|
I can use my LALR(1) code perhaps, adapting it to generate viable prefixes for LL(k)
LR(anything) and LL(k for k>1) i think? share a sister theory here?
Or so it seems to me.
I need a viable set of what can come first in a production:
foo bar baz
foo baz bar
foo bar
baz
and what can follow it, which I think? I can also get by generating viable prefixes.
I also might be able to use the trick of generating it as a state machine to render my matching code.
holy socks batman.
if i'm right about this, then why didn't the academics just say so without all that ridiculous math? 
I might be able to use code I've already written to do stuff I though I didn't know how to do. I gotta try this. WOW
I think I just leveled up.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: if i'm right about this, then why didn't the academics just say so without all that ridiculous math?
Because that's what academics do, given that it's all they know. I've solved a few really complex problems that the academicians were totally unable to. In one case, I took a multi-spectral image analysis that took minutes to run on a single video frame, realized all they were doing was an absurdly complicated lookup algorithm, and turned it into a real time mapping, all within the vertical refresh period of the video stream.
Never trust academics!
|
|
|
|
|
I never took CS, because i never went to college, but i do remember reading that academics typically treat math as purely "functional" and stateless, and leave things like lookup tables to practice rather than theory.
I hate to defend them, but this might be such a case. I initially ran into a similar issue implementing finite state machines from something theoretical.
But yeah I don't necessarily trust them either. Real world experience will kill pure theory, but having both is really the key to writing great code, I think, at least when it's complicated. Being able to subject your code to a rigorous mathematical treatment seems to have its advantages in terms of behavior diagramming and testing.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
A mathematician dealing with an algorithmic problem will be as suited as a software developer dealing with a mathematical problem. Horses for courses. It's like the old story where the old guy meets a neurosurgeon and asks him to take a look at his sore back.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
When I was taking CS, the mandated math courses were second year calculus and linear algebra. I haven't used either since. A complete waste of time in my opinion, unless you're a numerical analysis weenie or something.
What I found truly useful, and have used many times since, were combinatorics and graph theory. And abstract algebra to some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: unless you're a numerical analysis weenie or something
And you have a problem with us numerical analysis weenies...?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
No problem at all!
Just that you're weenies. 
|
|
|
|
|
It is just a matter of your problem space. I have used both calculus and linear algebra extensively over the years. I probably know those better now than when I studied them in school. After writing a few template-based vector and matrix classes, I definitely know the LA better now.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. I guess we gravitate to what we enjoy. Are those p-orbitals in your image?!
|
|
|
|
|
I only know it as the SuperShape. I call that one the "swollen asterisk." It is a truly amazing mathematical construct.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
modified 3-Jan-20 15:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the trick: applying (and enjoying). Uni was all equations and abstract exercises and videos.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: the old guy meets a neurosurgeon and asks him to take a look at his sore back
Companion joke:
One day, a cardiologist stops by the Mercedes dealership to pick up his car, which he'd dropped off for routine service. The technician is just finishing up. As he wipes his hands and closes the hood, he tell the doctor:
"Hey Doc! I just realized we're a lot alike. Lots of tubes and wires, and we occasionally replace parts when things get broken. Maybe I should up my rates, huh?"
The doctor ponders for a moment, and then smiles.
"That may be true, but I do it with the engine running."
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I never took CS, because i never went to college
Outfits that only hire people with degrees could learn a lot from this. University has gotten so ridiculously expensive, not to mention politicized, that if I were running a firm that needed lots of software engineers, I'd seriously think about starting a technical school to train them.
|
|
|
|
|
IBM had the "on the job training manuals". Operating systems, hardware, Autocoder. And the companies that made you take calls with no experience speeded the process along. This company had a no "CS" policy; they expected that trainees would stay on longer, and they were right. Programmer Aptitude Test used for screening several hundred candidates down to the requirement.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I will repeat myself : it depends on your problem space. If a company does nothing but make websites and web apps then a degree would likely be optional. My line of work is automation systems and in my over thirty years in it I have never worked with a successful engineer who did not have a degree. In fact, all of the worst programmers I have worked with had CS degrees and I have worked with several horrible programmers who had PhDs in CS. In this context, I define horrible as someone whose work had to be completely rewritten.
What I have found over those decades is there is a lot more to writing good software for automation than knowing computer science. The odd thing about this is the field of automation software is really not that specialized. We have to deal with nearly all aspects of typical software with only a few exceptions. Some people are just not very well-suited for it.
Sometimes I wonder how many of my former co-workers visit this site. 
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I never took CS, because i never went to college,
I only did 2 years of community college, where I took courses in English, Philosophy, and French. When the head of the CS department asked me to review his book on the Commodore PET for technical accuracy, I knew taking CS courses would be pointless. As did, of all things, take a Fortran course, using actual real punch card machines.  (This was 1980 for Pete's sake!)
|
|
|
|
|
Having been an academic myself, and being an experienced programmer (by now), I do know what you're talking about. I think the main problem is that academics are only interested in the existance of a solution. Once they know the solution exists, the way to find it is uninteresting. And, provided they get to the point they've actually found a solution, they're not interested in optimizing it's performance.
However, if you specify a performance constraint as part of the problem, you can bring even academics to producing performant solutions. I've made it a habit to silently add such constraints to the problems handed to me in case there was no such constraint explicitely mentioned.
P.S.: Maybe I should mention that my Master was on Math and CS. That of course makes quite a difference.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
modified 6-Jan-20 9:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Not a fan of falsies?
I'm undecided. 
|
|
|
|
|
More research is required?
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Optional Chaining
Looks like c#. I like it. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I first read your topic line as "Null Contamination" and wondered What. The. ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) . Is. That?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
It's when nice, clean, empty variables get contaminated by having actual data stuffed in them.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
My two favourite features of C# from the last couple of years. Good to see it being adopted by TypeScript (but not surprising!)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
