ok what are the rules
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
We did it our way,
Yes, I said that.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
you change or you are wrong
I said nothing like that. I said our routines were fast enough for our purposes and that we didn't care if that was faster or slower than someone else's. That's all.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Implimentation is everything, when you handle 300,000 geodetic operations per second, 30,000 line-of sight operations per thread, speed and implimentation is everything.
I imagine that's true. But we're not trying to do anything like that here. Personally, I'd write the critical parts of such a routine in machine code so I knew exactly what it was doing; we did a similar thing with the string comparison routines in our compiler.
The Grand Negus wrote:
we did a similar thing with the string comparison routines in our compiler.
but I thought you said your compiler was written in plain english? so now plain english wasn't good enough so you wrote assembly to boost it? Guess things are getting clearer.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I said nothing like that.
You say it in your attitude. OO is wrong, drop it, dump it, erase it from the existance. Our Plain English is superior to everything in the known universe and you are an idiot to ignore it. That is what your attitude says in every single one of your posts. Arrogant, egocentric, and unable to accept any reason. We tell you why floating is good, you get angry and defensive, and tell us we are wrong. We tell you why advanced OO, memory operations, graphics, math, and other many varieties of code formations are good, and you say no... they are bad, drop everything and try our code.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and that we didn't care if that was faster or slower than someone else's. That's all.
so if C/C++ is 1000 times faster, you still stand by the idea that plain english is right? of proper use of OO is 10 times easier to maintain in large groups than plain english your code is still right? You don't care about any of those things because you were right, and everyone else is wrong. Speed is irrelevant, so you don't test it, you only care about the concept no matter how useful, it must be right regardless of speed, regardless of professional opinion, simply because your opinion is always right.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
this is my second job (3 month passed) my first job (fox pro for accounting solution or can say immediate reports no structure for code or any thing else no training instead i had to go to client location from the first day i work from there only no previous experience of fox pro they give me one program which was used to calculate interest and they give me source code yes pc given to me was better so i had one day to learn fox pro basics and i did that of course not whole but the basic things required for me to work there thanks to msdn and internet connection ) before joining my first job i did a .net course (3 months). My .net teacher refer me to my current job i joined this job (my salary was hiked almost 5 times and i got a team (one more student of sir) to work with again we got no training however it took a bit longer to understand few needed concepts of directx and webcam yes articles from code project were the only source of info i could had that time (no books of directx with c# available that time in EE edition and i had not enough money to buy the costlier books so i will say thanks a lot CP now the questions of Joel 1. Do you use source control? i did not know this thing before so i will implement it ASAP 2. Can you make a build in one step? Yes as we are two we work together 3. Do you make daily builds? no i didn't 4. Do you have a bug database? i will make it ASAP (today itself) 5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code? well most i fix them after writing the code cause if i am implementing some thing new i don't know that it will work or not after my basic idea starts to work then i take some free time and think throughly to find bugs before implementing any further 6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule? yes we complete one thing then take target for the next one and accomplishes it on time however i have to give many sleepless nights 7. Do you have a spec? yes i build the outer line on the day one but don't have any fine specs 8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions? no not at office and we have to complete our first project before 30th so i am working from my home 9. Do you use the best tools money can buy? no this is the part we lag most we have two computers at office one we work upon is p4 1.2 ghz with 256 mb ram (i wonders how .Net is running on it with XP and directx SDK loaded) second computer is worse we cant use it for programming / testing it is only used for browsing (p3 .5 ghz 256 mb ram) we don`t have those dual monitors or lcd e
.
-
Where is the hypocrisy in recommending the best we have to offer, on-topic, to someone who is looking for good ideas regarding programming? We wrote the thing for this very purpose; why shouldn't we offer it?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Where is the hypocrisy in recommending the best we have to offer, on-topic, to someone who is looking for good ideas regarding programming? We wrote the thing for this very purpose; why shouldn't we offer it?
Here we go again.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Because it's free advertising in the lounge, or did you forget already? Who stands to get paid if he actually does decide to use PEP?
It depends, as you should know. If he buys it to use as is, we get $100. But where's the hypocrisy in that? We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale. And if he decides to develop on top of it, he'll get a copy to work with for free and then he'll sell his product - in that case, he'll benefit financially as well. Finally, if he becomes a full-fledged Omsosian living and working together with us, drinking milk from the same cows and eating corn from the same fields, I really don't think the question applies - except that, again, I see no hypocrisy there.
The Grand Negus wrote:
We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale.
No kidding?
The Grand Negus wrote:
if he becomes a full-fledged Omsosian living and working together with us, drinking milk from the same cows and eating corn from the same fields
Wow. You couldn't sound more cult-ish.
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I would be willing to bet that most Plain English parsing engines are written in some kind of OOP language.
But ours isn't written that way. And we prefered not to write it that way - though we could have. And we believe that the ease with which we produced it, and the efficiency with which it runs, testifies to the fact that we made the right decision.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Someone with your experience should know that, at some point, you have to bridge the gap between the user and the chips in the machine.
Of course. And we did bridge that gap - we wrote a Plain English compiler, in Plain English, that generates native Intel machine code.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
OOP languages that compile down to real code are the best option we have right now.
We don't think so. We prefer to program in Plain English. Without objects. And we do.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that.
Because we've done it both ways and prefer Plain English without objects.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Sounds like you're stuck in the past.
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I read your definition of how Plain English works, and you described it in an object-oriented manner... ears, brain, calculator... I hate to burst your bubble but those are objects.
Objects in the sense of "nouns", yes. But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with. Our calculators don't calculate; they are used by us to calculate with. This is the fundamental issue we have with objects - they way they bind verbs underneath the nouns. This, we believe, is fundamentally wrong - a bad paradigm. All the other flaws of the object approach stem from this error.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our ears don't hear
Well our ears do perform play a physical role in the process of hearing. So it's quite acceptable to say that our ears hear. But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things;
Person.Hear(earInstance) Person.Calculate(calcInstance) Person.Think(brainInstance)Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects. When really there's nothing fundametally wrong with grouping all hearing functionality in anEarobject. The fact is it's a convention which is quite simple to understand, and you can name your objects however you like (in your case to ensure they imitate the real world as closely as possible). But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely by adhering to normal english grammar. But all you're really doing is following another convention. Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical. In French I would say "je m'apelle Ashley" ("I call myself Ashley"), instead of "my name is Ashley". Different convention, that's all. The English sounds more logical to *us* - but we are biased. Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'."For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
It's in his every post. Good luck, be preprared to give up floating point math as well as objects, you don't need advanced graphics, and you will be limited to only those "parts" of programming that "He" deems not beneath Himself to write into His own compiler. He is "perfect" and He is "always right" and any idea you have will be beneath Him, because you are meaningless to Him, even as a customer. Good luck!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I see what you're saying, but you do have to start somewhere, and proof of concept things usually leave a lot to be desired. I'm not really interested in anything that isn't "Universal", but I'm willing to give it a try.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
The Grand Negus wrote:
We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale.
No kidding?
The Grand Negus wrote:
if he becomes a full-fledged Omsosian living and working together with us, drinking milk from the same cows and eating corn from the same fields
Wow. You couldn't sound more cult-ish.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our ears don't hear
Well our ears do perform play a physical role in the process of hearing. So it's quite acceptable to say that our ears hear. But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things;
Person.Hear(earInstance) Person.Calculate(calcInstance) Person.Think(brainInstance)Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects. When really there's nothing fundametally wrong with grouping all hearing functionality in anEarobject. The fact is it's a convention which is quite simple to understand, and you can name your objects however you like (in your case to ensure they imitate the real world as closely as possible). But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely by adhering to normal english grammar. But all you're really doing is following another convention. Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical. In French I would say "je m'apelle Ashley" ("I call myself Ashley"), instead of "my name is Ashley". Different convention, that's all. The English sounds more logical to *us* - but we are biased. Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'."For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior
Best answer yet! You go girl!
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
I see what you're saying, but you do have to start somewhere, and proof of concept things usually leave a lot to be desired. I'm not really interested in anything that isn't "Universal", but I'm willing to give it a try.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!Jasmine2501 wrote:
I'm not really interested in anything that isn't "Universal", but I'm willing to give it a try.
Well, good luck then! I would except that it is completely useless for all that I do, he doesn't believe (litterally doesn't believe) that math should be represented by real-numbers. I would loose so much time and accuracy that that it would be useless. I tried to explain this to him, he tried to explain to me why no one in the world should use real-numbers. :doh:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: The object approach says, "inside"; we say, "outside". As said already this works with either A: small teams or B: uber top-notch programmers (not people that think they are). And, as sure as the sun rises, the more programmers you throw into the mix the more retards you're going to get. Btw, two PEP programmers using the same computer is a very small team.
I'm saying that the "print" function doesn't belong inside the console object. Period. Why? Because consoles don't print strings - strings are printed on consoles. The size of the team has nothing to do with this.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The size of the team has nothing to do with this.
Which shows you have zero idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to OOP and organization. It's also apparent you've never worked in a large team environment either.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
It's in his every post. Good luck, be preprared to give up floating point math as well as objects, you don't need advanced graphics, and you will be limited to only those "parts" of programming that "He" deems not beneath Himself to write into His own compiler. He is "perfect" and He is "always right" and any idea you have will be beneath Him, because you are meaningless to Him, even as a customer. Good luck!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
He is "perfect" and He is "always right"
And it's about time we realized that! :-D
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior
Best answer yet! You go girl!
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!Jasmine2501 wrote:
You go girl!
Uh, that's a guy. Check his bio. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our ears don't hear
Well our ears do perform play a physical role in the process of hearing. So it's quite acceptable to say that our ears hear. But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things;
Person.Hear(earInstance) Person.Calculate(calcInstance) Person.Think(brainInstance)Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects. When really there's nothing fundametally wrong with grouping all hearing functionality in anEarobject. The fact is it's a convention which is quite simple to understand, and you can name your objects however you like (in your case to ensure they imitate the real world as closely as possible). But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely by adhering to normal english grammar. But all you're really doing is following another convention. Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical. In French I would say "je m'apelle Ashley" ("I call myself Ashley"), instead of "my name is Ashley". Different convention, that's all. The English sounds more logical to *us* - but we are biased. Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'."For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things
It is. But since all the verbs then end up under the "person" object, we can just assume it exists and drop the superfluous prefix. Which brings us back to straight procedural (or Plain English) style code.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects.
We're not "splitting anything" in that sense. We're putting all the nouns in one place, all the verbs in another. Which means we never have to wonder where anything is. Or where to put a verb that operates on more than one kind of object.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely
And we think that's a good idea. The closer to the "real world" the model is, the more predictably and intuitively it will perform.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
by adhering to normal english grammar
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But all you're really doing is following another convention.
Yes, but it's one we're all trained in, practiced in, and that we use, constantly, everyday. I'm using it now, and so are you.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical.
We recognize that not all are trained in the same "convention". That's why we think native French speakers should program in Plain French, not Plain English.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'.
I don't think it's my bias that makes the Star Trek characters communicate with the android Data in English; nor is it my bias that make
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
You go girl!
Uh, that's a guy. Check his bio. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
OOPS! Sorry... I've never met a guy named Ashley. Very cool :)
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
The Grand Negus wrote:
The size of the team has nothing to do with this.
Which shows you have zero idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to OOP and organization. It's also apparent you've never worked in a large team environment either.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Which shows you have zero idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to OOP and organization.
That may well be.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's also apparent you've never worked in a large team environment either.
But that's simply not true. Nevertheless, to make the PAL 3000 a reality, we're going to have to coordinate the input from literally hundreds of volunteer programmers, and we've got a unique plan ready for how to do that - without objects!
-
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things
It is. But since all the verbs then end up under the "person" object, we can just assume it exists and drop the superfluous prefix. Which brings us back to straight procedural (or Plain English) style code.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects.
We're not "splitting anything" in that sense. We're putting all the nouns in one place, all the verbs in another. Which means we never have to wonder where anything is. Or where to put a verb that operates on more than one kind of object.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely
And we think that's a good idea. The closer to the "real world" the model is, the more predictably and intuitively it will perform.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
by adhering to normal english grammar
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But all you're really doing is following another convention.
Yes, but it's one we're all trained in, practiced in, and that we use, constantly, everyday. I'm using it now, and so are you.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical.
We recognize that not all are trained in the same "convention". That's why we think native French speakers should program in Plain French, not Plain English.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'.
I don't think it's my bias that makes the Star Trek characters communicate with the android Data in English; nor is it my bias that make
Some parts of this sound suspiciously like OpenDoc, which was an idea way before it's time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc[^]
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things
It is. But since all the verbs then end up under the "person" object, we can just assume it exists and drop the superfluous prefix. Which brings us back to straight procedural (or Plain English) style code.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects.
We're not "splitting anything" in that sense. We're putting all the nouns in one place, all the verbs in another. Which means we never have to wonder where anything is. Or where to put a verb that operates on more than one kind of object.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely
And we think that's a good idea. The closer to the "real world" the model is, the more predictably and intuitively it will perform.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
by adhering to normal english grammar
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But all you're really doing is following another convention.
Yes, but it's one we're all trained in, practiced in, and that we use, constantly, everyday. I'm using it now, and so are you.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical.
We recognize that not all are trained in the same "convention". That's why we think native French speakers should program in Plain French, not Plain English.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'.
I don't think it's my bias that makes the Star Trek characters communicate with the android Data in English; nor is it my bias that make
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Fair enough. But I imagine your compiler still has strict rules as to specifically which sentences are actually meaningful to it. But I'll agree that it does seem like it would be much easier to learn those rules, rather than some completely new syntax. But I still think you're placing way too much importance on the syntax. Someone new to computers still has no idea what a variable is, how the internals work, which functions/classes are available to make use of etc etc. But it does seem like you've made it considerably easier for someone without any programming background to create a program. And that is an achievement, in my book. I don't believe it could be of much use to professional programmers, but it's an achievement nonetheless.
The Grand Negus wrote:
communicate with the android Data in English
A computer's ability to *understand* English commands doesn't necessarily mean it *compiles* English commands... but I guess it would make things a whole lot easier. I believe there are already cars on the market which can accept voice commands - but I doubt very much that they're programmed in English :).
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Fair enough. But I imagine your compiler still has strict rules as to specifically which sentences are actually meaningful to it. But I'll agree that it does seem like it would be much easier to learn those rules, rather than some completely new syntax. But I still think you're placing way too much importance on the syntax. Someone new to computers still has no idea what a variable is, how the internals work, which functions/classes are available to make use of etc etc. But it does seem like you've made it considerably easier for someone without any programming background to create a program. And that is an achievement, in my book. I don't believe it could be of much use to professional programmers, but it's an achievement nonetheless.
The Grand Negus wrote:
communicate with the android Data in English
A computer's ability to *understand* English commands doesn't necessarily mean it *compiles* English commands... but I guess it would make things a whole lot easier. I believe there are already cars on the market which can accept voice commands - but I doubt very much that they're programmed in English :).
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this.
Could it be that management or bosses pressure them away from writing pretty code?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
You can blame management for a lot of things, but I don't think this is one of them. I have had cases where I wanted to fix up bad code instead of add another hack on top and that got vetoed for schedule or "stability" concerns, but I think that is a different situation; the code wasn't pretty in the first place. The desire to create clean and aesthetically pleasing code is something some people have. It can't be managed away. Of course, I've also never seen a case where it was encouraged either. So I think management is blind to the aesthetic qualities of code. (I'm sure there are some exceptions, it would be nice if there were more)
Matt Gerrans
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And having to use the shift key is not a show stopper for me.
Which just goes to show you that you have never drunk all your brain cells away. :)
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Really though, if syntax was the only issue in debate (which it's not). I still wouldn't be crazy about it.
That has always been what I have said. We need something to gain from a language. At least C# has some benefits to the programmer beyond just a "new" (or in the case of PEP: incredibly ancient) syntax. In fact, there is so much you have to give up to program in PEP that half of the software written today wouldn't be possible to write in PEP. No games, no simulations, no scientific visualization, no concurrent massive parallel problem solving.... He may want "HAL 9000", but he is pushing a Hal 9000BC!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Which just goes to show you that you have never drunk all your brain cells away.
Yeah, but I'd like to think I made a dent. :~ :-D
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
He may want "HAL 9000", but he is pushing a Hal 9000BC!
Yup. I see it as one step forward and two steps back. At least The Grand Negus and crew has entertainment value.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]