 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / November 2007Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love
When i first heard about distributed revision control system about 2 years ago, i heard of Darcs, which is written in Haskell. I was hugely excited, thinking about the functional programing i love, and the no- side effect pure system i idolize, and the technology of human animal i rapture in daily. I have no serious actual need to use a revision system (RVS) in recent years, so i never really tried Darcs (nor using any RVS). I just thought the new-fangled distributed tech in combination of Haskell was great. About few months ago, i was updating a 6-year old page i wrote on unix tools: ( http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/usoft.html ) and i was trying to update myself on the current state of art of revision systems. I read Wikipedia this passage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcs « Darcs currently has a number of significant bugs (see e.g. [1]). The most severe of them is "the Conflict bug" - an exponential blowup in time needed to perform conflict resolution during merges, reaching into the hours and days for "large" repositories. A redesign of the repository format and wide-ranging changes in the codebase are planned in order to fix this bug, and work on this is planned to start in Spring 2007 [2]. » This somewhat bursted my bubble, as there always was some doubt in the back of my mind about just how Darcs is not just a fantasy-ware trumpeted by a bunch of functional tech geekers. (i heard of Darcs in irc emacs and haskell channels, who are often student and hobbiests programers) Also, in my light research, it was to my surprise, that Darcs is not the only distributed systems, and perhaps not the first one neither, contrary to my impressions. In fact, today there are quite a LOT distributed revision systems, actually as a norm. When one looks into these, such as Git ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) ) one finds that some of them are already in practical industrial use for large projects, as opposed to Darcs's academic/hobbist kind of community. In addition to these findings, one additional that greatly pissed me off entirely about Darcs, is the intro of the author (David Roundy)'s essay about his (questionable-sounding) “theory of patches” used in Darcs. ( http://darcs.net/manual/node8.html#Patch ) Here's the 2 passages: «I think a little background on the author is in order. I am a physicist, and think like a physicist. The proofs and theorems given here are what I would call ``physicist'' proofs and theorems, which is to say that while the proofs may not be rigorous, they are practical, and the theorems are intended to give physical insight. It would be great to have a mathematician work on this, but I am not a mathematician, and don't care for math.» «From the beginning of this theory, which originated as the result of a series of email discussions with Tom Lord, I have looked at patches as being analogous to the operators of quantum mechanics. I include in this appendix footnotes explaining the theory of patches in terms of the theory of quantum mechanics. I know that for most people this won't help at all, but many of my friends (and as I write this all three of darcs' users) are physicists, and this will be helpful to them. To non-physicists, perhaps it will provide some insight into how at least this physicist thinks.» I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to Mathematics. Who the f.ck is this David guy, who proclaims that he's no mathematician, then proceed to tell us he dosen't f.cking care about math? Then, he went on about HIS personal f.cking zeal for physics, in particular injecting the highly quacky “quantum mechanics” with impunity. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ yes-and-no. > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to > Mathematics. Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in algorithms. And they almost never match the mental model that the average user has about a problem. > > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to > > Mathematics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And they almost never match the mental model that the average > user has about a problem. I read somewhere that for large primes, using Fermat's Little Theorem test is *good enough* for engineers because the chances of it being wrong are less likely than a cosmic particle hitting your CPU at the exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the primary difference between engineers and mathematicians. >> > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to >> > Mathematics. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the >primary difference between engineers and mathematicians. An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of discrete steps during which you may close half the remaining distance between yourself and the other person. Mathematician: "But I'll never get there!" Engineer: "I'll get close enough." -- for email reply remove "/" from address > An attractive person of the opposite sex stands on the other side of > the room. You are told that your approach must be made in a series of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Engineer: "I'll get close enough." Mechanician (to the researcher): Hey, you look pretty good. What's your sign?  SignatureLew > > > I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to > > > Mathematics. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exact instant to cause a failure of the same sort. This is the > primary difference between engineers and mathematicians. Carmichael number are the ones who are making the problem , but they are very rare. There are 1,401,644 Carmichael numbers between 1 and 1018 (approximately one in 700 billion numbers.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_number If you want to be sure use Miller-Rabin test. Slobodan Blazeski >> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to >> Mathematics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And they almost never match the mental model that the average >user has about a problem. I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer? Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer? This must be the most ignorant post I've seen this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education. The programmers who don't know math are the ones who end up on DailyWTF. |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________| > I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that > _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer? No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different skills. > Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer? No and at least the mathematical idea of building a universe on a basic set of axioms is pretty exciting for a programmer. But it's the idea not the real wisdom (I never had to use any serious maths in my 25 years of programming) that you need as a programmer > This must be the most ignorant post I've seen > this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education. Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at his total failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something very different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software like TeX - and then trying to base a theory about software engineering (which is based on changes) is so absolutely stupid ... > Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at > his total > failures on literature programming. Software Engineering is something Umm, the term is "literate" programmer and there is evidence that it is not a "failure". > very > different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software > like TeX - and Based on what do you call it "dead end". It's used, it's outlasted many other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need evidence for such a claim. > then trying to base a theory about software engineering (which is > based on changes) "base a theory" on what? There's a clause missing here. > is so absolutely stupid ... Is that a technical evaluation? It looks like random inflammatory comments without basis in logic or evidence. Can stupidity be absolute? What is the metric of stupidity? How would you disprove that assertion? Oh, wait, there wasn't an assertion. The sentence was incomplete. What are you asserting? A theory based on what, exactly, is "so absolutely stupid"? SignatureLew >> very >> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other flashes in the pan, it does what its users require. You will need > evidence for such a claim. According to wikipedia the last version is from december 2002. That level of activity could be considered dead. It would for almost any other software. Tex has some "absolute" over it, so I am not sure normal software practices apply. But you could argue based on that. Arne >>> very >>> different. Having a dead - i mean end of development line software [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But you could argue based on that. No, you present good evidence that TeX is a dead end. It still doesn't support the claim llothar wrote: >> Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Plenty of brilliant programmers have written software that is no longer used (except in legacy use cases). Good software, too. I suppose what I was reacting to was the notion that TeX was a dead end at the time Knuth came up with it, and that that somehow invalidated the accomplishment of coming up with TeX. The fact that it is still in use even five years after cessation of development does mitigate the "dead end" assessment at least potentially. SignatureLew > That level of activity could be considered dead. For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed to call it non dead. I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be not dead but this is not the point under discussion here. >> That level of activity could be considered dead. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be > not dead but this is not the point under discussion here. No, there are two points - not whether Tex is "dead", but whether it's a "dead end" (which do you mean?), and whether in any way that says anything about Knuth's ability as a programmer. Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence that Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as a programmer. The switch from asserting "dead end" to asserting "dead" is sort of an interesting rhetorical device. Just pick one or the other, or if you prefer, assert both, but please be clear. Should we just accept that you meant, "less than 2% of total line count changed"? Per year? Per century? What if the code is perfect and has no need of change? Is it (a) dead (end)? (Who uses line count as a metric of anything any more?) SignatureLew > Evidence is that TeX development is dead. Exactly and Knuths only contribution to software development was the theory of "literate" programming. As i said for me algorithms are not software development, this is programming in the small (something left for coding apes), not programming in the large. There are no problems anymore with programming the small, sure you can try to develop Judy Arrays or another more optimized sorting algorithm, but this has no real world effect. It is theoretical computer science - well a few people seem to like this. And as an evidence that this theory works ("literate" programming) - there is no easy prove about efficient workflow - was his TeX program where only some parts are handled like this. But drawing an conclusion from a "developement dead" project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: f.cking stupid. Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not useable. Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem analysis you might find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a guy building a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby. >> Evidence is that TeX development is dead. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > project to other "in development" projects is just sorry: f.cking > stupid. No, I conclude that literate programming works from the prevalence of tools like Javadoc and Doxygen, and the Sun and MS coding standards documents. I see the direct benefits in my own work every day. Proposing a straw-man argument then knocking it down with mere purple prose like "just sorry: [sic] f.cking stupid" is, sorry, just f.cking stupid. See? No logic there at all. Thus proving that there's no logic there at all. > Everythink in the real world says that "literate" programming is not > useable. Rrr? "Everythink" does, eh? Maybe what the world needs instead is literate programmers, then. Cite some specifics, please? And remember, when you say "everything" that even one counter-example disproves. There is evidence that aspects of "literate" programming do work. Besides, that a theory is wrong is part of science, not a denigration of the scientist. Even a wrong theory, like Newtonian mechanics, advances the science (e.g., physics) and is evidence that the scientist (Isaac Newton) is a genius. Like Donald Knuth. > Sure if you are an academic guy you can do endless post-mortem > analysis you might > find this amazing but it is just as worthless for the real world as a > guy building > a copy of the Eiffel tower from burned matches - a pure hobby. So you say, again with just rhetoric and complete lack of evidence or argument to support the outrageous assertion. Many people, myself included, have seen your so-called "real world" benefit significantly from academic results. Object-oriented programming is an example. The fertilization works both ways; check out how the science of computer graphics expanded thanks to LucasFilms. Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely shouting obscenities, hm? SignatureLew > Try using reason, logic and evidence for your points instead of merely > shouting obscenities, hm? You're expecting logic from someone who asserts that > > only contribution to software development was the theory of > > "literate" programming. Good luck, mate. -o >> Evidence is that TeX development is dead. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >well a few >people seem to like this. Boy, you really have to get a clue. Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE definitive series on computer algorithms (and that most people who need these algorithms know those books... they document a fairly large set of interesting facts about floating point arithmetic, and the designers of cpu would do well to read them and not cut to many corners for IEEE754. They also a document a large set of useful algorithms, some of them fairly commonplace as soon as you need some efficiency), no, he hasn't done anything smart. No real world effect ? Ah! have a look inside your computer at some point. You'll be surprised where you find those algorithms (your kernel is likely to use some of them, for instance). And perl is probably better for Knuth's study of hash algorithms... As far as TeX being `dead' goes, it's just finished, from Knuth's point of view. It doesn't prevent TeX-based distributions from thriving (TeXlive being the latest fad), and TeX-derived projects from going forward... Marc Espie schrieb: > Apart from the fact that Knuth wrote a book series that is still THE > definitive series on computer algorithms I don't wish to diminish Knuth's work, but it's definitely not timeless. For an alternative, see Sedgewick's "Algorithms in C/Pascal/whatever". Not as rigorous about proving the properties of algorithms, but the selection of algorithms is more modern, and the presentation is palatable (instead of the assembly/flowchart mix that Knuth is so fond of). There are other algorithm collections. The largest one is the Internet itself. A search engine or Wikipedia would be my first stop when looking for an algorithm. (Agreeing with the rest.) Regards, Jo >>>>> Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> (L) wrote: >L> Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence >L> that Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none >L> (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as >L> a programmer. According to Knuth's definition the name 'TeX' is reserved for a program that passes the trip test. Under this assumption TeX is dead by definition. However in a broader sense TeX is still actively developed, but it may not be called just 'TeX' because these new versions contain extensions. So they get new names with 'tex' being part of their name. PdfTeX and LuaTeX are new versions that are being developed right now. SignaturePiet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org >> I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that >> _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer? > > No but it doesn't help you very much either. They are just different > skills. Many things within programming have a foundation in mathematics and mathematical logic. >> Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > programming) > that you need as a programmer Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math. Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc. are all based on mathematics of different levels. >> This must be the most ignorant post I've seen >> this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > very > different. I think you will find it very difficult to write a piece of code that are not heavily influenced by Knuth. Arne > Depends obvious a bot on what you consider serious math. > > Expression evaluation, floating point characteristics, relational > database theory, simulation, optimum location, encryption etc. > are all based on mathematics of different levels. Thats not i call serious maths. You just need a very little understanding here for all this concepts. A "extended high school degress" should be well enough (based on our education system in Germany - don't know how much math you do in a US high schoool). A little bit set theory and of course boolean algebra (on a very low level but unfortunately not teached in school). But where do you need the way to prove mathematical theorems and this is what i call as serious math. You don't need to prove anything you just need to use it. (In 95% of all programming, except some embedded programming with DSP's or numeric.) > > Depends. I would call Knuth as one of the worst programmers. Look at > > his total [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think you will find it very difficult to write a piece of code > that are not heavily influenced by Knuth. Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid for this by this university employee. But in the field of software enginering as i said before he completely failed. And for me programming is just another word for software engineering these days. > Well programming in the small like sort algorithms for sure. But not > for his great discoveries but for one of the first man who was paid > for this by this university employee. What a curious thesis. > But in the field of software enginering as i said before he > completely > failed. As you said, but for which you provided absolutely no evidence, and the counter evidence that Arne provided is that he has not "completely" failed for any useful value of "failed". Statements of absolute only need one counterexample. /The Art of Programming/ is arguably the most significant contribution to the field of software engineering. By any reasonable assessment, on the basis of that one work alone Knuth was a success. Your rhetorical tack of unfounded assertions and inflammatory characterizations, not to say complete disregard for the reality of the situation, do not make a cogent case, much less a convincing one. I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to perform the art. SignatureLew Lew schrieb: > I am afraid that your conclusion is quite mistaken. Knuth is, if > anything, a huge success in the field of software engineering, whether > you rate it as making a contribution to the art, or as being paid to > perform the art. Well, sort of. Some of the code given is unreadable. (He obviously didn't take the "structured programming" thing to heart.) Worse, some of the code given is inscrutable, and remains unexplained (e.g. the code for the spectral test algorithm). Whole classes of algorithms were omitted. This is probably no fault of Knuth as a programmer, but simply a field that's moving faster than a single person can keep up with. These are small detractions from a large overall contribution. In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat), and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority. It also has downsides, most notably the markup language is pure horror. TeX's markup language is a dead end. TeX's algorithm isn't. Actually it has been extracted from the software and is available as a functional program, waiting to be embedded into a typesetting system with more modern qualities. Regards, Jo > These are small detractions from a large overall contribution. > In particular, I find llothars characterization of TeX wrong: it is one > of the least buggy typesetting programs ever written (not a small feat), > and it *still* produces output that is as least as good as what other > programs do, and in fact better than the vast majority. Acording to the Legend Of The Great Knuth ( derived from personal confessions ) Knuth used a "Clean Room" approach. He specified and verified the entire program before he started hacking it into the machine. The result is accordingly. What has changed since then is computer power and easeness of tool usage. One would rather use an incremental approach today and specify + hack + test the program in tiny pieces without struggling too much with the programming equipment. So it also just incrementally improves. TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world. i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but the basic thoughts are here: http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html it's slightly repeatitous there. But i think i might summarize in gist the few fundanmental issues, all sterm from just the first one: 1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions representation system. 2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of stagnation. 3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling. 4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics) 5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in major ways. Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. f.cking a.ses and holes. Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > i have written ... No coherent argument, SignatureLew >> i have written ... No coherent argument, I've long killfiled XL to the effect that all of his threads are ignored altogether, since the guy is "nice" enough to only take part to his own rants, but occasionally some posts slip out and now from the Subject I infer that the new target for his hate is TeX, which makes me wonder, given his views on Perl (and "unixisms in general" iirc) what our "friend" would think about such a wonderful tool as PerlTeX - from his POV certainly a synergy between two of the worst devil's devices. :) Michele Signature{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr (($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB=' .'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_, 256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH, >> i have written ... No coherent argument, Actually the modified title is wrong. It should be The Xah Lee pestilence Please see his posting history of off-topic random rambling for details. Oh, and PLEASE +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +-------------------+ / \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ============================================================== jue >TeX, in my opinion, has done massive damage to the computing world. > >i have written on this variously in emails. No coherent argument, but >the basic thoughts are here: >http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html Knuth did a whole lot more for computing than you have or, probably, ever will. Your arrogance is truly amazing. >1. A typesetting system per se, not a mathematical expressions >representation system. So? >2. The free nature, like cigeratte given to children, contaminated the >entire field of math knowledge representation into 2 decades of >stagnation. What the frac are you talking about? >3. Being a typesetting system, brainwashed entire generation of >mathematicians into micro-spacing doodling. Like they wouldn't be doodling anyway. At least the TeX doodling is likely to be readable (as if anyone cared). >4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid >HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a >leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that >is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics) HTML is unsuitable for representing most structure and semantics. And legions of fumbling idiots compose brand new invalid HTML every day. >5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer >language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in >major ways. No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language". >Btw, a example of item 4 above, is Python's documentation. f.cking >a.ses and holes. Watch your language, there are children present. George -- for email reply remove "/" from address Xah Lee <xah@xahlee.org> wrote: >> 4. Inargurated a massive collection of documents that are invalid >> HTML. (due to the programing moron's ingorance and need to idolize a >> leader, and TeX's inherent problem of being a typesetting system that >> is unsuitable of representing any structure or semantics) There's something a little fey about someone calling out a "programing [sic] moron's ingorance [sic]" and then devolving right into blue speech. I think Xah Lee should look into: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection> SignatureLew ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.functional.] [...] >>5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer >>language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in >>major ways. > > No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language". TeX is Turing compleate so it is quite valid to consider it a computer language. Though Xah Lee is correct more by co-incidence. George Neuner schrieb: >> 5. This is arguable and trivial, but i think TeX judged as a computer >> language in particular its syntax, on esthetical grounds, sucks in >> major ways. > > No one except you thinks TeX is a "computer language". But it is. It's Turing-complete. And yes, it sucks in major ways. But no, I don't hold that against Knuth. It was designed in days when domain-specific languages didn't have a roughly standardized syntax. (Truth remains truth, regardless of who's upholding it.) Regards, Jo > And yes, it sucks in major ways. Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why? /W >> And yes, it sucks in major ways. >> > Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why? Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or functional programming. jue >>> And yes, it [syntactically] sucks in major ways. >>> >> Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why? > > Because TeX has nothing to do with either Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, or > functional programming. That's not an answer to my question and you know it. But OK, F'up to c.l.tex (makes me wonder why Xah didn't ... well, actually it doesn't, nevermind ;)) /W Wildemar Wildenburger schrieb: >> And yes, it sucks in major ways. >> > Oh my God, I don't want to, but I just have to ask: Why? First of all, irregularities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#The_typesetting_system: "[...]almost all of TeX's syntactic properties can be changed on the fly which makes TeX input hard to parse by anything but TeX itself." Then: No locals. In particular, processing is controlled via global flags. If you need a different setting while a macro is processing, you have to remember to reset it before macro exit. Many packages just set the flags to a standard value. In other words, if you didn't know that a specific flag affects the operation of your macro, the macro may break when used with a different package that sets the flag to a different default value. (This may be one of the reasons why everybody just sticks with LaTeX.) Four stages of processing, and you have to know exactly which is responsible for what to predict the outcome of a macro. This is more a documentation problem - for several features, there's no description which stage is responsible for processing it. That can make working with a feature difficult, since you don't know which processing steps have already been done and which are still to happen. My TeX days are long gone, so I may have forgotten some of the problems, but I think these were the worst. (And, of course, I may have gotten some details mixed up, so if you're seriously interested in the good and bad sides of TeX, verify before taking anything for granted.) Note that it's just the markup language that I object to. The typesetting algorithms seem to be remarkably regular and robust. I would have very much liked to see TeX split up into a typesetting library and a language processor. Unfortunately, that was beyond my capabilities at the time I came into contact with TeX, and I never got around to revisiting the issue. However, the TeX algorithm has been extracted and made available as a Regards, Jo For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and link to it? -Rudolf > For the love of the Perl, Python, Lisp, Java and functional > programmers, please just give an abstract of what you've written and > link to it? I expect you'll be ignored on that. Xah Lee reposts and reposts these essays from years agone. I don't even read his posts, just the responses. SignatureLew Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.