. At least we don't have to cojugate (sp?) anything... Steve (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Another great strength of English is that through years of borrowing ideas from other languages, you end up with many ways to express the same idea, allowing the flexibilty both to make things beautiful and to find just the precise way to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Hey, I'm going to have to take issue with that. English can be a very beautiful language. It can also be an ugly language, but that doesn't mean that it can't be amazing poetry in the right hands. So actually it's a pretty good analogy. :) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) I'd put correctness above maintainability, in the sense that, although maintainable code needs to be able to stay correct, code ought to be correct in the first place. And above correctness, the code ought to be solving the right problems (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forging an NNTP header Message-ID
|
|
(...) Woo-hoo! Thanks, Todd! :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forging an NNTP header Message-ID
|
|
(...) The newsserver will automatically assign one for your message if you leave that line out. No need to bother making one. --Todd (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Forging an NNTP header Message-ID
|
|
Hey all NNTP gurus, How does one construct an NNTP header Message-ID? Is there an algorighm? Is it random? I'm writing a script in Perl which would use Net::NNTP to submit an article to an NNTP server. However, I would need to supply the entire text (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Yeah, I had a nice discussion on this exact subject a while ago elsewhere. Maintainability is usually more important than efficiency or looking pretty. However, to be maintainable, code has to be written in ways that can be understood easily. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Idea for automatic Lugnet Set Database linking
|
|
Todd, I've read several messages from the thread, but not the all of them, so please excuse me if it is already mentioned. I think the way web browsers automatically handles URLs in the message body is also suitable for this mission. if you type the (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
