I find it almost impossible to say some words, such as "always," without a qualifying "almost." I can almost never find a rule that's universally applicable. -- Martin Fowler
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 6:37
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time. -- Linus Torvalds
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 6:39
So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be GNU. —Richard Stallman
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 8:48
Current software is shameful. Giant operating systems linger from the 1970's. Applications are team-produced with built-in obsolescence. User interfaces feature puzzle-solving. -- Chuck Moore
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 8:50
colorForth does it differently. There is no syntax, no redundancy, no typing. There are no errors that can be detected. Forth uses postfix, there are no parentheses. No indentation. Comments are deferred to the documentation. No hooks, no compatibility. Words are never hyphenated. There's no heirarchy. No files. No operating system.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 9:18
>>4,5 You can have parentheses free prefix too, but it's a lot harder to read than parentheses free postfix.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 9:25
Computational processes are abstract beings that inhabit computers. As they evolve, processes manipulate other abstract things called data. The evolution of a process is directed by a pattern of rules called a program. People create programs to direct processes. In effect, we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells.
A computational process is indeed much like a sorcerer's idea of a spirit. It cannot be seen or touched. It is not composed of matter at all. However, it is very real. It can perform intellectual work. It can answer questions. It can affect the world by disbursing money at a bank or by controlling a robot arm in a factory. The programs we use to conjure processes are like a sorcerer's spells. -- THE SUSSMAN
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-25 17:33
There is no reason why a student should be afraid of learning the characteristics of more than one computer; once one machine language has been mastered, others are easily assimilated. Indeed, serious programmers may expect to meet may different machine languages in the course of their careers.
>>11 I prefer the AMD manuals. I think there's something about AMD having to rationalize aspects of the architecture that they didn't create themselves that makes for easier reading (the marked absence of Intel's eyebleeding typesetting style doesn't hurt either).