13 posts • joined 31 Dec 2010
Re: Horrible Travesty of BASIC
The fact is that improvements to BASIC that allowed it to do "sophisticated" things like declare local variables, use pointers, be compiled, etc. arrived in a piecemeal fashion in a whole bunch of implementations during the 1990s This contributed to the fact that BASIC is a hodgepodge of hundreds of different languages. The fact is that GOTSUB NN and other BASIC syntax is incomprehensible. I'm not bitter, I'm very grateful that I never had to program in BASIC, except my stint converting BASIC programs into C to improve their performance.
Also I mis-spoke about getting my big break in the industry. Actually, I ran the company owner's interpreted BASIC program on a data sample he gave me and in 45 minutes I gave up. My C version ran the whole job in 20 seconds, so it didn't run in 1% of the time, it ran in less than 0.0074 of the time. He told me that the program would complete its task in a hour so this was probably more like 0.00555... as much time.
Re: Horrible Travesty of BASIC
Back then, ALL versions of BASIC were crap.
Re: There Really is no such thing as BASIC
Ask your boyfriend. At least I'm not nostalgic for something terrible.
There Really is no such thing as BASIC
Because the original version of BASIC was so bad, various dialects were created to add the features of a real language. These were added in an unorganized and uncoordinated fashion, resulting in a Tower of Babel of BASIC dialects, see:
What a nightmare to program in a language with hundreds and hundreds of incompatible dialects! Good bye BASIC. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Horrible Travesty of BASIC
BASIC was a RETARDED language. It was a toy language created for writing toy programs on toy computers. All of the variables were global. It didn't support any of the features of a real language, like pointers. You could use it to write a small program but it couldn't be used to write structured programs. If you tried to write a large program you got spaghetti code. The syntax was crap. And it was interpreted. I got my first big break in programming by re-writing a BASIC program in C for my potential employer. My C version ran in one percent of the time and I was hired. C was available at the same time as BASIC and is still the backbone of modern programming while BASIC has (thankfully) been cast upon the ash heap of history. I am so glad that I learned C instead of BASIC and that my exposure to it was limited because it sucked.
There is no such word as erucate and if it existed, the Sun would have erucatED it (past tense).
Confused Ignorant Journalists
There are a bunch of really buggered up English language versions of this story on the web. It turns out that the brick only has a Calendar Round not even a Long Count on it and it has no distance glyphs to indicate it refers to the future. A Calendar Round is a combination of a 260 day ritual calendar and a 365 day vague solar year with no leap year. It can only specify a date as far as 18,980 days or 51.9641 solar years. See:
The Calendar Round on the brick is 4 Ahau 3 K'ank'n. Yes this is the same CR as the one that will occur on 18.104.22.168.0. Does this mean any thing? No, Not according to David Stuart, one of the world's leading experts on Mayan epigraphy and participant in the Palenque congress. Still the media went wild and reported that it did.
This is B**l Sh*t.
How do you know I just read the Wikipedia article? You must be psychic or you're stalking me. Maybe I'm one of the world's leading authorities on this subject and I wrote the Wikipedia article. I thought that by reading what I wrote you might deduce the above.
The length of the tropical year is 365.2422 days so 13 Bak'tuns is: (144,000 x 13) / 365.2422 = 5,125.3661 and THERE IS NO 13 Bak'tun LONG CYCLE in the Long Count anyway.
22.214.171.124.0 is December 21, 2012 using the GMT correlation *NOT* December 23. Those idiot anthropologists (or whoever wrote that press release) don't have any idea what they're talking about. See:
BALDERDASH: "the expiration of the thirteenth and final Baktun of the current long count on or about December 21 next year" - This is CODSWALLOP. THERE IS NO 13 Bak'tun CYCLE in the Long Count. There are NO calendric inscriptions that use 13 Bak'tuns and a large number of them (in the form of distance inscriptions, particularly at Palenque and Long Reckonings in the Dresden Codex) that use 20 Bak'tuns in a Piktun. The first Piktun won't be completed until Friday, October 13, 4772. There are no Mayan doomsday prophesies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar.
The "Mayan calendar long-count completes" is codswallop. It's actually the "Maya" calendar. The Long Count doesn't end in 2012 or ever for that matter. There's no five thousand year cycle in the Long Count. December 21, 2012 is the completion of a bak'tun - a period of 144,000 days. 126.96.36.199.19 is followed by 188.8.131.52.0. There are no Mayan prophesies regarding anything happening on this date. See:
Who cares about all about the complete crap promoted by new-age morons regarding this date anyway? But at least you could get your story straight regarding the Long Count.