1. Mike, you are not a liar!
Mike,
On reflection, 'phony' was a terrible choice. 'Phantom' would have
been
much better, more neutral word, but if you prefer 'erroneous', I can
live with that too.
I did not call you a liar, and I did not want to imply you were one.
Believe me, if I had any doubts about your integrity, your messages
would not even reach my mailbox.
You forced me to re-read my last note - not a pretty experience. I
noticed one small section that can possibly be interpreted as an
attack on OO (object oriented) programming principles. That's not what
I meant. In fact I admire the Smalltalk people that started it all
almost thirty years ago. They were real visionaries, unfortunately too
much ahead of their time, because it's only now that reasonably pure
and workable systems are appearing on the horizon (newer versions of
Smalltalk, Eiffel, etc). And it still might take a decade, and two or
three orders of magnitude faster PCs to realize the full potential of
their ideas. And I am pretty sure it will not be the muddled atrocity
of C++ or Java diarrhea that will rule the world. It's more likely to
be a streamlined version of Python, or something similarly powerful
and still reasonably accessible, or perhaps Eu v 5.0...
Dreaming. jiri
2. Re: Mike, you are not a liar!
Jiri,
You are also a man of integrity. Thank you very much for your last post.
The very last word on optimization--with regard to my now infamous point #4,
after further reflection and additional benchmarking, I believe your
critcism is of my advocacy of short sequences is correct and I withdraw it
as general advice. I was misled by the evidence that the approach does work
in the actual optimization I was faced with--a narrow domain involving
highly structured, non-random data with natural breakpoints.
-- Mike Nelson
-----Original Message-----
From: jiri babor <jbabor at PARADISE.NET.NZ>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:08 AM
Subject: Mike, you are not a liar!
>Mike,
>
>On reflection, 'phony' was a terrible choice. 'Phantom' would have
>been
>much better, more neutral word, but if you prefer 'erroneous', I can
>live with that too.
>
>I did not call you a liar, and I did not want to imply you were one.
>Believe me, if I had any doubts about your integrity, your messages
>would not even reach my mailbox.
>
>You forced me to re-read my last note - not a pretty experience. I
>noticed one small section that can possibly be interpreted as an
>attack on OO (object oriented) programming principles. That's not what
>I meant. In fact I admire the Smalltalk people that started it all
>almost thirty years ago. They were real visionaries, unfortunately too
>much ahead of their time, because it's only now that reasonably pure
>and workable systems are appearing on the horizon (newer versions of
>Smalltalk, Eiffel, etc). And it still might take a decade, and two or
>three orders of magnitude faster PCs to realize the full potential of
>their ideas. And I am pretty sure it will not be the muddled atrocity
>of C++ or Java diarrhea that will rule the world. It's more likely to
>be a streamlined version of Python, or something similarly powerful
>and still reasonably accessible, or perhaps Eu v 5.0...
>
>Dreaming. jiri
>
