From: "Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com>
Subject: Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:47:31 -0800
Date: 2001-02-08T11:47:31-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <95uta6$f09$1@usenet.rational.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3A824CF4.940EA80E@PublicPropertySoftware.com
Al Christians <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> wrote in message
news:3A824CF4.940EA80E@PublicPropertySoftware.com...
> Buz Cory wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but forcing children to read Shakespeare early makes it less
> > likely, not more, that that person will ever learn to read him with
> > understanding and enjoyment.
> >
>
> Let us return to an on-topic topic, if only as an aside:
Then I suppose we should change the subject line :-)... but I couldn't
figure out what to change it to :-)
>
> If my intent is to write code that will be not only read and performed,
> but also revered, 400 years hence, what language and style should I
> take a shot at?
Language: empirically, COBOL seems to have the most staying power.
Style: as obscure as possible. If nobody knows what your code does or how
it works, they will be afraid to change it and it will acheive immortality.
:-) :-) :-)
>
> How is it that single authors produce the most praised literary works,
> but egoless, pair, and team-oriented approaches are favored for software
> works?
1) Time-efficiency. Important in software development, not important in
literature.
2) Art is (arguably) a personal expression. Programming is instrumental
(not an end in itself), and ideally the only thing "expressed" about its
author(s) is how good he/she/they are at solving the problem. Often two
heads are better than one, as the saying goes (but n+k heads are not
necessarily better than n -- cf. Brooks, "Out Of The Tar Pit").
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-08 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.980423781.16161.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
[not found] ` <94p9fl$a1g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
[not found] ` <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101250921430.10262-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
[not found] ` <94qbb4$bs1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
[not found] ` <94rkj1$d4r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
2001-01-26 16:31 ` Latin and other irrelevant topics Robert Dewar
2001-01-26 20:24 ` Florian Weimer
2001-01-27 5:12 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-27 13:58 ` Pat Rogers
2001-01-27 16:25 ` Florian Weimer
2001-01-28 0:09 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-28 0:08 ` Latin, Shakespeare, " Robert Dewar
2001-01-28 3:51 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-28 13:00 ` Pat Rogers
2001-01-29 1:40 ` Robert Dewar
2001-01-29 4:23 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-29 5:29 ` Robert Dewar
2001-01-29 17:32 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-29 17:34 ` Pascal Obry
2001-01-29 6:04 ` Robert Dewar
2001-01-29 17:39 ` Pascal Obry
2001-01-29 18:53 ` David Starner
2001-01-30 6:15 ` Robert Dewar
2001-01-30 15:54 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-30 19:32 ` Martin Dowie
2001-02-02 22:11 ` Mark Lundquist
2001-02-03 0:17 ` David Starner
2001-01-29 16:16 ` Stephen Leake
2001-01-30 1:21 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-01-29 23:05 ` kopilovitch
2001-02-02 21:52 ` Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes " Mark Lundquist
2001-02-03 1:28 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-02-05 16:32 ` Mark Lundquist
2001-02-05 19:36 ` Al Christians
2001-02-07 18:59 ` Mark Lundquist
2001-02-08 19:19 ` Florian Weimer
2001-02-08 5:15 ` Latin, Shakespeare, " Buz Cory
2001-02-08 7:38 ` Al Christians
[not found] ` <95uav7$nfb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
2001-02-08 16:00 ` Ted Dennison
2001-02-08 19:47 ` Mark Lundquist [this message]
2001-01-26 21:06 ` Latin " Lao Xiao Hai
2001-02-08 16:02 Latin, Shakespeare, " Alexandre E. Kopilovitch
2001-02-10 6:47 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <PnzBiWwqTD@vib.usr.pu.ru>
2001-02-08 17:46 ` sk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-02-11 16:55 Alexandre E. Kopilovitch
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox