ok what are the rules
-
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.[^]
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Um, so what are you saying? It isn't good for solving these kinds of problems?
We're saying it's good for solving all kinds of problems, from text editors to compilers, from file managers to page layout programs. But it is not the best choice for everything, obviously - nothing fits that bill.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I don't have any confusion if what you are promoting is a human-computer interface of the future (a la Star Trek), but you seem to have promoted this thing as the Superior Solution to All Problems (TM) of the present in many other posts. Maybe you need to more clearly define exactly what it is you are advertising in The Lounge.
Well, try this for further information: [^]. I think it's in the Soapbox, but they're pretty much the same to me.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
By the way, you said in another post that you are a millionaire; if that is the case, I really don't understand why you don't go ahead and pay for your advertising. You would be buying yourself some good will in addition.
We did, at the start, buy ads here. Lots of 'em. But they didn't translate into sales, so we stopped buying. We also published several articles here, but the powers that be deleted them on grounds that we were never quite able to determine. Besides, I'm not a "millionaire" any more - if by that term you mean someone with at least a million dollars in assets. I've made millions over the years, to be sure - and spent most of it, primarily on research of various sorts. I've still got enough so I don't have to "work" in the conventional sense, but it's not enough to throw away on ads that aren't paying for themselves.
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Yeah, I am still waiting for it ...
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
The Grand Negus wrote:
Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby")
Hope he grows up to be a C++ programmer :-D
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon