Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on May 13, 2014 at 23:23 UTC ( #1085963=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
in thread At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious ...

You are the past-master. At last, something at which you excel.

You excel at "saying something stupid". Whilst it isn't always "obvious"; you never seem to balk "At the risk".

You are a potential winner of the next Most useless skill competition.


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^3: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
Re^4: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor) on May 14, 2014 at 01:29 UTC

    And a jolly good morning to you, too, sir.   Right on schedule, yes sir, you are . . .

    It doesn’t make any Monk look good to “pee upon another Monk’s campfire,” let alone routinely.   Commenting about someone’s post is one thing, and that is fine.   Commenting about that individual, let alone at every opportunity, let alone calling them names(!), does not exactly make you look good.   A forum can never avoid “personalities,” of course, but everyone is here for the common purpose of helping others to use a particular language.   If you think that someone is a dunce, it is simply off-topic to say so.   Keep your opinions to yourself, and stick to the topic at hand.   No one really wants to hear it at all.   You’re not the smartest kid in school, although I do not dispute that you have considerable specialized experience.   I didn’t start this thread to talk about you.

    This ongoing discussion has provided me with a great deal more insight as to what the actual intended subject of this multi-part thread is actually supposed to be.   “Roman numerals,” as the chosen example of f(s), seems to be a nonsensical example since it requires no search whatsoever, and I will be very curious to discern whether the final presentation’s logic actually holds, or if the triviality of this particular function will (as I suspect) introduce a subtle flaw in the reasoning.   We are being presented in multiple parts a complex diatribe about massive-space searches ... in quest of something that requires no search ... and which has exactly one correct outcome.   We are promised a dramatic revelation in the final episode.   Will that dramatic improvement hold in the general case??   Stay tuned, I suppose.

      Again, you are stubbornly missing the point. The attempt isn't to write a way to convert Roman numerals. It's not even a search to find a proper and general way to do it. It's to find a random short string that happens to do just enough to meet the criteria set forth, regardless of any errors it may contain in the more general case. Finding this random short string is the nature of the search. That's the only reason for the search. Nobody's going to use that string as a Roman numeral conversion routine outside of the code golf competition.

        Seems to me the whole thing is hardly worth getting nasty over. What is the point?

        I have never played this 'code golf' (or heard of it 'til now for that matter). But it seems to be sort of like a crossword puzzle. One does it for their own reasons. Some folks talk about them because they find them interesting. Others see them as a waste of time. Yet others see them as occassional interesting diversions from which something can be learned. All pretty valid points of view in my opinion. After all, they reflect personal tastes and interests.

        I have seen nothing in the article in question (eyeopslikeamosquito) which says that it is or should be of importance to anyone other than the author. He is simply sharing his interest. I don't see anything in the root of this post (sundialsvc4) that says that the poster demands that anyone share his point of view. He is simply sharing it. And it seems like a reasonable expression of critical thinking. The author of the root node does not see the point, but is willing to sit back and watch (while enjoying popcorn and presumably the watching). So what?

        Again, so what? I recently posted that I have stubbornly rejected doing anything object oriented for a long time, at my own expense. I didn't see the point. So, for obvious reasons, I too could/should be riduculed?

        Come on! It is fun, it is interesting! Enjoy the hell out of it! But, Jeesh! It ain't worth vitriol!

        update: Just occurred to me; this is a point of view, not aimed at anyone, just shared... :-) There is absolutely no technical expertise, explicit or implied.

        update:Node should have been placed above this one as there is nothing nasty stated here. My bad, and my apologies to mr_mischief.

        ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
        Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1085963]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-28 06:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (191 votes), past polls