User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (added closing )) |
m (postmortem comments.) |
||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
(I got permission to post the reply.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
(I got permission to post the reply.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
Gulp. I should've re-read my reply before I OKed it. Oh well, what's done is done. Water under the |
|||
bridge, Split milk. Yesterday's news. Water over the dam. Yada, yada, yada. |
|||
I'm still in the midst of writing my general-purpose, nicer-slicer-dicer, all-in-one, one size fits all, |
|||
money-back guaranteed (REXX) calculator (for a lack of a better word) program. It has over 1,225 functions |
|||
in it, unlimited precision, supports plotting, histograms, many, many format of output. It runs almost anywhere |
|||
and (for a few like-minded friends and myself), puts the recreation and fun back in recreational mathematics again. |
|||
I've found that quite a few of the tasks in Rosetta Code can be solved by a REXX routine (subroutine) that's |
|||
in my "calculator". I rip out the code from the offending, er, REXX code, and, ahhhhh, the polite phrase would |
|||
be to make it (more or less) readable to the novice programmer, and then add comments for most of the statements. |
|||
At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I'm getting more and more lazy as I think adding comments to my |
|||
code is like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and have become more lax in the addition of REXX statement |
|||
comments. [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] |