wherorangi

Phil Deakins wrote: The end. the end is Phil that you dont like to be questioned when we write code how do we know what the language syntax is ? how do we know what the language and API functions and parameters are ? How do we know how they are used ? how do we know how binary trees work ? how do we know how 2D sprite graphics work ? How do we know how to create screen components ? How do we know to accept and validate user inputs ? How do we know how to build a randomiser ? how do we know what a scenegraph is and hows it used ? How do we know how to read/write to storage ? How do we now how to transmit data over a network ? How do we know all the other things that a coder needs to know ? we dont just "know" these things

Phil Deakins wrote: She did effectively call me a liar (I did originally use the word 'effectively), by arguing that what I said isn't the way that programmes are written, concluding that what I said was therefore untrue, and that I'd merely put some bits of code in to tie other people's routines together. That's paraphrasing her, because I'm not going to go and quote it all, but it's an accurate paraphrase. She would have been better to simply say that she didn't believe me, instead of going into details about how big programmes are written - something that she can only read about - even though that would also have been calling me a liar. I wonder who she thinks writes the stuff that other people use in their programmes i didnt call you a liar, effectively or otherwise. I said that you are self-delusional to make the claim you did writing anything large and complex in any language without reference to any other source is nonsense what we can get big ups for from our peers in the field is our design work, and the choices of algorithms and how efficiently we can then code them up you have already started walking back what you initially said. Was a pretty bold claim so am not surprised that you are. Is good that you have as well if we did go thru all the programs you have written then we would be able to see a whole heap of stuff invented by others embedded in your work. Any peer review of your works would show this. You might not recognise this yourself, until is pointed out to you tho. Which if you had researched prior to coding stuff up then you would have seen this for yourself this is true of any large complex program what peer review can also reveal is that there can be some technique that the coder has used to efficiently implement a algorithm(s) in a way not seen before what is more common tho is that the design of the app (the flow and the choices of algorithms included). And the efficiency of the coding is such that the app works really well as a whole. And when so the programmer can get big ups for that from their peers, and rewarded by the buyers + seeing as how we now sharing I just add something about myself i have mentioned before that I am a social worker. Is my specialist field what I also am is a software review analyst. The org I work for and our affiliates and sister orgs, buy a lot of bespoke software and customisations. We have millions of dollars of public money to account for my job is to ensure that we all get what we paid for. And that the supplied code, both bespoke and customisation, is unencumbered by 3rd-parties, and when 3rd-party is included then it has been used compliant with 3rd-party licenses, patents and copyrights. Whether the contractors know this or not and then after review I write a report which then goes to Legal. After Legal have reviewed and annotated it, then it comes back to me. And then taking what Legal may have said into account, I redraft the report and also write a buy or dont buy recommendation for the HoD and CEO. Which when recommended as Buy then gets included in a further CEO report to the Board I also review the responses we get from contractors to our RFQs (which I also have a part in drafting). On response I just make a recommendation to winnow the contractors down to more than 1 and not greater than 3. And then I sit in the meetings with these 2 or 3 and ask questions. And then after that round then I write a recommendation, which also goes to HoD and CEO and Board, where the decision is made. And I have to present my report in person as well in doing this I read truckloads of code. I read truckloads of supporting documentation as well. And I research everything. I will ask questions, and in the meetings with our contractors I will call it as I see it. And when I get offered generalisations then I will just call that straight out as well bc we are talking millions of dollars of other peoples money then some of the meetings can get a bit rugged sometimes. I have been called worse than a liar. I dont think there is a insult that I have never heard. I just let it all wash over me tho, and keep the focus on the documents and the questions has got lots better tho in the last about 2 years now. The people sitting across have worked it out. How it works at our place. We not interested in buying stuff based on generalisations and bold claims that any cursory examination of can be shown to be less bold than whats been claimed whats important in these situations are the questions and that they are asked. The answers given speak for themselves. Not asking the questions is where stuff fails is what the contractors dont know that concerns us as orgs. It can get really expensive when the contractors dont know that what they have coded up and supplied isnt their property why that often is, is bc the contractors dont ask questions of themselves. They define themselves, and what they subsequently do, by the answers they give to questions from others is a big factor this in why lots of large complex software projects fail. People often dont ask questions of themselves as buyers, or of themselves as suppliers + you are right tho about one thing about me. I am not expert at any one thing. I just have broad knowledge about the stuff I need to know in my work thru gaining this knowledge I have never presumed that any question that might occur to me has never been asked by someone else before. And bc so then when I do research then I am looking for the question. Like how else could this question be framed ? when find the questions then the answers come. The answers might not always be complete, but when so they can often lead to reframing the initial question. Which is helpful I find

Phil Deakins wrote: I have no doubt whatsoever that the solution to the coding problem only takes you 5 minutes (you said " the time it takes me to type it") because you've remembered, or would copy, someone else's solution, and not because you ever created it from your own mind. just on this as well is called reading the manual and doing research, and then applying what we have learned from this as opposed to just using our super powahs + just on that code as well. The algorithm for the encoder and decoder was first published by Horst Feistel. Which I did reference on the post the post came about bc I was eating a ice block. On the wrapping was a alphanumeric code. And when text the code to the prize competition promotor can win a prize. I have seen quite a lot of these prize promos on other stuff as well i noticed that the codes on the iceblocks in the same box were not sequential. They were in some random order and I wondered about how they did that so I researched it and found out about the works of Mr Feistel. I thought thats quite interesting and I coded it up in LSL and posted it

ps just a bit more on this with games and any other app then we can often say that the design of the game/app as whole is a original work. Even tho it may sometimes contain elements common to similar games/apps in the catergory when coding up these apps then very little of the code itself is original work. And the closer we get to the metal the originality of the code approaches zero. For sure is some original code work even at this level, but this is quite rare + over the street quite a while ago now was a chat about original works by residents in SL i made a similar point. And suggested that the number of original works in SL was quite few relative to the total number of people who create stuff in SL to show this then I suggested to just make a list of people who have contributed a original work to SL. What happens when you do then out of the millions of residents sign ups over the years (about 50 million now about) then we would struggle to list even 500 people when we expand this to include those who have built off the original works in interesting and different ways then are list grows to a few 1000s. Be struggling tho to even list 5000 of these people and then there are 10s of 1000s of people on top of this who replicate what they have seen made by others. By replicate I dont mean copybot. Just see something and they go I could make something like that and they do

Phil Deakins wrote: I suspect that the "combatants" have left the building - except me, of course jejejjjeje (: nevah !!! (:

Phil Deakins wrote: Someone suggested that climbing Everest is just a long hard slog up a mountain and, as long as sufficient precautions are taken, not dangerous. She was wrong. Things can and do go wrong, regardless of precautions, and people do die. If you're going to have a go, do take the precautions, but don't even think about getting acute appendicitis up there you now introducing unpredictability into the equation some thoughts like how predictable the outcome of the next step in a pathway to achieving a goal may or may not be + a example something that (you) Phil and me and others were engaged with for a time was the Star Child rallies. Drive a vehicle in SL quite a long way across multiple sims mechanically driving the vehicle is pretty straightforward. The vehicle has its own quirks for sure, however it goes pretty much like another other SL vehicle crossing from one sim to another sim is pretty straightforward mechanically as well. Point the vehicle at the next sim and go + what makes this kinda task complex is that we have no direct control over the server or the network. When there is a storm or outage on the network or server then successfully completing the crossing is not a certainty. Is some degree of probable compounded to some extent by a partial inability to predict what that degree might be, or to predict the severity and timing of a network storm or outage. Ameliorated to some extent by our ability to anticipate, predict a likely outcome based on what we might know. And our ability to evaluate this in determining our next step. Go ahead, go round, or wait when we need to perform multiple crossings of multiple sims then the probability that we will successfully complete the whole journey lessens chuck in stuff like orbs, insim lag, parcel settings etc, some of which is predictable and some not, then the journey to completion gets more complex in these kinda somethings then experience starts to factor in quite largely in terms of successful completion. Even tho the mechanics of these somethings can be fairly straightforward to learn, understand and execute

Phil Deakins wrote: I'm a programmer who, among other major programmes, and a myriad of smaller ones, has written 2 complex multi-user online games from scratch, without refering to any known games algorithms or anyone else's work. only an amateur makes this kinda claim. Is self-delusional. Make this claim in a professional coding shop and you will get shown the door we can see a lot of these claims on the LSL wiki as well. Codes posted without reference to sources, and a claimers license slapped on code as well, as if they invented what they posted. In the case of amateurs is understandable when happens. Professionals just dont do this

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I don't recall a scripting task from you. Does it have anything to do with this coversation? I can't imagine that it does. Most of the stuff I sell has one or more scripts in it, and they were all written by me. The scripts range from the very simple to the very complex. So there are two things to mention about your scripting task - (1) I simply wouldn't do it as a challenge, let along an unnecessary 'task'. If you want to assess my abilities as a scripter, visit my store. (2) whatever it was, someone who has been programming for 30 years in various languages, including machine code, would find it easy to do. That includes me, of course. So if it's easy for you, it would be an absolute doddle for me. page 7. message 64 i be interested to see how long it would take you. if is a doddle and you are a 30 year veteran then you should be able to post the solution by tomorrow ? is a challenge for sure. Is something you have to work out if dont already know. I dont have to work out the answers to these kinda problems. I already know the answers same as is a challenge for new people to work stuff out when they start in SL for the first time. Whats easy/difficult is always relative to what we know already By 'complex' I mean from the point of view of SL, but nothing in SL is anywhere near as complex as some of the major programmes I've written single-handedly, which include two multi-user online adventure games, one of which was graphic long before SL came out, and both of which were hybrids; i.e. a high level language together with machine code. They weren't the only hybrids I wrote either. The probability is that your programming abilities, of which you're silly enough boast, only scratch the surface of programming, and you are a relative beginner. Anyway, give me a shout when you've written the online multi-user text adventure game, and if it works we'll test you on a graphic one. Or even give me shout when you're capable of writing even a very simple programme in machine code. Or perhaps even give me a shout when you can realistically call yourself a competent programmer. You choose, but if it's the latter you'll be required to prove it. is not a boast. Is a fact. I do know the posted codes demonstrate algorithmic complexity. In this case O(n) complexity. For both the encoder which is posted and the decoder which is not posted as a games programmer yourself apparently, you would know the significance of this algorithm to games programming. And know that it is a pretty basic 101 game engine algorithm found in pretty much any game engine API. Which any competent games programmer knows how its used, why its used and how to write it as you say tho, you write furniture scripts, which is also a fact + what I always find interesting on the internets is that whereever there are lots of self-taught amateurs how they always rate themselves on what code they have written when asked about algorithms and to show in code their understanding of stuff like O(n) vs O(n2) then they have no idea. And often start rabbit on about their ability to type lines of syntax into a text editor + ps if you do know how to write this decoder, being a game programmer, then I give you a prize of 100L. Like the encoder, the decoder has to be O(n) complexity as well to win the prize tho

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't recall a scripting task from you. Does it have anything to do with this coversation? I can't imagine that it does. Most of the stuff I sell has one or more scripts in it, and they were all written by me. The scripts range from the very simple to the very complex. So there are two things to mention about your scripting task - (1) I simply wouldn't do it as a challenge, let along an unnecessary 'task'. If you want to assess my abilities as a scripter, visit my store. (2) whatever it was, someone who has been programming for 30 years in various languages, including machine code, would find it easy to do. That includes me, of course. So if it's easy for you, it would be an absolute doddle for me. page 7. message 64 i be interested to see how long it would take you. if is a doddle and you are a 30 year veteran then you should be able to post the solution by tomorrow ? is a challenge for sure. Is something you have to work out if dont already know. I dont have to work out the answers to these kinda problems. I already know the answers same as is a challenge for new people to work stuff out when they start in SL for the first time. Whats easy/difficult is always relative to what we know already

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Imo, slogging to the top of Everest is difficult because it's such a looooong, arduous, uphill slog over snow and ice. It's not comparable to a loooong walk along a more level surface. Therefore, it is inherently difficult, imo. neither is inherently difficult. The mountain and the level surface are relatively easy/difficult for the same person for a fully fit and healthy and well-prepared mountaineer slogging a mountain is relatively easier for them to achieve than say for an unfit and unprepared person with health issues to walk down to the shop and back You're talking a load of crap. If doing something is hard, then it's difficult to do. A very very long and arduous slog up Everest is hard and difficult. Go and do it, and then me whether or not it was difficult. Better still, stop talking crap. how you getting on with the scripting task I posited for you earlier is a really easy task to complete, not difficult at all, for me anyways. I can see tho how you might consider it to be difficult for you to complete, and why that might be

Pamela Galli wrote: So to sum up, "steep" is a relative term. Depends on the person and also the purpose. yes

Phil Deakins wrote: Imo, slogging to the top of Everest is difficult because it's such a looooong, arduous, uphill slog over snow and ice. It's not comparable to a loooong walk along a more level surface. Therefore, it is inherently difficult, imo. neither is inherently difficult. The mountain and the level surface are relatively easy/difficult for the same person for a fully fit and healthy and well-prepared mountaineer slogging a mountain is relatively easier for them to achieve than say for an unfit and unprepared person with health issues to walk down to the shop and back

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: So new users could choose to learn all those things in the first 24 hours, making it a steep learning curve, but they don't have to. They can choose not to learn things so quickly. So I'll add something to my original statement:- SL does not have an inherent steep learning curve. now you just being silly using "inherent" as if that somehow qualifies your opinion is nonsense is like saying that ascending Mt Everest is inherently easy or inherently difficult is a complete misuse of the word inherent ascending Mt Everest is inherently dangerous. That it is has no bearing on how easy or difficult the ascent will be for each person undertaking the ascent no matter how much time the person allows themselves to complete this Do try not to be so silly, eh? Incidentally, climbing Mount Everest IS inherently difficult. That's what makes it inherently dangerous. is dangerous when the weather is bad. And the weather can close in and go bad quite quickly. Quickly being relative to how fast we can get off the mountain when it does. Is the relativeness of this and that we cant control the weather that makes it inherently dangerous when the weather is not bad then is just a slog to the top. Slogging a mountain is not difficult for a person who is well prepared and ably supported. Is nothing inherently difficult or easy about it. Is only difficult when we are not prepared or supported incidentally, I have climbed a few mountains now. Not Everest tho. I would like to have a go at it one day. And hopefully the weather will be good and I can stand on the top. That be pretty cool

Phil Deakins wrote: So new users could choose to learn all those things in the first 24 hours, making it a steep learning curve, but they don't have to. They can choose not to learn things so quickly. So I'll add something to my original statement:- SL does not have an inherent steep learning curve. now you just being silly using "inherent" as if that somehow qualifies your opinion is nonsense is like saying that ascending Mt Everest is inherently easy or inherently difficult is a complete misuse of the word inherent ascending Mt Everest is inherently dangerous. That it is has no bearing on how easy or difficult the ascent will be for each person undertaking the ascent no matter how much time the person allows themselves to complete this

911 Steampunk wrote: BTW, how do you get your profile pic as your icon>? top right your screen My Settings \ Avatars \ From Uploaded Images