From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <4BC87A44020000CC00026B30@wlgw07.wlu.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:55:00 -0400 From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com> <4BC836D2020000CC000269E3@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com> <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartCDE74394.0__=" Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04dde0b8-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__PartCDE74394.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for this. =20 And yes, indeed, a step in the right direction! =20 Best =20 K >>> James Chapman 16/04/2010 2:37:20 pm >>> This page and its links maybe be interesting for understanding the relationship between latex and tex: http://www.tug.org/levels.html=20 In my area of computer science all publications are written in latex and for a particular conference/journal a latex class or style file (I must admit to not really knowing what the difference is) is provided and must be adhered to. Everybody I know also used texlive which seems to be the standard tex distribution. It used to be tetex but this is no longer maintained. I would be great to be able to write on plan 9 and I'm very pleased to see the porting effort for tex. James On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Joseph Stewart < joseph.stewart@gmail.com > wrote: > Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change this thread to OO instead of the > advertised TeX:hurrah! thread? > I'm interested in the TeX news, but not so interested in the OO/language > debate that no doubt will go on for a while... > Thanks! > -joe > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm < kfeuerherm@wlu.ca= > > wrote: >> >> Ok--so it's agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the users, >> then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same thing. >> >> And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the sun does revolve >> around the earth, so long as you choose the earth as your point of >> reference... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for = certain >> things, as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate. >> >> K >> >> >>> "Patrick Kelly" < kameo76890@gmail.com > 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>> >> I was just speaking generally. >> One of my major programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would = say >> that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in = places >> where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in general, not read >> properly. Using an object in the wrong place, which is most places, = does >> lead to worse code. For most people, using the wrong tool for the wrong = job >> is foolish, but for OOP lovers... >> >> The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provability, = but >> how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the = sun >> revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That being = said, >> there are studies out there about using the wrong paradigm for the = wrong >> job, objects do come up. > > --=__PartCDE74394.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML
Thanks for this.
 
And yes, indeed, a step in the right direction!
 
Best
 
K

>>> James Chapman <james@cs.ioc.ee> 16/04/2010= 2:37:20 pm >>>
This page and its links maybe be interesting = for understanding the
relationship between latex and tex:

http://www.tug.org/levels.html<= /U>

In my area of computer science all publications are written in = latex
and for a particular conference/journal a latex class or style = file (I
must admit to not really knowing what the difference is) is = provided
and must be adhered to. Everybody I know also used texlive = which seems
to be the standard tex distribution. It used to be tetex = but this is
no longer maintained.

I would be great to be able to = write on plan 9 and I'm very pleased to
see the porting effort for = tex.

James

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Joseph Stewart< joseph.stewart@gmail.c= om > wrote:
> Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change = this thread to OO instead of the
> advertised TeX:hurrah! thread?
= > I'm interested in the TeX news, but not so interested in the = OO/language
> debate that no doubt will go on for a while...
> = Thanks!
> -joe
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, = Karljurgen Feuerherm < kfeuerher= m@wlu.ca >
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok--so it's = agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the users,
>> = then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same thing.
= >>
>> And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the = sun does revolve
>> around the earth, so long as you choose the = earth as your point of
>> reference... Certain points of = reference are to be preferred for certain
>> things, as you said. = So OO or not, as appropriate.
>>
>> K
>>
>= > >>> "Patrick Kelly" < kameo76890@gmail.com > 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>>=
>> I was just speaking generally.
>> One of my major = programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would say
>> = that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in = places
>> where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in = general, not read
>> properly. Using an object in the wrong = place, which is most places, does
>> lead to worse code. For most = people, using the wrong tool for the wrong job
>> is foolish, but = for OOP lovers...
>>
>> The question isn't how do you = prove it does reduce static provability, but
>> how do you prove = it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the sun
>> = revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That being = said,
>> there are studies out there about using the wrong = paradigm for the wrong
>> job, objects do come up.
>
>=

--=__PartCDE74394.0__=--