Linked lists

[Wojtek]

Martin Gregorie wrote :

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:32:37 +0100, Christian wrote:

So, it looks as if the honours are fairly evenly spread, but with the
advantage to the industry.

And all before software patents.

Now those stifle incremental advances

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

And all before software patents.

Now those stifle incremental advances

Well, hopefully the SCOTUS will uphold in re Bilski and return to their
stated position in Diamond v. Diehr (i.e., software per se is not
patentable).

 

[Tom Anderson]

I probably did (my masters degree is in Economics).

But there are plenty of things in science that can not be directly
tested.

Let us take an example: theories about the beginning of the universe.

I think that example illustrates my point very well: astrophysicists have
theories about very early events in the universe - but only the events
which it's possible to examine with experiments that we can do now, like
mapping the cosmic microwave background, measuring the relative strengths
of the four fundamental interactions, or smashing particles together in
Switzerland. Discussion of things that happened before the experimentally
accessible period is speculation, not science - no scientist claims to be
able to say what actually happened, even though they may have some ideas
for things that might have happened.

Anyway, we're now wildly off-topic yet again!

tom

 

[Tom Anderson]

You mention him "...proving it was right...", so I think he has
a fairly good idea.

A subtle point: because of the proofs, which is what he spent years
working on, he knows it's correct - it would definitely work. However, he
doesn't know that it would be good - that it would simplify the rest of
the compiler, enable new optimisations, etc. He strongly suspects it
would, i think with good reason, but until someone tries it, he can't be
sure!

tom

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I think that example illustrates my point very well: astrophysicists
have theories about very early events in the universe - but only the
events which it's possible to examine with experiments that we can do
now, like mapping the cosmic microwave background, measuring the
relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions, or smashing
particles together in Switzerland. Discussion of things that happened
before the experimentally accessible period is speculation, not science
- no scientist claims to be able to say what actually happened, even
though they may have some ideas for things that might have happened.

No scientists claim to know for sure. But it is a topic that
is being analyzed very seriously within the relevant sciences.

Arne

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

"blue indigo" <[email protected]>
wrote in message

Actually, the technical term is "commensalism". It's only parasitism if it
harms the host.

(I minored in biology.)

What's it called if it harms the people who read the papers?

AHS

 

[Martin Gregorie]

Though you should ask yourself how many of the inventions you attribute
to companys

*I'm* not attributing anything. All I've done was make a set of we b
searches and list what I found.

were made by academics...

I think that's a moot point. The people who did it were employed by the
companies at the time and so presumably their management thought their
work contributed to the bottom line.

Google and Akamai are also
companys of the industry.. but founded by academic people..

That applies to a whole lot of companies from Sun through the biotech
startups. Do you classify Java development and the various biotech
advances as academic projects or products?

And because it is not made by universities does not mean the people
behind the invention do not have a CS degree. You named some above..
Charles Bachmann or Ted Codd both people with a CS degree...
Its an academic education that made it possible for them to invent that
stuff.

True, but quite possibly the profit motive provided funds and motivation
that may be lacking in academia.

I'm not grinding any axes. I got curious, picked a bunch of important
developments, checked attributions via searches and posted the results to
add some ballast to what was becoming a fact-free hand waving exercise.

I think Lew has it about right. Chicken? Or egg? Maybe chicken? ....

 

[blue indigo]

What's it called if it harms the people who read the papers?

I'm not sure what you mean here, but then, I've never been a big believer
in theories that purport that some kind or another of pure-information
(say, porn) is, in and of itself, somehow harmful.

If you mean that it clutters up the papers with stuff much of which is not
very useful, then I think the technical term may be "spamming".

 

[Patel]

@galois

The first and second option is good compare to the third option.
Because the code will be more readable, and very structured. This
really helps for future modification.
And option second one is pretty cool because the reusability of code
by inheritance.

 

[RedGrittyBrick]

@galois

Who?

Are you replying to Martin Gregorie's post (your reply appears to be
attached to it in my newsreader's tree-view of this thread)

The first and second option is good compare to the third option.

I do wish you'd followed the usual conventions and quoted the relevant
parts of the posting that you are commenting on.

Because the code will be more readable, and very structured. This
really helps for future modification.
And option second one is pretty cool because the reusability of code
by inheritance.

I'm none the wiser.


If you use a Newsreader that lets you follow the usenet conventions Most
newsreader software can apply special handling to signatures.

hyphen hyphen space newline delimit a signature - you or Google Groups
omitted the space. This is one of the reasons I don't use Google Groups.

 

[Tom Anderson]

[...] Computer scientists
are people who spend too much time doing maths and not enough time writing
code, and their opinions are not to be trusted.

Drat! Now I'll have to burn my copies of TAOCP. They've given me
much instruction and enjoyment over the last thirty years, but at last I
see, thanks to you, that they're just a massive fraud.

Glad i could help! And luckily for you, i have the replacement you need -
the Snake Oil Software Methodlogy. It's engraved on the underside of this
bridge in Brooklyn ...

tom

 

[blue indigo]

[...] Computer scientists
are people who spend too much time doing maths and not enough time writing
code, and their opinions are not to be trusted.

Drat! Now I'll have to burn my copies of TAOCP. They've given me
much instruction and enjoyment over the last thirty years, but at last I
see, thanks to you, that they're just a massive fraud.

Glad i could help! And luckily for you, i have the replacement you need -
the Snake Oil Software Methodlogy. It's engraved on the underside of this
bridge in Brooklyn ...

I thought it was near a waterfall?

Anyway, for a limited time only, we'll throw in the bridge for no extra
charge.

On a side note, I have an opera house I'm willing to part with here down
under.

 

[Martin Gregorie]

Tom Anderson wrote:
[...] Computer scientists
are people who spend too much time doing maths and not enough time
writing code, and their opinions are not to be trusted.

Drat! Now I'll have to burn my copies of TAOCP. They've given me
much instruction and enjoyment over the last thirty years, but at last
I see, thanks to you, that they're just a massive fraud.

Glad i could help! And luckily for you, i have the replacement you need
- the Snake Oil Software Methodlogy. It's engraved on the underside of
this bridge in Brooklyn ...

I thought it was near a waterfall?

Anyway, for a limited time only, we'll throw in the bridge for no extra
charge.

On a side note, I have an opera house I'm willing to part with here down
under.

Do you ship or is the deal that the user collects?

 

[blue indigo]

Do you ship or is the deal that the user collects?

Shipping costs extra, of course.