> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:<YJ0sd.2353$714.31@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>
>>Strunk was wrong, the mantra is "Complicate, complicate, complicate".
>
>
> No, he got the mantra right. You wouldn't need to keep repeating
> the mantra if it was the way that things went in the ordinary
> run of things.
Complication is a close relative to entropy: It grows by itself
and you have to spend energy to decrease it.
--
Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi
Reply by Dr. Bruce R. McFarling●December 4, 20042004-12-04
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:<YJ0sd.2353$714.31@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Strunk was wrong, the mantra is "Complicate, complicate, complicate".
No, he got the mantra right. You wouldn't need to keep repeating
the mantra if it was the way that things went in the ordinary
run of things.
Reply by Nicholas O. Lindan●December 3, 20042004-12-03
"m-coughlin" <m-coughlin@comcast.net> wrote
> Software development has to stop when programmers can
> not find bugs fast enough.
Rule 1:
Knowing when to call it quits and go home: You create two
bugs for every one you fix.
Rule 2:
If all the bugs are fixed the software is obsolete.
> Why does anybody need the multimegabytes of Windows to program
> something small and simple like a Pic controller?
You don't if you still have all the old DOS based Parallax
tools ...
Strunk was wrong, the mantra is "Complicate, complicate, complicate".
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by m-coughlin●November 17, 20042004-11-17
Gary Chanson wrote:
>
> "Brad Eckert" <nospaambrad1@tinyboot.com> wrote in message
> news:7d4cc56.0411110852.670c0c30@posting.google.com...
> > "Gary Chanson" <gchanson@No.Spam.TheWorld.net> wrote in
> > message
> news:<iLAkd.2911$4U1.1760@trndny05>...
> > >
> > > Microsoft's motto should be "complex answers to simple
> > > problems".
> >
> > Maybe they have two separate sets of documentation: The
> > simple stuff used by their own programmers and the
> > obfuscated mess they ship to outside developers.
>
> Yes and no. They use the same database but there are some
> articles which are only available to insiders and bigger
> customers (and MVPs). The only real difference seems to be
> that the more restricted articles cover things which are less
> stable and harder to support.
>
> They don't intentionally obfuscate anything. They do make
> a substantial effort to document as much as possible (within
> the limits of what they're willing to support) and make it as
> clear as possible. Most of the bug reports I file are on
> errors or omissions in the public documentation and
> most result in improvements being made.
>
> Probably the biggest difference between what information
> is available to independent developers and insiders is that
> insiders have direct access to the source code. Outsiders
> (including MVPs) at best get very limited access to it.
> I have access to only the source for the core of the operating
> system and then only with tools that are almost unusable
> (which reminds me that I need to get my smart card renewed).
>
> If Microsoft developers really did have access to
> significantly better documentation, I expect that the quality
> of their code would be substantially better. On the other
> hand, throwing away numerous levels of complexity would make
> even more difference.
>
> --
> -GJC [MS Windows SDK MVP]
> -Software Consultant (Embedded systems and Real Time Controls)
> - http://www.mvps.org/ArcaneIncantations/consulting.htm
> -gchanson@mvps.org
The fancy theory of computing gets involved with things like
algorithms executing in n log n steps. The less fancy theories
are concerned with optimizing compilers, pipelines and clock
speeds. But the main limitation to what can be computed is the
understanding of programmers. Gary's remarks on Windows
documentation are not side issues. They are about the limiting
step. Software and hardware will grow until the systems cannot
be properly documented. Software development has to stop when
programmers can not find bugs fast enough. The large computer
companies stop growing when their technical writers can no
longer understand what their engineers and code writers are
doing. Free software advocates have spent decades showing that
making all the source code available is absolutely necessary.
The next important step is seeing that the clarity of that
source code is also vital. I wish that wouldn't take so long.
Forth started out showing how many levels of complexity of
operating systems could be removed. Why does anybody need the
multimegabytes of Windows to program something small and simple
like a Pic controller? Its because very few people learn how to
use Forth. And many Forth developers are trying to use Forth as
part of a giant software system instead of using it to create a
simple software system.
--
Michael Coughlin m-coughlin@comcast.net Cambridge, MA USA
Reply by Rune Christensen●November 15, 20042004-11-15
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:10pg0almm9j4597@corp.supernews.com...
Hello
Earlier I also had problems with the homepage but now I'm also transferred
to the right page. I have not done any changes in IE6 since last post.
But the graphic is still covering the H in PICFORTH
Cheers
Rune
You don't see a graphic covering up the first word ("PicForth")?
Reply by Leon Heller●November 14, 20042004-11-14
"Samuel Tardieu" <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote in message
news:874qjzq8k9.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net...
>>>>>> "Rune" == Rune Christensen <rune.christensen@adslhome.dk> writes:
>
> Rune> index.html.en english version of document index, type text/html,
> Rune> language en
>
> Indeed. It looks like your MSIE browser doesn't like english documents
> when several choices are available and your language (Danish?) is not.
>
> I don't know MSIE, but under Firefox you can configure what languages
> you accept and which ones you do prefer. See
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
>
> (once you've tasted tabbed browsing you can't come back to a browser
> unable to do it :-)
> Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote in message news:<87k6su3r3w.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net>...
>
>>Anyway, as Guy underlined, the problem is with MSIE. If you are using
>>a browser with quality issues, how can you be serious about
>>programming? It demonstrates rather poor requirements.
>
>
> Forthers tend to upgrade their computers more slowly, because they
> don't need the latest hardware to run their applications. Of maybe
> they are better at making do with what they have.
>
> It's the same thing with car mechanics. Mechanics tend to drive older
> cars. I know a mechanic in Mexico that drives something that looks
> like he fished it off the sea floor.
>
> Brad
What do "Forthers" make of the economic benefits of Moore's Law?
--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk
"Ask a Liberal Democrat, while he still knows everything"
Reply by Ed Beroset●November 11, 20042004-11-11
Mike Page wrote:
> Kelly Hall wrote:
>
>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>> The website does NOT have any quality issues. It is well-written
>>> XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
>>> based approach.
>>>
>>> It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues. IE doesn't follow
>>> the standards. Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer
>>> must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh my! The most common HTML rendering tool doesn't follow the
>> "standard". Whatever shall we do? I guess we'll just stamp our
>> little feet and cry.
>
>
> I'd rather be on my feet than on my back.
That must make it hard to sleep. Anyway, when I encounter problems in
IE that affect pages I write, sometimes I attempt to express the same
notion using different syntax -- still adherent to the W3C
recommendation (XHTML Strict is my preferred flavor), but rendered
correctly by IE. In one case, although the problem was manifested only
on IE due to a bug in that browser, I found that there really was an
error in my page that triggered it. Specifically, it had to do with the
so-called IE "feature" of identifying the encoding and specifically
ignoring the declared encoding. In my case, both my page and IE were
technically incorrect.
Ed
Reply by Mike Page●November 11, 20042004-11-11
Kelly Hall wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> The website does NOT have any quality issues. It is well-written
>> XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
>> based approach.
>>
>> It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues. IE doesn't follow
>> the standards. Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer must
>> find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.
>
>
> Oh my! The most common HTML rendering tool doesn't follow the
> "standard". Whatever shall we do? I guess we'll just stamp our little
> feet and cry.
I'd rather be on my feet than on my back.
--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk
"Ask a Liberal Democrat, while he still knows everything"