Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love

Lew lew at lewscanon.com
Mon Oct 22 00:11:57 CEST 2007

llothar wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 22:45, Lew <l... at lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> Evidence is that TeX development is dead.
> Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the
> theory of
> "literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software
> development,
> this is programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not
> programming
> in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the
> small, sure you
> can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting
> algorithm, but
> this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science -
> well a few
> people seem to like this.
> And as an evidence that this theory works ("literate" programming) -
> there is no
> easy prove about efficient workflow - was his TeX program where only
> some parts
> are handled like this. But drawing an conclusion from a "developement
> dead"
> project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: fucking
> stupid.

No, I conclude that literate programming works from the prevalence of tools 
like Javadoc and Doxygen, and the Sun and MS coding standards documents.  I 
see the direct benefits in my own work every day.

Proposing a straw-man argument then knocking it down with mere purple prose 
like "just sorry: [sic] fucking stupid" is, sorry, just fucking stupid.  See? 
  No logic there at all.  Thus proving that there's no logic there at all.

> Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not
> useable.

Rrr?  "Everythink" does, eh?  Maybe what the world needs instead is literate 
programmers, then.

Cite some specifics, please?  And remember, when you say "everything" that 
even one counter-example disproves.

There is evidence that aspects of "literate" programming do work.  Besides, 
that a theory is wrong is part of science, not a denigration of the scientist. 
  Even a wrong theory, like Newtonian mechanics, advances the science (e.g., 
physics) and is evidence that the scientist (Isaac Newton) is a genius.  Like 
Donald Knuth.

> Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem
> analysis you might
> find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a
> guy building
> a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby.

So you say, again with just rhetoric and complete lack of evidence or argument 
to support the outrageous assertion.  Many people, myself included, have seen 
your so-called "real world" benefit significantly from academic results. 
Object-oriented programming is an example.  The fertilization works both ways; 
check out how the science of computer graphics expanded thanks to LucasFilms.

Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely 
shouting obscenities, hm?


More information about the Python-list mailing list