| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417222 is a reply to message #417196] |
Sun, 30 October 2022 23:52   |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-10-30, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> And all must be familiar with the "light emitting diode", but how about
> the "noise emitting diode"??? With a noise emitting diode, you apply a
> large voltage and you will hear one quick POP!!! Then the magic smoke
> escapes, and the diode has to be replaced... ;-)
One of the electronics magazines (Popular Electronics?) ran a regular
column titled "Noteworthy Circuits", which contained simple but
interesting schematics. One April the column was re-titled
"Not Worthy Circuits", and featured such things as a two-transistor
battery discharger (along with a simpler one-transistor version which
was adequate if you didn't mind having to get the polarity right).
I'm not sure whether that's where I first heard a reference to the
noise-emitting diode, but it's certainly up the same alley.
Then there was the black hole diode, which could be incorporated into
the read head of a floppy disk drive so you could read shrink-wrapped
discs without breaking the seal.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417223 is a reply to message #417209] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 00:09 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-10-30, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> I don't have a problem with paper binding. I like hardback for the
> feel but paper is fine. I never saw a hardbound copy of K&R.
> McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind reissued (AFAIK) only in paper. And
> there's this: I don't know the book industry's terminology but some
> paper bound books will stand up to the most abusive treatment while
> remaining intact while the bindings of some hardbound books
> disintegrate on the second or third reading despite respectful
> treatment. (Harper Collins, are you listening? You owe Neal
> Stephenson fans a rebate.)
On the other tentacle, there are those Del Rey paperbacks...
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417225 is a reply to message #417222] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 04:12 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 31/10/2022 03:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-10-30, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> And all must be familiar with the "light emitting diode", but how about
>> the "noise emitting diode"??? With a noise emitting diode, you apply a
>> large voltage and you will hear one quick POP!!! Then the magic smoke
>> escapes, and the diode has to be replaced... ;-)
>
> One of the electronics magazines (Popular Electronics?) ran a regular
> column titled "Noteworthy Circuits", which contained simple but
> interesting schematics. One April the column was re-titled
> "Not Worthy Circuits", and featured such things as a two-transistor
> battery discharger (along with a simpler one-transistor version which
> was adequate if you didn't mind having to get the polarity right).
> I'm not sure whether that's where I first heard a reference to the
> noise-emitting diode, but it's certainly up the same alley.
>
> Then there was the black hole diode, which could be incorporated into
> the read head of a floppy disk drive so you could read shrink-wrapped
> discs without breaking the seal.
>
The one I liked best was the ultra low distortion audio amp technology,
entitled 'ASPOW'
A footnote in very small print right at the end identified this as 'a
straight piece of wire'
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
|
|
|
|
| Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #417229 is a reply to message #417219] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 10:29 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> (deleted comp.os.linux.misc)
>>>
>>> John McCue <jmccue@magnetar.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Trimed follow-ups to: comp.os.linux.misc
>>>>
>>>> > My car is not new enough for the backup camera but that seems like a
>>>> > worthwhile feature.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have one either, but as I age, I can see that camera
>>>> as being very useful.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. The only reason we got one in my wife's car was we bought
>>> off the lot and had no choice. After roughly a day we realized just how
>>> valuable it is. I keep wondering about retrofitting one to my truck
>>> (but none of the retrofits are anywhere near as nice as factory).
>>>
>>
>> Having seen one in my daughter’s car I absolutely want one. For better or
>> worse the old Honda just keeps ticking at 170,000m+ with very little
>> maintenance required, so I’ll just keep waiting.
>
> My wife and I have aftermarket units in her Lexus and my Scion. Great things.
Which ones (backup cameras, not cars) do you have?
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417230 is a reply to message #417213] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 10:43 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 28/10/2022 23:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> It was fun to watch the operator's face...
>
> One of my first projects was to improve the performance of some tape
> backup software by using more buffers. I used three in a ring which
> meant there was one being read, one being written, and one being queued
> up on the slower of the disc or tape.
>
Right out of school, my first project was to replace the card-based
bootstrap with a floppy-based bootstrap process. The floppy-based
code would copy the MCP tape to disk. Under the (mistaken) assumption
that tape was always slower than disk or pack, my double buffering
algorithm didn't wait for the disk writes to complete, but simply
issued the disk write when the tape read completed. Worked great
until tested on the one legacy system with "207" model disks, which
were slower than the 200IPS GCR tape drives I was loading from and
the tape overwrote the disk buffer before the disk write had completed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417231 is a reply to message #417230] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 12:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 28/10/2022 23:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> It was fun to watch the operator's face...
>>
>> One of my first projects was to improve the performance of some tape
>> backup software by using more buffers. I used three in a ring which
>> meant there was one being read, one being written, and one being queued
>> up on the slower of the disc or tape.
>>
>
> Right out of school, my first project was to replace the card-based
> bootstrap with a floppy-based bootstrap process. The floppy-based
> code would copy the MCP tape to disk. Under the (mistaken) assumption
> that tape was always slower than disk or pack, my double buffering
> algorithm didn't wait for the disk writes to complete, but simply
> issued the disk write when the tape read completed. Worked great
> until tested on the one legacy system with "207" model disks, which
> were slower than the 200IPS GCR tape drives I was loading from and
> the tape overwrote the disk buffer before the disk write had completed.
>
>
Oops
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417232 is a reply to message #417225] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 13:20 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:12:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 31/10/2022 03:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-10-30, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And all must be familiar with the "light emitting diode", but how about
>>> the "noise emitting diode"??? With a noise emitting diode, you apply a
>>> large voltage and you will hear one quick POP!!! Then the magic smoke
>>> escapes, and the diode has to be replaced... ;-)
>>
>> One of the electronics magazines (Popular Electronics?) ran a regular
>> column titled "Noteworthy Circuits", which contained simple but
>> interesting schematics. One April the column was re-titled
>> "Not Worthy Circuits", and featured such things as a two-transistor
>> battery discharger (along with a simpler one-transistor version which
>> was adequate if you didn't mind having to get the polarity right).
>> I'm not sure whether that's where I first heard a reference to the
>> noise-emitting diode, but it's certainly up the same alley.
>>
>> Then there was the black hole diode, which could be incorporated into
>> the read head of a floppy disk drive so you could read shrink-wrapped
>> discs without breaking the seal.
>>
> The one I liked best was the ultra low distortion audio amp technology,
> entitled 'ASPOW'
>
> A footnote in very small print right at the end identified this as 'a
> straight piece of wire'
It might have been Byte, but could have been another computer
magazine.
For their April issue they talked about vastly improved solar cells.
Showed a large box full of sand.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: COBOL and tricks [message #417233 is a reply to message #417223] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 18:06 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2022-10-30, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a problem with paper binding. I like hardback for the
>> feel but paper is fine. I never saw a hardbound copy of K&R.
>> McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind reissued (AFAIK) only in paper. And
>> there's this: I don't know the book industry's terminology but some
>> paper bound books will stand up to the most abusive treatment while
>> remaining intact while the bindings of some hardbound books
>> disintegrate on the second or third reading despite respectful
>> treatment. (Harper Collins, are you listening? You owe Neal
>> Stephenson fans a rebate.)
>
> On the other tentacle, there are those Del Rey paperbacks...
Just checked my bookshelf for paperbacks held together with elastic
bands. Two Fawcett, one each Berkeley, Ace, Pyramid and Balantine.
My Del Rey _Shockwave Rider_ is in good shape. None of those
remedially elastic-bound volumes set me back 40 bucks.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417234 is a reply to message #417210] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 18:41 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>
>> I’ve NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>> Times “Spelling Bee,†it must be very rare indeed.
>
> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
> because it has eight different letters.
I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
If I recall the next day's vocabulary test, maybe only 10% of the class
actually learned the word.
Whether teachers are going through the same futile enterprise today, I
have no idea.
Perspicous stayed with me but I became expert at memorizing a list of 10
to 40 works and remembering every one of them a few hours later. I
large number of them dropping out of long term memory soon after. I had
a long string of 100s on English vocabulary, German, and a few other
subjects, easy as pie.
Education is not all that it's cracked up to be. I prefer a lifetime of learning.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417236 is a reply to message #417234] |
Mon, 31 October 2022 19:56 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>> > Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>
>>> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>
>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>> because it has eight different letters.
>
> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
-- Laugh-In
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417243 is a reply to message #417234] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 03:55 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 31/10/2022 22:41, Dan Espen wrote:
> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>
> If I recall the next day's vocabulary test, maybe only 10% of the class
> actually learned the word.
>
> Whether teachers are going through the same futile enterprise today, I
> have no idea.
>
> Perspicous stayed with me
But not its spelling...
--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.
Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417244 is a reply to message #417236] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 03:59 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>
>>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>> >> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>>
>>>> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>
>>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>> because it has eight different letters.
>>
>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>
> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>
> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
> -- Laugh-In
>
There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
'Sartorial' springs to mind.
I used 'dichotomy' once in casual conversation, the guy I was talking to
said he had never ever heard that world except on the TV...
--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417245 is a reply to message #417244] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 09:42 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>>
>>>> >>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >
>>>> > I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> > Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> because it has eight different letters.
>>>
>>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>
>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>
>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>> -- Laugh-In
>>
> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>
> I used 'dichotomy' once in casual conversation, the guy I was talking to
> said he had never ever heard that world except on the TV...
Then there is the constant misuse of 'decimate'.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417246 is a reply to message #417234] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 10:52 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:41:57 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> > Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>
>>> Iâve NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>> Times âSpelling Bee,â it must be very rare indeed.
>>
>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>> because it has eight different letters.
>
> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
Ah, in forth grade we had to memorize the spelling of
antidisestablishmentarianism.
My mother and I had to go to the public library to look it up. It was
in one of those huge library dictionaries they put on a table, and
book stand, by itself.
Teacher gave us 5 points on the final exam in May, if we remembered
how to spell it. She just said 'question 10 is blank, put that word in
there, spelled correctly, I gave you to learn back in August.' I got
it correct.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417247 is a reply to message #417245] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 11:00 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/1/2022 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> >> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> > because it has eight different letters.
>>>>
>>>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>
>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>
>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>> -- Laugh-In
>>>
>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
>
> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>
I will contribute 'quincunx' and 'abecedarian'.
Another perhaps unfamiliar word is 'parturition'.
--
Charles Richmond
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417249 is a reply to message #417247] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 14:50 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> On 11/1/2022 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> >>> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> >> because it has eight different letters.
>>>> >
>>>> > I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> > Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>>
>>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>>
>>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>>> -- Laugh-In
>>>>
>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
>>
>> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>>
>
> I will contribute 'quincunx' and 'abecedarian'.
>
> Another perhaps unfamiliar word is 'parturition'.
Only after a pregnant pause...
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417250 is a reply to message #417245] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 15:14 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-01, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> >> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> > because it has eight different letters.
>>>>
>>>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>
>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>
>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>> -- Laugh-In
>>
>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
I've heard most of the obscure words in this thread - or, perhaps
more accurately, heard of them. But "perspicuous" was the first
one on a long time that I truly had never heard of.
> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
:-)
>> I used 'dichotomy' once in casual conversation, the guy I was talking
>> to said he had never ever heard that world except on the TV...
>
> Then there is the constant misuse of 'decimate'.
I was starting to think I was the only person who bristles at that one.
In the technical newsgroups I bemoan the declining number of people
who know the difference between baud and bps, or who know that that
little serial connector is correctly termed DE-9, not DB-9.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417251 is a reply to message #417247] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 15:14 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-01, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> I will contribute 'quincunx' and 'abecedarian'.
I first heard of "quincunx" several years ago when purchasing
one of those hose nozzles that can be set to spray any one
of a number of different patterns. One pattern is labeled
"quincunx", and it consists of five fine streams in a cross
pattern. I got the nozzle just because it offered such a
strange and unusual name.
We all need our conversation pieces. I have a wonderful VGA cable -
quite literally - since following the usual identifying information
repeated along the jacket is the word "WONDERFUL". I have no idea
what it means, but it's fun to show off.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417252 is a reply to message #417248] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 15:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Andy Walker
On 01/11/2022 16:43, Dennis Boone wrote:
[TNP:]
>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
> The OED reputedly contains 600,000 words. I rather suspect that
> somewhat more than "hundreds" are seldom used.
The [Sunday] "Observer" crossword [set by Jonathan Crowther for the
past 50 years under the name "Azed", and by "Ximenes" (D. S. Macnutt) for
the preceding three decades] uses many seldom-used words. Up to half the
crossword consists of words that most well-educated people would have to
look up in a good dictionary ["Chambers" recommended]. A quick back-of-
the-envelope estimate suggests that that source alone has given an outing
to around 60K little-known words, with no sign that they are running out.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mozart,L
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417256 is a reply to message #417250] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 17:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 19:14:17 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Then there is the constant misuse of 'decimate'.
>
> I was starting to think I was the only person who bristles at that one.
I bristle every time. Every tenth time, I get mad.
> In the technical newsgroups I bemoan the declining number of people who
> know the difference between baud and bps
I used to drill that into my students...
> or who know that that little
> serial connector is correctly termed DE-9, not DB-9.
I just idly use the right one, then wait to be corrected. Then jump on
them!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417259 is a reply to message #417256] |
Tue, 01 November 2022 18:31 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-01, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 19:14:17 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> or who know that that little
>> serial connector is correctly termed DE-9, not DB-9.
>
> I just idly use the right one, then wait to be corrected.
> Then jump on them!
That's my technique too. There's an excellent Wikipedia page
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9) that I like to rub their
noses in.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417264 is a reply to message #417246] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 07:25 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 01/11/2022 14:52, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:41:57 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>
>>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>
>>>> I’ve NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> Times “Spelling Bee,†it must be very rare indeed.
>>>
>>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>> because it has eight different letters.
>>
>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>
> Ah, in forth grade we had to memorize the spelling of
> antidisestablishmentarianism.
>
But not fourth.
> My mother and I had to go to the public library to look it up. It was
> in one of those huge library dictionaries they put on a table, and
> book stand, by itself.
>
> Teacher gave us 5 points on the final exam in May, if we remembered
> how to spell it. She just said 'question 10 is blank, put that word in
> there, spelled correctly, I gave you to learn back in August.' I got
> it correct.
Never had a problem with that word as it breaks down into easy to spell
components
anti
dis
establishment
arian-ism
> --
> Jim
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417265 is a reply to message #417245] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 07:28 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 01/11/2022 13:42, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> >> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> > because it has eight different letters.
>>>>
>>>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>
>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>
>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>> -- Laugh-In
>>>
>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
>
> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>
That sounds painful...
>>
>> I used 'dichotomy' once in casual conversation, the guy I was talking to
>> said he had never ever heard that world except on the TV...
>
> Then there is the constant misuse of 'decimate'.
Ah yes. And 'gay'...
And the total lack of use by the US citizen, fond of appearing more
educated than he is, of the verb to 'burgle' ...
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417266 is a reply to message #417247] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 07:32 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 01/11/2022 15:00, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the
>>>> >>> New York
>>>> >>> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling
>>>> >> bee
>>>> >> because it has eight different letters.
>>>> >
>>>> > I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> > Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>>
>>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>>
>>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>>> -- Laugh-In
>>>>
>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
>>
>> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>>
>
> I will contribute 'quincunx' and 'abecedarian'.
>
> Another perhaps unfamiliar word is 'parturition'.
>
Ive heard of quincunx and parturition is very commmon, but not abecedarian..
Must be more common in USA
I started reading a book called the Quincunx. It was as boring and
pretentious as its title. I never finished it.
--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417267 is a reply to message #417248] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 07:38 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 01/11/2022 16:43, Dennis Boone wrote:
>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>
> The OED reputedly contains 600,000 words. I rather suspect that
> somewhat more than "hundreds" are seldom used.
>
> De
Well its an interesting question. Some people use particular sets of
obscure words as part of their work, and use them a lot.
I.e "atopic eczema" instead of 'allergic rash'.
At one time 'transconductance' was a regular part of my reading, if not
spoken ...
I was thinking of words that almost everybody never uses, because there
are simpler better and more common ones that have identical meaning.
And whose use usually indicates a desire to impress, or at least imply
pomposity.
E.g. 'Bloviate'
--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.
Al Capone
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417268 is a reply to message #417256] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 07:40 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 01/11/2022 21:30, Bob Eager wrote:
> I just idly use the right one, then wait to be corrected. Then jump on
> them!
Jaysus, get a life, man!
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417269 is a reply to message #417178] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 12:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Pancho
On 29/10/2022 20:09, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> said:
>>> The main APL folk who created the code (Ken Iverson and Adin Falkoff)
>>> wrote an intro document for APL. In the preface, Iverson said he tried
>>> to make the intro "perspicacious"... (that word means simple and
>>> straightforward...)
>>>
>> No, it doesn't mean that. It means quick witted and discerning. 'sharp'
>> is a colloquial equivalent
>
> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>
Spot on dude! <https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/APLDesign.htm>
---
However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
---
Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
Why anyone reminisces about old programming languages is beyond me! The
modern ones are more than shit enough to keep us busy.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417270 is a reply to message #417264] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 12:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/11/2022 14:52, D.J. wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:41:57 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>>
>>>> > I’ve NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> > Times “Spelling Bee,†it must be very rare indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> because it has eight different letters.
>>>
>>> I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>> Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>
>> Ah, in forth grade we had to memorize the spelling of
>> antidisestablishmentarianism.
>>
> But not fourth.
“Forth grade” - where they taught programming.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417271 is a reply to message #417265] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 12:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/11/2022 13:42, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 31/10/2022 23:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-31, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>> Any chance he wrote "perspicuous" and you guys misread it?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've NEVER seen it, and since I regularly do fairly well on the New York
>>>> >>> Times Spelling Bee, it must be very rare indeed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ah, kids these days. You'll never see PERSPICUOUS in the spelling bee
>>>> >> because it has eight different letters.
>>>> >
>>>> > I clearly remember learning that word in 8th grade English class in
>>>> > Levittown HS. (1963) Yeah, I suppose I'm not "kids these days".
>>>>
>>>> I had never heard of it prior to this discussion. But I pulled out
>>>> my 1966-vintage Funk & Wagnalls and there it was.
>>>>
>>>> Look _that_ up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
>>>> -- Laugh-In
>>>>
>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>> 'Sartorial' springs to mind.
>>
>> I think about 'quotidian' daily.
>>
> That sounds painful...
>
>>>
>>> I used 'dichotomy' once in casual conversation, the guy I was talking to
>>> said he had never ever heard that world except on the TV...
>>
>> Then there is the constant misuse of 'decimate'.
>
> Ah yes. And 'gay'...
“Gay” has taken the place of “queer,” which, to us older folks, is still
jarring when encountered in its older meaning such as in Victorian lit.
“Gay” now causes a titter (another risible word) among adolescents when
used, for example, in a verse about donning our gay apparel, which evokes
an image of dressing up for a Pride parade. One good thing about LGBT(etc.)
is that it doesn’t co-opt an existing word with a different meaning. Now it
needs a couple of vowels so it can be pronounced as a word instead of an
initialism.
>
> And the total lack of use by the US citizen, fond of appearing more
> educated than he is, of the verb to 'burgle' ...
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417272 is a reply to message #417267] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 12:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/11/2022 16:43, Dennis Boone wrote:
>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>
>> The OED reputedly contains 600,000 words. I rather suspect that
>> somewhat more than "hundreds" are seldom used.
>>
>> De
>
> Well its an interesting question. Some people use particular sets of
> obscure words as part of their work, and use them a lot.
>
> I.e "atopic eczema" instead of 'allergic rash'.
> At one time 'transconductance' was a regular part of my reading, if not
> spoken ...
>
> I was thinking of words that almost everybody never uses, because there
> are simpler better and more common ones that have identical meaning.
>
> And whose use usually indicates a desire to impress, or at least imply
> pomposity.
>
> E.g. 'Bloviate'
>
I see, and occasionally use, “bloviate” in relation to politics. It is an
excellent word to describe how most politicians talk.
English has parallel sets of words from many sources. The biggest set is
Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French, but also Latin and Greek, with a smattering
of other words from wherever english-speaking people have ever set foot. At
one point I was on a crusade to purge French from the English language, or
at least to pronounce them as if they were English words, like “foyer”,
etc.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417273 is a reply to message #417269] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:21 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
> ---
> However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
> form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
> ---
>
> Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
Eschew obfuscation.
> Why anyone reminisces about old programming languages is beyond me!
I'm reading this in alt.folklore.computers. That's the very
purpose of the group.
> The modern ones are more than shit enough to keep us busy.
Give the old guys credit. They were building the foundation
of what followed.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417275 is a reply to message #417271] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:21 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-02, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “Gay” has taken the place of “queer,” which, to us older folks, is still
> jarring when encountered in its older meaning such as in Victorian lit.
> “Gay” now causes a titter (another risible word) among adolescents when
> used, for example, in a verse about donning our gay apparel, which evokes
> an image of dressing up for a Pride parade. One good thing about LGBT(etc.)
I refer to it as "LGBTLMNOP (or whatever they're calling it this week)".
I'll gladly adopt any unambiguous term once people make up their minds
what it is to be.
> is that it doesn’t co-opt an existing word with a different meaning. Now it
> needs a couple of vowels so it can be pronounced as a word instead of an
> initialism.
The co-opting is now done by those who are trying to use "they" as
a genderless singluar pronoun. What we really need is a completely
new set of pronouns, e.g.
xie (subject)
xis (possessive)
xir (object)
If you want to pick nits about dative and accusative cases, try
xim (indirect object)
xir (direct object)
Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417276 is a reply to message #417272] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:21 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-02, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> English has parallel sets of words from many sources. The biggest set is
> Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French, but also Latin and Greek, with a smattering
> of other words from wherever english-speaking people have ever set foot. At
> one point I was on a crusade to purge French from the English language, or
> at least to pronounce them as if they were English words, like “foyer”,
> etc.
The French don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'.
-- George W. Bush
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417277 is a reply to message #417272] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:22 |
Harry Vaderchi
Messages: 719
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:56:39 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2022 16:43, Dennis Boone wrote:
>>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>>
>>> The OED reputedly contains 600,000 words. I rather suspect that
>>> somewhat more than "hundreds" are seldom used.
>>>
>>> De
>>
>> Well its an interesting question. Some people use particular sets of
>> obscure words as part of their work, and use them a lot.
>>
>> I.e "atopic eczema" instead of 'allergic rash'.
>> At one time 'transconductance' was a regular part of my reading, if not
>> spoken ...
>>
>> I was thinking of words that almost everybody never uses, because there
>> are simpler better and more common ones that have identical meaning.
>>
>> And whose use usually indicates a desire to impress, or at least imply
>> pomposity.
>>
>> E.g. 'Bloviate'
>>
>
> I see, and occasionally use, “bloviate” in relation to politics. It is an
> excellent word to describe how most politicians talk.
>
> English has parallel sets of words from many sources. The biggest set is
> Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French, but also Latin and Greek, with a smattering
> of other words from wherever english-speaking people have ever set foot. At
> one point I was on a crusade to purge French from the English language, or
> at least to pronounce them as if they were English words, like “foyer”,
> etc.
They (another loaded word) might think that the lobby was ablaze.
Especially if said in an Oirish Axent.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417278 is a reply to message #417271] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:21 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:56:38 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “Gay” has taken the place of “queer,” which, to us older folks, is still
Not quite - gay is acceptable as a descriptive term to gay people
and is used by them to describe themselves while queer always used to be
offensive. Queer has now been taken up as a generic term for anyone who is
not exclusively heterosexual and happy with the physical gender of their
birth and is no longer offensive.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417280 is a reply to message #417273] |
Wed, 02 November 2022 13:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Pancho
On 02/11/2022 17:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>
>> ---
>> However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
>> form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
>> ---
>>
>> Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
>
> Eschew obfuscation.
>
Eschew, Eschewing.
>> Why anyone reminisces about old programming languages is beyond me!
>
> I'm reading this in alt.folklore.computers. That's the very
> purpose of the group.
>
>> The modern ones are more than shit enough to keep us busy.
>
> Give the old guys credit. They were building the foundation
> of what followed.
>
I'm old. I do give them credit. I just think they did an excellent job
of making things better, so I don't want to go back.
One of the things I like most about modern computing is the
standardisation of naming, symbols, good definitions.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
