Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love

[Joachim Durchholz]

I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if
anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether
you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to
perform the art.

Well, sort of.
Some of the code given is unreadable. (He obviously didn't take the
"structured programming" thing to heart.)
Worse, some of the code given is inscrutable, and remains unexplained
(e.g. the code for the spectral test algorithm).
Whole classes of algorithms were omitted. This is probably no fault of
Knuth as a programmer, but simply a field that's moving faster than a
single person can keep up with.

These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other
programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority.
It also has downsides, most notably the markup language is pure horror.

TeX's markup language is a dead end.
TeX's algorithm isn't. Actually it has been extracted from the software
and is available as a functional program, waiting to be embedded into a
typesetting system with more modern qualities.

Regards,
Jo

 

[Slobodan Blazeski]

I read somewhere that for large primes, using Fermat's Little Theorem
test is *good enough* for engineers because the chances of it being
wrong are less likely than a cosmic particle hitting your CPU at the
exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the
primary difference between engineers and mathematicians.

Carmichael number are the ones who are making the problem , but they
are very rare.
There are 1,401,644 Carmichael numbers between 1 and 1018
(approximately one in 700 billion numbers.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_number If you want to be sure
use Miller-Rabin test.

Slobodan Blazeski

 

[llothar]

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.

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

 

[Lew]

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?

 

[Owen Jacobson]

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

You're expecting logic from someone who asserts that

Good luck, mate.

-o

 

[Kay Schluehr]

These are small detractions from a large overall contribution.
In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one
of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat),
and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other
programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority.

Acording to the Legend Of The Great Knuth ( derived from personal
confessions ) Knuth used a "Clean Room" approach. He specified and
verified the entire program before he started hacking it into the
machine. The result is accordingly. What has changed since then is
computer power and easeness of tool usage. One would rather use an
incremental approach today and specify + hack + test the program in
tiny pieces without struggling too much with the programming
equipment. So it also just incrementally improves.

 

[Xah Lee]

TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.

i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
the basic thoughts are here:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html

it's slightly repeatitous there. But i think i might summarize in gist
the few fundanmental issues, all sterm from just the first one:

1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions
representation system.

2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the
entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of
stagnation.

3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of
mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling.

4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics)

5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
major ways.

Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. Fucking
asses and holes.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
http://xahlee.org/

 

[Lew]

i have written ... No coherent argument,

 

[George Neuner]

TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world.

i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but
the basic thoughts are here:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html

Knuth did a whole lot more for computing than you have or, probably,
ever will. Your arrogance is truly amazing.

1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions
representation system.
So?

2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the
entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of
stagnation.

What the frac are you talking about?

3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of
mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling.

Like they wouldn't be doodling anyway. At least the TeX doodling is
likely to be readable (as if anyone cared).

4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid
HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a
leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that
is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics)

HTML is unsuitable for representing most structure and semantics. And
legions of fumbling idiots compose brand new invalid HTML every day.

5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
major ways.

No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".

Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. Fucking
asses and holes.

Watch your language, there are children present.

George

 

[Lew]

There's something a little fey about someone calling out a "programing [sic]
moron's ingorance [sic]" and then devolving right into blue speech.

I think Xah Lee should look into:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

 

[David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.functional.]

[...]

5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer
language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in
major ways.

No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".

TeX is Turing compleate so it is quite valid to consider it a computer language. Though
Xah Lee is correct more by co-incidence.

 

[Joachim Durchholz]

No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language".

But it is.
It's Turing-complete.
And yes, it sucks in major ways.
But no, I don't hold that against Knuth. It was designed in days when
domain-specific languages didn't have a roughly standardized syntax.

(Truth remains truth, regardless of who's upholding it.)

Regards,
Jo

 

[Michele Dondi]

I've long killfiled XL to the effect that all of his threads are
ignored altogether, since the guy is "nice" enough to only take part
to his own rants, but occasionally some posts slip out and now from
the Subject I infer that the new target for his hate is TeX, which
makes me wonder, given his views on Perl (and "unixisms in general"
iirc) what our "friend" would think about such a wonderful tool as
PerlTeX - from his POV certainly a synergy between two of the worst
devil's devices.


Michele

 

[Byung-Hee HWANG]

There's something a little fey about someone calling out a "programing [sic]
moron's ingorance [sic]" and then devolving right into blue speech.

I think Xah Lee should look into:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

Well, you are making a personal attack, it's dangerous. I wish to see
only discussions about TeX ;;

 

[Jürgen Exner]

Actually the modified title is wrong. It should be

The Xah Lee pestilence

Please see his posting history of off-topic random rambling for details.



Oh, and PLEASE


+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================

jue

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

And yes, it sucks in major ways.

Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?

/W

 

[Jürgen Exner]

Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?

Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
functional programming.

jue

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:19 -0400, Lew wrote:
[something attackish]

Well, you are making a personal attack, it's dangerous. I wish to see
only discussions about TeX ;;

On a python group?

Also: Lew won't see your post, he's on c.l.java.*

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

And yes, it [syntactically] sucks in major ways.

Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?

Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or
functional programming.

That's not an answer to my question and you know it.

But OK, F'up to c.l.tex (makes me wonder why Xah didn't ... well,
actually it doesn't, nevermind )


/W

 

[Joachim Durchholz]

Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why?

First of all, irregularities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#The_typesetting_system:
"[...]almost all of TeX's syntactic properties can be changed on the fly
which makes TeX input hard to parse by anything but TeX itself."

Then: No locals.
In particular, processing is controlled via global flags. If you need a
different setting while a macro is processing, you have to remember to
reset it before macro exit.

Many packages just set the flags to a standard value.
In other words, if you didn't know that a specific flag affects the
operation of your macro, the macro may break when used with a different
package that sets the flag to a different default value. (This may be
one of the reasons why everybody just sticks with LaTeX.)

Four stages of processing, and you have to know exactly which is
responsible for what to predict the outcome of a macro.
This is more a documentation problem - for several features, there's no
description which stage is responsible for processing it. That can make
working with a feature difficult, since you don't know which processing
steps have already been done and which are still to happen.


My TeX days are long gone, so I may have forgotten some of the problems,
but I think these were the worst. (And, of course, I may have gotten
some details mixed up, so if you're seriously interested in the good and
bad sides of TeX, verify before taking anything for granted.)

Note that it's just the markup language that I object to. The
typesetting algorithms seem to be remarkably regular and robust.
I would have very much liked to see TeX split up into a typesetting
library and a language processor.
Unfortunately, that was beyond my capabilities at the time I came into
contact with TeX, and I never got around to revisiting the issue.
However, the TeX algorithm has been extracted and made available as a

Regards,
Jo