Re: Algorithm Question


Richard Heathfield wrote:
[This is a one-time rebuttal. Nilges will undoubtedly respond with more of
his junk. Let him.]

spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx said:


Richard Heathfield wrote:
spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx said:


CBFalconer wrote:

I only gave him a complete program that could pick out the searched
string from a long file efficiently. Eddie, I think you have
neglected to take your meds again.

(1) My name isn't "Eddie". It's Edward G. Nilges,

Having mocked and twisted other people's names in the past, you are in no
position to object to people doing it to you.

Sorry, that's a complete distortion.

No, it isn't.

I posted a serious, literate and
well-received article on Steve McConnell's AFTER THE GOLD RUSH in 2000.

No, you didn't. It is, however, true that you posted an article on that
book.

You began and lost a "flame" war by falsely describing it as verbose
because it challenged your limited culture and sense of newsgroup
dominance.

No, I didn't.

Your *** buddies, a false community, joined in and like you
had their narrowness and lack of knowledge exposed, and started to play
games with my fucking name.

I didn't know you had one. But I do know that you, personally, have twisted
and mocked at least one person's name - mine - and therefore you have no
business complaining when others do the same to you.

<snip>

In this I followed all usenet guidelines for courtesy and propriety.

No, you didn't.

But
it also amused me to give tit for tat, and make droll jokes out of
other people's names, especially people who overrated their programming
skills and professional qualifications to an absurd extent.

If you consider it acceptable behaviour to make jokes out of the names of
people who overrate their programming skills and professional
qualifications to an absurd extent, I fail to see why you're complaining
about people making jokes out of your name.

and while I have no
special expertise on genetics, I have thirty years of programming
experience

We've seen some of your programming, remember - so don't try to pretend
to be any kind of expert /here/.

Your notion of programming skill and professionalism is so obviously
wrong I wouldn't know where to start.

You could start with the thread where your programming skills were
deconstructed line by line, exposing your woeful ignorance of important
issues of performance, portability and correctness.

Here, I'd posted sample code in C as a way to show its deficiencies.
Richard and Chris Sonnack were annoyed by the code because it had a
trivial recalculation in a for limit and it used Hungarian notation.
There also was a bug in version 1 which I corrected in an hour.

Chris lost it, and posted all sorts of pompous nonsense which I
ignored.

Basically, Richard, if you feel it is professional to participate in
what may be a life-critical genomics application by posting code
absurdly tuned to a genetic sequence which the OP doesn't seem to fully
understand, or to libel a fellow author (Schildt) on the network, you
are no judge of programming and its professionalism. You're a mere
coder.


Here, you take a poorly written
description of a problem that the OP doesn't appear to understand and
you've coded a solution which completely embeds the syntax of his
counter-example...one that cannot easily be changed if it goes into
production in what may be a mission-critical application.

No, I've taken a poorly written description of a problem that the OP may or
may not understand, and shown how it is reasonably simple for him to solve
his problem. If the solution needs to be changed, it's reasonably trivial
to do this, for anyone who knows how to use a keyboard and a brain.

This was unprofessional because you didn't KNOW whether the OP was
working on a life-critical application and because your whole approach
was an encoding of one specific pattern.


Neither you nor Falconer seemed to have realized that the first step
for the OP was exploring a way to use a formalism to find the string.

I disagree. The OP had already expressed that formalism, albeit not terribly
clearly, and I explored a way to use it, based on my understanding thereof.
It is of course possible that my understanding was flawed, but the OP has
yet to comment on this, so we have no way of knowing at this stage.

The OP didn't use a formalism as far as I could tell. At best it was
too informal. It was a bastardization of a formalism.


Your conduct was unprofessional.

Since I don't get paid for posting Usenet articles, this is self-evidently
true on a trivial level, but I have yet to hear any professionalism
complaints from the OP, or from other experienced and competent programmers
here in comp.programming.

I submit that experienced and competent programmers are too busy
working and writing articles for more professional venues. Sure, I came
here while I was writing my book in hopes of meeting some decent
people, and I did. But I fear this newsgroup, because it is open yet
lacks the controls of an open source project, is a catchbasin.

Which is fine by me. There needs to be such a facility. However,
members should be rebuked when they unprofessionally participate in
writing code for what may be a life-critical application that is
overspecialized to one ill-understood pattern.


Therefore I need not accept any judgements from you on my level of skill.

Right. I can't get down that low.

and I'm the author of "Build Your Own .Net Language and
Compiler",

And Herbert Schildt wrote "C: The Complete Reference". So what?

...and you libeled an author,

No, I didn't. You continue to misunderstand the word "libel".

in a way that had overtones of anti-Semitism,

Don't be ridiculous.

who departed from your narrow misunderstandings of C

When it comes to misunderstanding C, I cannot hold a candle to you.

(misunderstandings that commence with the false proposition that C
should even be used for new development)

It is certainly true that /you/ should not use C for new development.

who's laughing at you, all the
way to the bank. So, how's the chip shop job going? Web site up yet?

The nano-chips to which you refer, which we introduced into water supplies
world-wide a couple of years ago, do not require advertising; they affect
your brain directly. Clearly in your case they've been very successful.


(2) You and Heathfield both posted overcomplex and special purpose code

If you think the code I posted upthread was over-complex, you really do
need to take more meds.

It was over-complex in the sense that it was a literal encoding of ONE
counter-example in a situation where it's likely that the
counter-example is wrong or will change.

Look up "over" and "complex".

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

.

Quantcast