> Curiously, Robert Martin's in the acknowledgements for K&R
> (I forget which edition). I guess he read an early draft?
I didn't find Robert Martin in the long list of acknowledgements
in the preface to the second edition. But any such acknowledgement
would certainly be to Bob Martin, a savvy Bell Labs executive whose
advice was always welcome. He is acknowledged in Aho and
Ullman's "Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling", but not
in the Dragon Book. I have never seen a Robert Martin book on
programming; I probably would have were it written by Bob.
Doug
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 8:48 AM Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling(a)kev009.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 6:53 PM Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> [TUHS to Bcc:, Cc: COFF]
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:47 AM Anton Shepelev <anton.txt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Programmer ability is certainly an issue, but I would suggest that
>> > >another goes back to what Rob was alluding to: compiler writers have
>> > >taken too much advantage of UB, making it difficult to write
>> > >well-formed programs that last.
>> >
>> > Following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the standard?
>>
>> Pretty much!
>>
>> > [snip]
>> > >My sense is that tossing in bad programmers is just throwing gasoline
>> > >onto a dumpster fire. Particularly when they look to charlatans like
>> > >Robert Martin or Allen Holub as sources of education and inspiration
>> > >instead of seeking out proper sources of education.
>> >
>> > I am a bad one as well, to have liked some things in Martin's books
>> > /Clean Code/ and /Clean Architecture/ . True, heis no Wirth, nor
>> > Dijxtra, nor Knuth, but why a charlatan?
>
> And what about Hollub?
Pretty much the same thing.
> A long time ago I came across and seemed to think some of his earlier books (on C) were ok.
Yeah. He wrote a book about compilers, but as near as I can tell,
it's mostly material regurgitated from the Dragon Book, just a
different presentation, and a less academic focus.
Curiously, he's in the acknowledgements for K&R (I forget which
edition). I guess he read an early draft?
> Looking lately, I don’t tend to care for the metaphysical and ceremonial stuff whence one starts talking about design patterns and scrum instead of doing the work so I haven’t paid attention.
>
> It’s a strong accusation to levy publicly and maybe should be explained.
Many of Hollub's claims are ridiculous on the face of them ("you don't
need a bug tracker! You don't need schedules! Code should be written
by 'mobbing'!"
Here's a representative example:
https://twitter.com/allenholub/status/1734661813638459843 In that
tweet he writes, "What we do involves essentially no mathematical
analysis of anything. We are not doing math.If you're building a
system that requires math, then the math is part of the _domain_, not
the development process." I suppose he's never heard of time or space
complexity analysis of algorithms?
Or how about this one:
https://twitter.com/allenholub/status/1827790079617892675 "A PR [Pull
Request] is necessary only when someone you don't trust writes code in
isolation. It's essential for OS work, for example, or if you're
working using scatter/gather [https://bit.ly/3XYLhb3] It's also a
complete waste of time if you're working in a mob#/ensemble (or even a
pair) because the code is reviewed as it's written." I suppose he's
never worked someplace with a real, rigorous review culture. Also,
https://x.com/allenholub/status/1634050850434826240
A few others:
https://x.com/allenholub/status/1594859115557232640https://x.com/allenholub/status/1613609655519019008https://x.com/allenholub/status/1656811047783899138https://x.com/allenholub/status/1610708432331632641
He has some code on Github that's relatively recent. It's not very good.
- Dan C.
>> Briefly, because he writes with unwarranted confidence, and just isn't
>> a very good programmer himself.
>>
>> He writes with an authoritative voice about things that he doesn't
>> know very much, if anything, about. For example, the things he's
>> written about static typing in programming languages are complete
>> nonsense. Sriram Krishnamurthi called him out on that
>> (https://x.com/ShriramKMurthi/status/1136411753590472707) and he did
>> not respond well, doubling down on his unfounded opinions
>> (https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/06/08/TestsAndTypes.html)
>> Later, he justified his opinion by making allusions to the amount of
>> time he's been programming
>> (https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2021/06/25/OnTypes.html) Hey,
>> when it comes to logical fallacies centered on appeals to length of
>> experience, well...I swooshed a basketball for the first time more
>> than 40 years ago, but I've given up any dream I may have ever had of
>> being a point guard in the NBA. Just doing something for a long time
>> doesn't mean you're good at it.
>>
>> Robert Martin doesn't write production-quality code, period. He claims
>> to "ship" lots of code, but acknowledges that most of that is example
>> code for his books and personal side-projects. But the code examples
>> he has publicly available are not particularly well-structured,
>> readable, or maintainable. For a particular egregious example, see
>> https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/blob/1eba53c08fb530effb9d29aca…
>> (not the current commit; he modified it somewhat after I sent him
>> https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/commit/dbfa03e90a084a25992dff7…,
>> which he did not acknowledge; see
>> https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/pull/2/commits/84483cd4d60320c…
>> for the timeline).
>>
>> And while that small program is a particularly bad example, other bits
>> of his code are also bad. Ousterhout was asked to comment on his
>> "extract till you drop" approach and presented with a "refactoring"
>> Martin did of a program due to Knuth
>> (https://sites.google.com/site/unclebobconsultingllc/one-thing-extract-till-…)
>> Ousterhout responded that he was "bewildered and horrified" by the
>> approach. As Ousterhout put it, "He has taken 25 lines of code that
>> are pretty straightforward and easy to understand, and turned them
>> into 38 lines with 9 methods, none of which has a stitch of
>> documentation. What was the point of this?"
>> (https://groups.google.com/g/software-design-book/c/Kb5K3YcjIXw/m/qN8txMeOCA…)
>>
>> These are all typical of Martin's approach. Hence why I say the man is
>> a charlatan. Others have written at length about why, and how, his
>> advice is generally bad.
>>
>> - Dan C.
According to Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com>:
>> And what about Hollub?
>
>Pretty much the same thing.
>
>> A long time ago I came across and seemed to think some of his earlier books (on C) were ok.
>
>Yeah. He wrote a book about compilers, but as near as I can tell,
>it's mostly material regurgitated from the Dragon Book, just a
>different presentation, and a less academic focus.
It was terrible because none of the code worked. There was a fat list of errata
that fixed some of them but it was more trouble than it was worh.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
I was one of those 80s kids who grew up with 6502s with BASIC in ROM.
Yeah, I learned some bad habits from that, but they weren't that hard to
unlearn, and they, at the very least, got me screwing around with computers
and figuring out how to make them do what I wanted.
It's been my career for three and a half decades now, so I'm not gonna
complain.
A couple decades later we had PHP for the web, which did almost exactly the
same thing: made the barrier to entry, for getting stuff you wanted to see
on the screen actually show up there, really low. And yeah, a bunch of
people wrote a bunch of terrible web pages, but at least some of them, I'll
wager, got inspired by that to learn more and do better.
Sneering at BASIC is exactly the same sort of irritating
privileged-ivory-tower BS that The Unix-Hater's Handbook and the cult of
ITS represent. Sure, in some perfect world, people would learn better
habits and have access to more capable (and therefore grossly more
expensive) machines, but in the world in which we actually live, a
really-low-barrier-to-entry for smart kids without tons of money is a
lovely democratizing force.
Here endeth the rant.
Adam
[TUHS to Bcc:, Cc: COFF]
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:47 AM Anton Shepelev <anton.txt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Programmer ability is certainly an issue, but I would suggest that
> >another goes back to what Rob was alluding to: compiler writers have
> >taken too much advantage of UB, making it difficult to write
> >well-formed programs that last.
>
> Following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the standard?
Pretty much!
> [snip]
> >My sense is that tossing in bad programmers is just throwing gasoline
> >onto a dumpster fire. Particularly when they look to charlatans like
> >Robert Martin or Allen Holub as sources of education and inspiration
> >instead of seeking out proper sources of education.
>
> I am a bad one as well, to have liked some things in Martin's books
> /Clean Code/ and /Clean Architecture/ . True, heis no Wirth, nor
> Dijxtra, nor Knuth, but why a charlatan?
Briefly, because he writes with unwarranted confidence, and just isn't
a very good programmer himself.
He writes with an authoritative voice about things that he doesn't
know very much, if anything, about. For example, the things he's
written about static typing in programming languages are complete
nonsense. Sriram Krishnamurthi called him out on that
(https://x.com/ShriramKMurthi/status/1136411753590472707) and he did
not respond well, doubling down on his unfounded opinions
(https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/06/08/TestsAndTypes.html)
Later, he justified his opinion by making allusions to the amount of
time he's been programming
(https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2021/06/25/OnTypes.html) Hey,
when it comes to logical fallacies centered on appeals to length of
experience, well...I swooshed a basketball for the first time more
than 40 years ago, but I've given up any dream I may have ever had of
being a point guard in the NBA. Just doing something for a long time
doesn't mean you're good at it.
Robert Martin doesn't write production-quality code, period. He claims
to "ship" lots of code, but acknowledges that most of that is example
code for his books and personal side-projects. But the code examples
he has publicly available are not particularly well-structured,
readable, or maintainable. For a particular egregious example, see
https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/blob/1eba53c08fb530effb9d29aca…
(not the current commit; he modified it somewhat after I sent him
https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/commit/dbfa03e90a084a25992dff7…,
which he did not acknowledge; see
https://github.com/unclebob/PDP8EmulatorIpad/pull/2/commits/84483cd4d60320c…
for the timeline).
And while that small program is a particularly bad example, other bits
of his code are also bad. Ousterhout was asked to comment on his
"extract till you drop" approach and presented with a "refactoring"
Martin did of a program due to Knuth
(https://sites.google.com/site/unclebobconsultingllc/one-thing-extract-till-…)
Ousterhout responded that he was "bewildered and horrified" by the
approach. As Ousterhout put it, "He has taken 25 lines of code that
are pretty straightforward and easy to understand, and turned them
into 38 lines with 9 methods, none of which has a stitch of
documentation. What was the point of this?"
(https://groups.google.com/g/software-design-book/c/Kb5K3YcjIXw/m/qN8txMeOCA…)
These are all typical of Martin's approach. Hence why I say the man is
a charlatan. Others have written at length about why, and how, his
advice is generally bad.
- Dan C.
I don't believe this was sent here yet. BASIC is much maligned, but was
important nonetheless.
- Dan C.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tony Patti via Internet-history <internet-history(a)elists.isoc.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 17, 2024, 3:50 PM
Subject: [ih] NYT: Thomas E. Kurtz, a Creator of BASIC Computer Language,
Dies at 96
To: <internet-history(a)elists.isoc.org>
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/technology/thomas-kurtz-dead.html
(published yesterday November 16, 2024)
"At Dartmouth, long before the days of laptops and smartphones,
he worked to give more students access to computers.
That work helped propel generations into a new world."
Me too, I owe it all to BASIC.
Because 5 decades earlier, via an ASR 33 Teletype and acoustic coupler at
110 baud
to a remote HP 2100, BASIC was my introduction to computers and programming.
Tony Patti
(ARPAnet NIC IDENT "TP4")
--
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history(a)elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
(Moving this thread over to COF, since we've gotten pretty far afield
from the TUHS list's charter.)
On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 04:23:34PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The Linux Foundation does not exclusively own the copyright on the
> > Linux kernel. The copyright is jointly owned by all of the
> > contributors of the Linux kernel. This makes it quite unlike the FSF
> > projects, where contributions to FSF project require a copyright
> > assignment[1].
>
> That's a myth. It is the FSF's stated _preference_, but it is a
> negotiable point. For example, Thomas Dickey negotiated reversion of
> copyright to himself when becoming ncurses maintainer 26 years ago.[A]
In the web site I quoted, the fact that there is an option not to do
the copyright assignment was apparently conveniently ommitted. And in
the early 1990's, I *personally* tried negotiating to not do the
copyright assignment directy with the FSF, and I was told to go to
heck. Given that I *had* taken a legal class from the MIT Sloan
School (Legal issues for the I/T Manager), I knew what the word
"indemnify" meant, and there was no way in the world I was going to
sign the damned FSF copyrioght legal paperwork, and I told the FSF so.
The only other alternative was my not contributing to the GNU Project.
The FSF may have since relaxed their poition in the past 30 years, but
it's not something that they've really admitted (again, see the FSF
web page I referenced). My theory is that the only reason *why* they
relaxed their position was that it would have made GNU even more
irrelevant if they hadn't (e.g., people don't have to contribute to
GCC; if it's more friendly and easier to contribute to Clang.)
> But is it true for less prestigious projects or individual contributors
> with no clout to speak of?
Well, apparently in the early 1990's I didn't have any clout in the
eyes of the FSF. :-)
Probably for the best, all things considered.
> With respect to the Linux kernel in particular, it seems the GPL _in
> practice_ imposes no obligations. That was my point. Little
> enforcement is visible. As far as "public shaming" goes, I've seen it
> from the FSF and the Software Freedom Conservancy, not from the LF.
>
> Give me examples of the LF leaning on infringers and getting results!
> I want them!
OK, I see where you are coming from here. And I think the main isue
is that the goals of the Linux community are quite different from that
of the FSF. (And note that I say the Linux community, since these
atttudes predate the founding of the Linux Foundation by **years** and
existed across many developers, some of whom, like me, weren't yet
hired by a Linux corporation; I was at MIT, and my day job was TL for
MIT Kerberos and IPSEC working group chair for the IETF as well as
serving on MIT Network Operations.)
The Linux attitude was a focus on the social contract between
*developers*. If you improve the Linux kernel, we expect that you
contribute those changes back. So what we care about is the company
that has 9,000 out of tree patches, representing hundreds of engineer
years of SWE investment. And here, this is where in practce, GPL
social contract becomes self-enforcing. It is in the interest of the
company who is interested in keeping up with upstream to get the
changes back upstream.
The FSF and Richard Stallman has a much bigger focus on the ability of
users to be able to get the sources for GPL'ed code, make changes, and
then install that changed sources on their hardware. That's a fine
goal, and I respect that some people might have that as a very strong
policy preference and something that they care about. It's just that
it's a very different goal than what most Linux kernel developers care
about. (And again, this wasn't shaped by my employers; I and many of
the people I know had these preferences long before the Linux
companies formed and started hiring us.)
So take for example, the hypothetical someone who makes a tiny change
to the Linux kernel to create a crappy AI gadge in a square orange
box. Call it, for the sake of argument, the "Squirrel S1". :-)
As far as the Linux kernel community is concerned, the Squirrel S1 is
irrelevant. It has no interesting technology that we would care
about, and while it might be sad that a user might not be able to
change the software in the S1, either because the manufacturer didn't
meet their GPL oligations, or the hardware was locked down and the
GPL2 does't have an anti-Tivo clause it it, in my opinion, the
enforcement is self-executing. If you're a user, and can't make
changes, and you want to, then don't fork over $199 for the Squirrel
S1!
From the FSF's Free Softare perspective, they obviously have a very
different goal. They believe all users should have the ability to
access the source code and modify software on a Squirrel S1, whether
they want to doit or not, and regardless of whether that might cause
the device to become more expensive. They believe this is a core user
freedom, that should never be abograted.
I respect those people who have those feelings. But obviously people
in the BSD camp don't share those priorities --- and in the Linux
kernel community, while we believe the GPL2 is a great way of
expressing the social expectations between developers, we don't
necessarily share the same attitudes as Mr. Stallman.
Could someone who has some copyright ownership try do some vexatious
lawsuits in order to (legally) extort money out of companies who are
infringing the GPL? Sure; although I'll note that for the targets of
those lawsuits, I'm not so sure that they would see that much
difference between a Patrck McHardy and the SFC. And at least
personally, the amount of help that I would give a Patric McHardy and
an SFC lawsuit is pretty much the same; zero, and my personal opinion
is that they are not really helpful, since my goal is to have more
companies being *happy* to contribute to Linux; not to feel coerced
and forced to contribute by sullenly dropping a bunch of code to
comply with the GPL and then walking away.
> > So why do companies join the Linux Foundation? Well, there are a
> > number of benefits, but one very important one is that it provides a
> > way for companies to directly collaborate with funded programs to make
> > improvements to Linux without worrying about anti-trust conerns.
>
> Are these concerns anything more than notional?
Well, I was at the IBM Linux Technology Center when we were first
working on standardizing ISO/IEC 23360-2:2006. This was well after
the FTC consent decree was dissolved in 1996, and while a Republican
(George W. Bush) was president --- and I can tell you that it *was*
something that my employer at the time very much cared about. We got
very clear instructions about what we could and could't do when we
participated with OSDL and Linux Foundation work groups, and we had
madatory training regarding how to not get in trouble with anti-trust
enforcers.
> But I do sympathize with WG14 and the Austin Group; following recent
> developments with C23 and POSIX 2014, it seems that ISO is bent
> on giving them a hard time. Maybe ISO/IEC, or certain players within,
> are trying to shed some mass, and/or don't see C and Unix as worth
> standardizing anymore. Old and busted. What's the new hotness?
ISO/IEC participation has always been heavyweight, and companies are
quite strategic about the understanding the cost benefit tradeoffs of
participating in ISO. This has been true for years; and once various
European government customers stopped requiring ISO standardization,
IBM and HP pretty quickly stopped funding the standards tech writer
and those of us who were on the US National Body represenatives to
ISO/IEC for 23360.
(And not just the US; the various companies working on the ISO/IEC
23360 effort had carefully made sure that to have their employees in
other country's national bodies, to make sure the fix was in. This
was not too different from what Microsoft was accused of doing while
standardizing ISO/IEC 29500, although not to the same scale; there
were many more countries' national bodies involved with ISO/IEC 29500.
So when you say "ISO" is giving the Austin Group a hard time, I'd ask
the question, "who on ISO"? And what company do they work for; or if
they are an independent contractor, which company might be paying them
at the time; and what the agenda of those company(s) might be?)
Am I super cynical about ISO/IEC standards? Perhaps. :-)
- Ted
P.S. Obviously, not *everyone* in the Linux ecosystem feels this way.
For example, there are many people in Debian who are much more aligned
with the FSF. After all, they are one of the few distros that will
use the GNU/Linux terminology demanded by Stallman.
But I have talked to many Linux kernel developers over the past 30+
years, and I think have a pretty good sense of what the bulk of the
"old-timers" priorities have been. After all, if we had been much
more aligned with the FSF's philosophies, perhaps we would have worked
on GNU/HURD isntead. :-)
Moving over to COFF from TUHS. The following was Larry McVoy:
> I don't consider myself to be that good of a programmer, I can point to
> dozens of people my age that can run circles around me and I'm sure there
> are many more. But apparently the bar is pretty low these days and I
> agree, that's sad.
>
>
It's hard not to feel like the bar is lower. I feel like since Steve
Grandi retired at NOIRLab, I and Josh Hoblitt are the only people left who
actually understand how IP networks work. And I'm not great, never was,
but I know a lot more than...everyone else.
And kids these days, well, I'm not very fluent in TypeScript and I really
don't understand why every damn thing needs to be asynchronous especially
if you're just awaiting its completion anyway. But, hey, it ain't that
hard to do.
But again, there's a part of me that wonders how relevant the skills I miss
*are* anymore. I'm a software developer now, but I always thought of
myself as basically a sysadmin. It's just that we had automated away all
of what I started out doing (which was, what, 35-ish years ago?) by 20
years ago, and staying ahead of the automation has made me, of necessity, a
software developer now.
But I was also thinking of Larry saying he wouldn't last a week in today's
workplace, and I'm not sure that's true.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff that you once COULD say that would these
days get you a quick trip through HR and your crap in a box and a walk to
the curb...but I am a pretty foul-mouthed individual, and I have said nasty
things about people's code, and, indeed, the people who are repeat
offenders with respect to said code, and nevertheless I have had
surprisingly few issues with HR these last couple decades. So in some
sense it really DOES matter WHAT it is that's offensive that you're saying,
and I am living-and-still-employed proof.
If you generally treat people with respect until they prove they don't
deserve it, and you base your calumny on the bad technical decisions they
make and not their inherent characteristics, then it really ain't that hard
to get along in a woke workplace. And I say this as an abrasive coworker,
who happens to be a cis het white dude from a fairly-mainstream Christian
background and the usual set of academic credentials.
Let's face it: to do a good job as a software developer or generally an IT
person, you do not need a penis. You do not need to worship the way most
people at your workplace do. You do not need a college degree, let alone
in CS. You do not need to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. You
do not need to have the same gender now that you were assigned at birth.
You do not need two (or given the current state of the art, ANY) working
eyes. Or hands. You do not need to be under 40. You do not need to be
able to walk. You do not need pale skin. And anyone who's saying shit
about someone else based on THAT sort of thing *should* be shown the curb,
and quickly. And the fact that many employers are willing to do this now
is, in my opinion, a really good thing.
On the other hand, if someone reliably makes terrible technical decisions,
well, yeah, you should spend a little time understanding whether there is a
structural incentive to steer them that way and try to help them if they're
trainable, but sometimes there isn't and they're not. And those people,
it's OK to say they've got bad taste and their implementations of their
poor taste are worse. And at least in my little corner of the world, which
is quasi-academic and scientific, there's a lot of that. Just because
you're really really good at astronomy doesn't mean you're good at writing
intelligible, testable, maintainable programs. Some very smart people have
written really awful code that solved their immediate problems, but that's
no way to start a library used by thousands of astronomers. But whether or
not they're competent software engineers ain't got shit to do with what
they have in their pants or what color their skin is.
And it's not always even obvious bigotry. I don't want to work with toxic
geniuses anymore. Even if the only awful things they do and say are to
people that they regard as intellectually inferior and are not based on
bullshit as above...look, I'd much rather work with someone who writes
just-OK code and is pleasant than someone who writes brilliant code and
who's always a quarter-second from going off on someone not quite as smart
as they are. Cleverness is vastly overrated. I'd rather have someone with
whom I don't dread interacting writing the stuff I have to interface with,
even if it means the code runs 25% slower. Machine cycles are dirt cheap
now. The number of places where you SHOULD have to put up with toxicity
because you get more efficient code and it actually matters has been pretty
tiny my entire adult lifetime, and has been shrinking over that lifetime as
well. And from a maintainability standpoint...if I encounter someone
else's just-OK code, well, I can probably figure out what it's doing and
why it's there way, way more easily than someone's code that used to be
blazing fast, is now broken, and it turns out that's because it encodes
assumptions about the runtime environment that were true five years ago and
are no longer correct.
That said, it's (again, in my not-necessarily-representative experience)
not usually the nonspecific toxic genius people who get in trouble with
HR. The ones who do, well, much, MUCH, too often, are the people
complaining about wokeness in the workplace who just want to be able to say
bad things about their coworkers based on their race or gender (or...)
rather than the quality of their work, and I'm totally happy to be in the
"That's not OK" camp, and I applaud it when HR repeats that and walks them
out the door.
Adam
At 2024-10-02T16:42:59-0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 2:27 AM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
> > Also true. In the late 80s I was a sysadmin at Emory U. We had a Vax
> > connected to BITNET with funky hardware and UREP, the Unix RSCS
> > Emulation Program, from the University of Pennsylvania. Every time I
> > had to dive into that code, I felt like I needed a shower
> > afterwards. :-)
>
> Uh oh, lest the UPenn alumni among us get angry (high, Ron!) I feel I
> must point out that UREP wasn't from the University of Pennsylvania,
> but rather, from The Pennsylvania State University (yes, "The" is part
> of the name). UPenn (upenn.edu) is an Ivy in Philly; Penn State
> (psu.edu) is a state school in University Park, which is next to State
> College (really, that's the name of the town) with satellite campuses
> scattered around the state.
There's another method of distinguishing UPenn from Penn State. Permit
me to share my favorite joke on the subject, from ten years ago.
"STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Construction workers tore down Penn State's
iconic Joe Paterno statue on campus two years ago -- but this town might
not be without one for much longer.
Two alumni already have received the OK from the borough to install a
projected $300,000 life-sized bronze sculpture downtown, about two miles
from the original site." -- ESPN ([1])
"The key difference is that the new statue will look the other way."
-- Chris Lawrence
Regards,
Branden
[1] https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10828351/joe-paterno-honor…
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:13 AM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
> This goes back to the evolution thing. At the time, C was a huge
> step up from FORTRAN and assembly.
>
Certainly it's a step up (and a BIG step up) from assembly. But I'd say C
is a step sidewise from Fortran. An awful lot of HPTC programming involves
throwing multidimensional arrays around and C is not suitable for that.
-Paul W.
