[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Quote by Knuth

From: Christopher Dimech
Subject: Quote by Knuth
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:10:27 +0200

> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:54 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" 
> <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Quote by Knuth
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > I understand that. About twenty years ago, I tried it.
> > It gets things even more complicated than they are.
> Yes, of course, as macros involve yet another layer
> in-between. You don't write source to do stuff, you write
> source to write source to do stuff.
> > I rather have a number of small well contained
> > implementations. I disagree with Knuth that a practitioner
> > of literate programming becomes an essayist, whose main
> > concern is with exposition and excellence of style, rather
> > than how to perform the actual computation.
> Aha, so that's the idea/vision! Well, how poetic! But very
> impractical in all the easy cases, and even more so in the
> difficult ones.
> > The biggest problem has always been how to do something,
> > rather than how to describe it.
> Well, these are two different tendencies, and where they all
> lead, only Jehovah knows. For example the thought with C++,
> C with classes, solve the problem by creating a model (an OO
> model) of it. An interesting thought that lead to a small
> revolution of the ... computer game industry? And today, the
> C++ enthusiasts are often not enthusiastic about OO. "It was
> big in the 90s, but ..."

It is not wise to put anything on a pedestal, as happened with OO.
Everything has a breaking point.  Not saying others should believe
me, but I know it's true.

> > I gave up trying to put everything in one file.
> Say what, of course you can't do that :)
> > And if done by students the problems will became even worse.
> OK, so what group do you belong to? Please tell so we can
> generalize negatively about them.

Have a look here.  It is mostly a complete disaster, but nobody listens
so as not to loose face.  Have started having doubts about the usefulness
of today's technological advancement long ago.

Educated people should stop having a naive faith on the "progress" brought by
science and technology.  I do not see that we are genetically adapted and 
well enough to  control all the power we already have.

> > I know a few professors myself claiming to work on the
> > dynamic properties of everything and the bullshit they say
> > they have developed. They say they develop the theories,
> > they develop the computational algorithms needed, they do
> > everything. Until you do some work with them and realise
> > there's not much to their work. Welcome to the world of
> > academia in the western world.
> >
> > Consider Ramanujan and Perelman for instance. Both have
> > worked from some pit hole making great soup.
> > Modern societies have started treating everything as in some
> > state of illness. The second largest industry on the planet
> > is pharmaceuticals, which makes too much lousy soup.
> >
> > You just have to look at how the development of the
> > coronavirus vaccines are happening ! Everyday, you have to
> > add something else to them, else they won't work. If you're
> > constantly creating nasty chemistry, how can life within you
> > understand that you're seeking well-being?
> Hm ... maybe the group is people with justice
> obsession syndrome? If so, yeah, they stink.

I have here a professor of physics, going on and on about quantum internet
and the capability for ultra-secure communication.  He also projects himself
as some kind of expert on blockchain, cryptography, and artificial intelligence.
When one gets the idea of being a big man thinking of transforming a minute 
known for its intrinsic patterns of corruption into a Centre of Excellence in 
field of digital economy, then something is really fucked up.

> --
> underground experts united

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]