Jane Austen's peculiarity
hh at livecode.org
Mon Aug 10 16:51:56 EDT 2015
Richmond, this was your last post to this thread before mine.
> My current version is here:
> File : TA.zip
> play with it, rip it to pieces, improve it: go on, I dare you :)
So I downloaded this stack and wrote a script that implemented three ideas,
two by other LCoders, one by me. Because you graciously ignored these ideas,
I was simply curious about their effects on speed and selectivity (by using
trueWords). I didn't play with your stack, I didn't rip it into pieces, but
somehow improved it a bit in the sense of using effectively some available
features of LC 7.
It was no dare, I had fun. And you had obviously fun too, what a great
speech! Who dares wins, you --- and me.
p.s. Shouldn't the opening of your speech read "I was _achieved_"? ;-)
> I am achieving what I initially set out to achieve, and with far less
> code than yours, so have no intention
> of changing anything.
> I, also, am a lucky sort of chap insofar as I don't really mind that
> much if my stack takes 3 days to work its way
> through a corpus . . . I can go and do some teaching, read a book, cook
> some food, go for a bike ride, talk to my wife,
> play with my cats, and so on.
> That has ALWAYS been my approach to programming for one simple reason:
> working every holiday for very many years indeed on a farm
> on an island I had to sort out broken bailers, tractors and so on.
> Now "proper" spares had to come, on a ferry, at a vast transportation
> overhead, from the mainland of Scotland. We could not afford
> that, so we fossicked (lovely verb) for whatever would do the job in the
> 'graveyard' of broken tractors, cars, stuff we had picked up from the
> local dump, and so on. Every single time we got our accursed bailer to
> bail the straw and the hay, we got the cotter pins we needed to
> connect the tractor to the plough, harrow, muck-spreader or whatever;
> never very elegant, but they worked. In fact my younger son was on that
> farm just 8 days ago and was shown some of my repair work by the
> farmer's son (the farmer is long dead); still functional after 25 years.
> I have, just, worked out a way to colourise the items I want, and while,
> churning through some socking great corpus that would take days, I only
> need it to colourise the sentences the previous routine has extracted,
> so that won't take that long.
> You, if it really seems such a good idea (and is it?) are more than
> welcome to download my stack
> and mess around with the script to your heart's content.
> AND, while we are talking about time-consuming exercises: having put 4
> hours of work into the thing, that seems, already, a bit more than the
> thing deserves as I am not interested in winning the Tour de France,
> simply extracting some data from a million word corpus with absolutely
> no deadline at all unless I choose to impose one. The results MAY get
> rolled into a paper my wife and I are THINKING of writing for an
> academic conference . . . .
> Almost ALL the stacks I have thrown out into the public domain in the
> last 6 months have come back to me with comments about how my code is
> clunky, inefficient, and so forth; and I would not doubt for a minute
> that that is probably true.
> HOWEVER, as far as I am concerned there is one enormous advantage about
> my code above thine, or anybody else's; while thy code and the code of
> many others is probably more efficient, more clever and gets things done
> more quickly, I don't understand the finer points of it, while I
> understand how my code works 100% because it was written by me, follows
> my logic, and does what I require it to do.
> It is always entertaining and instructive to see how people react to my
> code, and I often learn a lot from their reactions (not least about
> human psychology), including new coding tricks - but there always come a
> point where the burden of having to plough through other
> people's code (reflecting the way their minds work) feels like too much
> in comparison from anything I might learn from it.
> I also suspect that very many people share my interest in getting "the
> job done" rather than producing posh code.
> RunRev claim, on their website, that one can learn to code quickly. With
> Livecode one can learn how to code RELATIVELY quickly, up
> to a certain point; and many people who are not programmers qua
> programmers should be attracted by that because they have probably
> got other things to do other than JUST program.
> I am, at least to a certain extent, one of those people, as computer
> programming is not the hinge on which my life rotates (and this became
> extremely clear just recently when I spent 3 weeks driving round Europe
> without access to any programming facilities at all), and that is
> why I may come across as a bit "rude and crude" to other programmers:
> mainly because I have evry little patience with reducing 25 lines
> of code to 10 if it will take 12 hours to do that.
> The cow has a breach-presentation calf inside it which will kill her and
> the calf within half an hour, to hell with calling the vet,
> I'm going to get my right arm up inside her and manipulate the calf so
> that it is facing head forwards:
> whether I do that the way posh younger sons of the aristocracy learn how
> to with their rubber gloves off at agricultural school
> or not I just don't care: I am trying to save 2 lives, however I do it.
> I apologise if that comes across as a rant (well . . . it IS a rant),
> but it is something that I feel quite strongly about, and fell needs to
> be said
> as a necessary corrective, from time to time.
> One of the things I DO LOVE about LiveCode is that there is room for
> "Farmer Richmond" as well as all the "Real Coders", and I do
> think that that is something that Runtime Revolution would do well to
> tak more tent of in their advertising.
More information about the Use-livecode