| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vqcs6l$33ndr$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:14:29 +0000 Organization: A little, after lunch Lines: 31 Message-ID: <vqcs6l$33ndr$3@dont-email.me> References: <59CJO.19674$MoU3.15170@fx36.iad> <m2sohjF3sciU1@mid.individual.net> <vqceia$g9g$1@reader1.panix.com> <Martin-20250306163721@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <vqck28$ki8$1@reader1.panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:14:29 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8774af32b9a5ea81776c073fd03363e6"; logging-data="3268027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rqjxOfqkxCKWe77wKypPvTmc1uHC5YLI=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:D3ee0z6uB20nVeXIH7qk10Ftdns= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <vqck28$ki8$1@reader1.panix.com> On 06/03/2025 16:55, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <Martin-20250306163721@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote or quoted: >>> That describes Martin's books to a T, I think. He writes very >>> well, but what he writes, maybe not so much. >> >> I first got to know Robert on Usenet, in comp.objects. Later, I read >> something in his book about the difference between object-oriented >> and structured, which hits the nail on the head regarding the >> crucial point about which of the two paradigms has what advantages. >> At least 99 percent of people who talk about this topic don't get >> this point. That's why Robert is head and shoulders above Herbert >> in my book - even if Martin might make the occasional mistake. > > I mean, two times something that is very close to zero is still > very close to zero. :-) > > - Dan C. > No, its *twice as far away* from zero. -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan