Re: [9fans] off topic: troff book

[saroj@bear.com]

In article <01b901c07cc8$bc634660$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr>,
  boyd@planete.net (Boyd Roberts) wrote:
> From: <saroj@bear.com>
> >
> > No, that is not true. Knuth felt that troff was burdened with
> > couple of generations' legacy at Bell Labs, and he wanted to
> > start with a clean slate without fear of hurting any Bell Labs
> > colleague's feeling (about troff).
>
> nonsense, research does not work like that.  if you're afraid
> of 'hurting' people's feelings you'll get no research done
> at all.  do you understand the scientific method?
>

That was precisely the point! TeX was done from the ground up.

> do you think einstein would have held back not to 'hurt'
> newton's feelings?  are you mad?  admittedly, newton
> was dead, but it _could_ hurt his standing, retrospectively.
>
> > And finally, he demonstrated that even large programs can be
> > explained in full detail (unlike most programs written by early
> > Bell Labs guys), though Pascal is not a great language on which
> > WEB (the implementation language of TeX) is based.
>
> LP is nonsense.  you write the code.  the code is the 'truth'.
> you add comments to explain the global view and stuff that's
> not 'obvious'.  not 'obvious' is a judgement call.  you get
> 'judgement' after you've spent a few years in the caper.
>
> unfortunately, that last sentence is not always true.
>
> then again, no documentation is better than bad/incorrect
> documentation.
>
> i fought tooth and nail with my old man about what was
> the point of 'pure' research.  i thought it was pointless.
> finally, i realised he was _right_.
>

Sorry, how many programs written by you can be read from cover to
cover and fully understood?


[snipped]


Thank you,
Saroj Mahapatra


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/