In the context of LATEX, some Pythonista asked what the big
successes of Lisp were. I think there were at least three *big*
successes.
a. orbitz.com web site uses Lisp for algorithms, etc.
b. Yahoo store was originally written in Lisp.
c. Emacs
The issues with these will probably come up, so I might as well
mention them myself (which will also make this a more balanced
post)
a. AFAIK Orbitz frequently has to be shut down for maintenance
(read "full garbage collection" - I'm just guessing: with
generational garbage collection, you still have to do full
garbage collection once in a while, and on a system like that
it can take a while)
b. AFAIK, Yahoo Store was eventually rewritten in a non-Lisp.
Why? I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you :)
c. Emacs has a reputation for being slow and bloated. But then
it's not written in Common Lisp.
Are ViaWeb and Orbitz bigger successes than LATEX? Do they
have more users? It depends. Does viewing a PDF file made
with LATEX make you a user of LATEX? Does visiting Yahoo
store make you a user of ViaWeb?
For the sake of being balanced: there were also some *big*
failures, such as Lisp Machines. They failed because
they could not compete with UNIX (SUN, SGI) in a time when
performance, multi-userism and uptime were of prime importance.
(Older LispM's just leaked memory until they were shut down,
newer versions overcame that problem but others remained)
Another big failure that is often _attributed_ to Lisp is AI,
of course. But I don't think one should blame a language
for AI not happening. Marvin Mins ky, for example,
blames Robotics and Neural Networks for that.
Jul 18 '05
303  17783 
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:03:34 +0100, Robin Becker
<ro***@jessikat .fsnet.co.uk> wrote: In article <3f************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Stephen Horne
<st***@nineree ds.fsnet.co.uk> writesAs I already mentioned, if a primitive person observes a car and
theorises that there is a demon under the hood, that does not become
true. Reality does not care about anyones perceptions as it is not
dependent on them in any way - perceptions are functionally dependent
on reality, and our perceptions are designed to form a useful model of
reality.We observe electrons and make up mathematical theories etc etc, but in
reality little demons are driving them around. :)
Your assertion that there is an objective reality requires proof as
well. Probably it cannot be proved, but must be made an axiom. The
scientific method requires falsifiability.
I can't proove it exactly, but I think I can show the alternative to
be logically inconsistent quite simply.
If you assert that there is no objective reality - only perception -
then I have as much right to claim assert my perceptions as anyone
else. And I percieve that there is an objective reality.
The fact is we cannot perceive well enough to determine reality. The
physicists say that observation alters the result so if Heisenberg is
right there is no absolute reality. Perhaps by wishing hard I can get my
batteries to last longer 1 time in 10^67.
If that were true, why should it only work 1 time in 10^67?
As I said before, the limit of the accuracy of our perceptions is
basically the limit of information processing. *Not* information
theory - we need machinery to do the processing. That machinery has
limits, cannot be perfect, and thus is pretty well optimised to
achieve a purpose as well as possible without the need to be perfect.
The reason it can't percieve quantum effects is because we have no
evolutionary need to percieve things at that level, and thus have no
senses etc etc to deal with them.
Quantum effects are actually a good example, so lets take a look...
Yes, a particle may have two or more states at the same time. But once
*any* observer observes that particle, it resolves to the same state
for *all* observers. Individual observers cannot choose for themselves
what to perceive.
Still, it is worth asking what is so special about this observer. What
makes a particular arrangement of matter special, so that it can
'observe' while other arrangements cannot. Is it some mystic
metaphysical conscience, as many have asserted, or is it perhaps
nothing magical at all, and nothing to do with mind?
I tend to go with Penrose on this. That is, a superposition of states
has strict limits with respect to gravity. Whenever particles are in a
superposition, space-time must also be in a superposition. Particles
therefore have different levels of gravitational energy in each
superposition. This creates an uncertainty in the system. And as
Heisenberg states, a large uncertainty can only exist for a short
time.
Thus the reason why Schrodingers cat cannot be alive and dead at the
same time (at least for more than a tiny fraction of a second) is
because, as with any 'observer', it has a significant mass and
therefore the alive and dead superpositions create too much
uncertainty in spacetime.
Observers are nothing more than large masses that don't stay in
superposition states for significant times, and thus once the observer
(or cat, or for that matter vial of poison) is superposed the whole
system must rapidly resolve to one state or another because of the
scale of uncertainty involved in spacetime.
But it is easier to handle Schrodingers cat that that. According to
the thought experiment, any observation - no matter how indirect -
resolves the state of the system. But at the microscopic scale, that
is simply not the case - superposed particles interact with each other
in ways that allow the superposition of states to be detected, or else
the there could be no experimental proof of superpositions. There is
no such experimental proof at macroscopic scales, thus the same kind
of superposition simply cannot be happening (at perceptible
timescales) at the macroscopic scale.
Just as with relativity, the observer is certainly important but not
defining except in an extremely restricted way. There is a reality
which the observer is observing, and which the observer cannot define
arbitrarily.
Consciousness is not magic. Brains, like the rest of the body, are
just another arrangement of matter - certainly a complex and useful
arrangement, but it is still obeying (not defining) the rules layed
down by the universe we live in. There is nothing special about people
which lets them arbitrarily define the universe.
Awareness certainly mucks things up in socio-economic systems which are
also real in some sense. I hear people putting forward the view that
time is a construct of our minds; does time flow?
Take a look around and you will see that it does. Do you really
arbitrarily choose not to be able to observe next weeks lottery
numbers before you place your bet?
We know that the models provided by physics are imperfect. Maybe some
day someone will explain why time is different to space. Maybe not.
But what we are able to percieve does not define reality - it only
forms an imperfect model.
The fact that perception is not perfect does not mean there isn't a
defining reality to percieve. There must be something that ties all
our perceptions together, though, or else why are they sufficiently
compatible that we can interact at all.
This is a bit too meta-physical, but then much of modern physics is like
that. Since much of physics is done by counting events we are in the
position of the man who having jumped out of the top floor observes that
all's well after falling past the third floor as falling past floors
10,9,... etc didn't hurt. We cannot exclude exceptional events.
I'm not excluding the exceptional. I'm also not excluding what I can
see for myself just by opening my eyes.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
Robin Becker <ro***@jessikat .fsnet.co.uk> wrote: What we humans call 'reality' is completely determined by our senses and
the instruments we can build. How we interpret the data is powerfully
influenced by our social environment and history. As an example the
persistence of material objects is alleged by some to be true only for
small time scales <10^31 years; humans don't have long enough to learn
that.
Persistence of material objects will become obsolete much sooner. See: http://crnano.org/systems.htm
This discusses three ethical systems and their usefulness for dealing
with the coming nanotechnology era.
The articles conclusion has quite a Pythonic ring to it, I feel.
However just like Python, it will have to give up on backward
compatibility someday :-)
Anton
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:47 GMT, Alex Martelli <al***@aleax.it >
wrote: Stephen Horne wrote:
... True. But perception cannot change reality. Reality is not about
perception - it existed long before there was anything capable of
percieving.
You are so WONDERFULLY certain about such things -- including the
fact that "before" is crucial, i.e., the arrow of time has some
intrinsic meaning.
Take a look around. When you can walk back to last Wednesday, I'll
believe that time has no special meaning.
Just because physicists don't have a perfect model yet, it doesn't
change basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes.
If you want to believe that time has no significance, proove it. When
you have successfully discounted all the clear and obvious artifacts
of times arrow, I will be happy to consider the possibility that times
arrow has no significance.
"observer-participancy" is a delightful way to say "perception ", of
course
No. Perception does not require participation of any kind, except in
that sense (which does not imply control) in which any observation
involves an interaction and changes what it observes.
"deriving a working model of reality from sensory input" is what
perception is all about.
, but the most interesting part of this is that, to a theoretical-
enough physicist, the mere fact that something happens in the future is
obviously no bar to that something "building" something else in the past.
Yes, for the theoretician. It is a theoreticians job to test the
limits of the current models, and thus hopefully find better models.
But look around you. When was the last time you lived in a house that
was due to be built 50 years later?
The model is not reality, but only a working approximation of reality.
If the theoreticians could arbitrarily choose the results, why would
anyone bother with experiments?
Now, it IS quite possible, of course, that Wheeler's working hypothesis
that "the world is a self-synthesizing system of existences, built on
observer-participancy" will one day turn out to be unfounded -- once
somebody's gone to the trouble of developing it out completely in fully
predictive form, devise suitable experiments, and monitor results.
Or else someone could simply say "I do not require that hypothesis".
But to dismiss the hypothesis out of hand, "just because", does not
seem to me to be a productive stance. That the universe cannot have
built its own past through future acts of perception by existences
within the universe is "obvious".. . but so, in the recent past, were
SO many other things, that just didn't turn out to hold...:-).
Absolutely true. But take a close look at the pattern. The central
role of people in defining the universe is something that, step by
step, we are being forced to give up. We are not created in the image
of god, the Earth is not the center of the universe, and our minds are
no more special than any other arrangement of matter.
In quantum theory, the observer is nothing more than a sufficient mass
that a superposition must be resolved quickly. Not so long ago, people
were grasping to the idea that being an 'observer' in quantum physics
was a special function of human consciousness. I do not need that
hypothesis any more than I need the hypothesis of god, or the
hypothesis that we are living in the matrix acting as magical
batteries that somehow produce more energy than we consume.
Searle has written a book with a curiously similar title, "The
Construction of Social Reality", and takes hundreds of pages to defend
the view that there ARE "brute facts" independent of human actions
and perceptions -- but does NOT deny the existence of "social reality"
superimposed , so to speak, upon "brute reality".
Yes - but that "social reality" is nothing special either. There are
good practical reasons for it - reasons which can be derived fairly
simply from what we know of reality.
If you, like me, had Asperger syndrome you would understand the
practical consequences of not having full access to the definition of
"social reality".
As it happens, I have little patience for the constructionism vs.
deconstructioni sm thing. I have not chosen a side, and I do not see
deconstructioni sm as a single true faith. I do not believe all the
things that constructionist s might say "then you must believe X" to.
To be honest, I don't see the point of basing opinions on what was
said by philosophers before the current level of knowledge about
physics and about the mind was achieved.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qr****@knm.org .pl> wrote in message news:<pa******* *************** ******@knm.org. pl>... 1 app = wxPySimpleApp()
2 frame = MainWindow(None , -1, "A window")
3 frame.Show(True )
4 app.MainLoop()
Here, I have to put each line in a magical order. Deviate the
slightest bit, the thing crashes hard. It is hard to work with this
order; wxPython inherited an old design (not wxPython's fault), and
it's showing its age.
I'd fix it, but functions don't give me that power.
Why?
Ok, here I need to make every line execute in order or it crashes.
The problem is that, like Lisp, Python wants to greedily execute any
function I give it. So if I try abstracting lines 1, 3 and 4 in a
function, like the following, it will execute line 2 first, crashing
the system:
def make_app(frame) :
app = wxPySimpleApp() # 1
frame.Show(True ) # 3
app.MainLoop() # 4
# oops, #2 is executed first. game over!
make_app( MainWindow(None , -1, "Sample editor") ) # 2
So I have to somehow wrap up line 2 in something so it won't greedily
execute. One way is to flash-freeze it in a function, say:
lambda: MainWindow(None , -1, "A window")
or freeze it in a list:
[MainWindow, None, -1, "A window"]
And these are possible solutions. But it's less readable and frankly
strange to anyone who has to read my code. It's a weird functional
trick to deal with side-effect ridden code. When I really just wanted
to make execution work in the right order. So I likely fail in making
it more readable and maintainable, which is the whole point in doing
this. I need to specify the order of execution,
What's the problem in specifying the order of execution in functions?
Because in most languages (like Python and Lisp), functions don't give
the right amount of control over side-effects. They're great when
side-effects don't matter, but once they do, something like macros are
made for that situation.
Now, is this a big deal? Not really; it doesn't dominate the
advantages of using Python and wxPython. Just something I noticed.
But the tool is missing from the programmer's belt -- and whoever
defines a framework is already writing a new language that people must
deal with.
What an outrageously off-topic thread, I can't resist it :-)
Robin Becker <ro***@jessikat .fsnet.co.uk> writes: In article <2a************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Stephen Horne
<st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writesEven if this was not the case, you have not proved that reality is not
real.
What would it mean to 'prove that reality is not real', in fact??
Of course perception still varies slightly from person to
person, and more extensively from species to species,
It can vary in arbitrarily large ways. Our perception of the world is
based on our understanding of it (our models of it), including that
'understanding' embodied in our biology, put there by our evolutionary
past.
but it is not
independent of reality - it still has to be tied to reality as closely
as possible or else it is useless.
Absolutely! And there's no contradiction between that and the fact
that perception depends on both reality and our models of reality.
Actually it was not my intention to attempt any such proof, merely to
indicate that what we call real is at the mercy of perception.
The notion of reality is simply the working hypothesis that there's a
world out there to be understood, and that we have some hope of
understanding it, isn't it? Why give up on that until we get really
stuck? Science as a whole shows no sign of being stuck at present.
If I
choose to call a particular consensus version of reality the 'one true
reality' I'm almost certainly wrong.
What justification do you have for that statement?
As with most of current physics we
understand that 'reality' is a model.
Can you explain how that statement means anything at all?
An evolution based on low speed
physics hardly prepares us for quantum mechanics and spooky action at a
distance interactions. For that reality, which we cannot perceive, we
employ mathematicians as interpreters (priests?) to argue about the
number of hidden dimensions etc etc. Even causality is frowned upon in
some circles.
Well, they frown on it for no good reason. They're arbitrarily
setting aside a bunch of stuff and trying to legislate that
"everything works just *as if* it were real, except parts of it aren't
real". They can make that decision if they want to, but don't expect
others to likewise give up on science.
What we humans call 'reality' is completely determined by our senses and
the instruments we can build.
Well, your use of the word 'reality' is at odds with the way it's
usually understood (see above). You can use it in that way (where
most people would use the word 'model' in its place), but that only
serves to making communication more difficult.
How we interpret the data is powerfully
influenced by our social environment and history. As an example the
Oh, sure -- except that you're kind of implying that data even
*exists* in isolation from models of the world.
persistence of material objects is alleged by some to be true only for
small time scales <10^31 years; humans don't have long enough to learn
that.
It must be a mystery to you, then, how we know it. ;-)
John
BTW, if in my other post you notice that in line 2
"A window"
morphs into
"Sample editor"
don't let it bother your subconscious. I was wrestling with google
groups to post (acting buggy recently, I wonder what's up..), and in
the process I cut 'n pasted the wrong stuff from my code. But it acts
the same, except for the window having a different title.
Robin Becker <ro***@jessikat .fsnet.co.uk> writes: In article <3f************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Stephen Horne
<st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writesAs I already mentioned, if a primitive person observes a car and
theorises that there is a demon under the hood, that does not become
true. Reality does not care about anyones perceptions as it is not
dependent on them in any way - perceptions are functionally dependent
on reality, and our perceptions are designed to form a useful model of
reality.
We observe electrons and make up mathematical theories etc etc, but in
reality little demons are driving them around. :)
That's basically my model, too :-)
Your assertion that there is an objective reality requires proof as
well.
It does not.
Probably it cannot be proved, but must be made an axiom. The
scientific method requires falsifiability.
It's the whole project of science to understand reality, so the
concept is outside of science. I guess the phrase 'existence of
reality' means pretty much the same as 'the degree of success of
science'.
The fact is we cannot perceive well enough to determine reality. The
physicists say that observation alters the result so if Heisenberg is
Those physicists are wrong, and Stephen is right. It's a bit of an
embarrassment to Physics that some physicists apparently still believe
in the Copenhagen interpretation.
right there is no absolute reality. Perhaps by wishing hard I can get my
batteries to last longer 1 time in 10^67.
No, but you can get them to last arbitrarily long by being *extremely*
lucky ;-)
Awareness certainly mucks things up in socio-economic systems which are
also real in some sense.
But there's no mystery or deep philosophical problem there.
I hear people putting forward the view that
time is a construct of our minds; does time flow?
No, 'the flow of time' doesn't really mean anything.
Any more deep mysteries you want me to clear up for you while I'm
about this? ;-)
This is a bit too meta-physical, but then much of modern physics is like
that. Since much of physics is done by counting events we are in the
position of the man who having jumped out of the top floor observes that
all's well after falling past the third floor as falling past floors
10,9,... etc didn't hurt. We cannot exclude exceptional events.
There's rather a big difference between the probabilities involved
there, Robin. We *could* be in a "Harry Potter Universe" of the sort
you hint at, but the word 'unlikely' hardly begins to describe the
magnitude of it!
I highly recommend David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality", which
covers most of the stuff discussed in this thread.
John
Robin Becker wrote: Your assertion that there is an objective reality requires proof as
well. Probably it cannot be proved, but must be made an axiom. The
scientific method requires falsifiability.
If the statement that there is an objective reality (or any other statement)
can be objectively proven either way, then objective truth (and hence
objective reality) exists. If it cannot, then the statement that there is
an objective reality is as true as any other statement, and requires no
proof.
--
Rainer Deyke - ra*****@eldwood .com - http://eldwood.com
Alex Martelli <al***@aleax.it > writes: Stephen Horne wrote:
... True. But perception cannot change reality. Reality is not about
perception - it existed long before there was anything capable of
percieving.
You are so WONDERFULLY certain about such things -- including the
fact that "before" is crucial, i.e., the arrow of time has some
intrinsic meaning.
Well, I agree that time-ordering is not important. I think the main
point is simply that reality is (defined as) independent of
perception, which he was illustrating with an example of a case where
perception was (or is, or will be, if you insist ;-) absent, but
reality was present. This is a somewhat metaphysical claim (though
perhaps the success of science in itself gives it scientific meaning).
It's the only sane metaphysical position to take, though, unless and
until science grinds to a halt. Anything else is either advocating
giving up on science, or merely playing around with language.
Physicist J. A. Wheeler (and his peer referees for the "IBM Journal
of Research and Development") didn't have your admirable certainty
that "reality is not about perception".
And it's Wheeler who's wrong, I suspect, not Stephen. And I mean
wrong in his epistemology, not merely wrong about some particular
theory.
[...] course, but the most interesting part of this is that, to a theoretical-
enough physicist, the mere fact that something happens in the future is
obviously no bar to that something "building" something else in the past.
I don't have a problem with that a priori.
Now, it IS quite possible, of course, that Wheeler's working hypothesis
that "the world is a self-synthesizing system of existences, built on
observer-participancy" will one day turn out to be unfounded -- once
somebody's gone to the trouble of developing it out completely in fully
predictive form, devise suitable experiments, and monitor results.
[...]
Not having read the paper, I can't comment on that particular theory.
All I can say is that that there exist many 'zombie' theories in the
area of quantum mechanics and cosmology (and this thing of Wheeler's
has a suspiciously similar smell) which arbitrarily deny the existence
of some part of reality where some other extant theory does not. If
both theories are of equal explanatory and predictive power (as is the
case with the rival theories of quantum mechanics), the old one is no
longer rationally tenable. Now, OK, it's not *quite* as cut-and-dried
as that, because the ideas are hard and complicated, so I may simply
be mistaken about the particular theories we're discussing (I'd
certainly be a fool to say that John Wheeler hasn't thought deeply
about these things, or that my understanding of Physics approaches
his). But it's certainly true that some theories (the Copehagen
interpretation itself, for example, or the Inquisition's explanation
of the motions of the Solar System) that people continue to believe in
are indefensible because they arbitrarily reject the very existence of
some part of reality that another theory successfully explains. To
quote David Deutsch: "A prediction, or any assertion, that cannot be
defended might still be true, but an explanation that cannot be
defended is not an explanation".
Can't resist another quote from Deutsch ("The Fabric of Reality", in
the chapter "Criteria for Reality"):
There is a standard philosophical joke about a professor who gives a
lecture in defence of solipsism. So persuasive is the lecture that as
soon as it ends, several enthusiastic students hurry forward to shake
the professor's hand. "Wonderful. I agreed with every word," says
one student earnestly. "So did I," says another. "I am very
gratified to hear it," says the professor. "One so seldom has the
opportunity to meet fellow solipsists."
John
"Rainer Deyke" <ra*****@eldwoo d.com> writes: Robin Becker wrote: Your assertion that there is an objective reality requires proof as
well. Probably it cannot be proved, but must be made an axiom. The
scientific method requires falsifiability.
If the statement that there is an objective reality (or any other statement)
can be objectively proven either way, then objective truth (and hence
objective reality) exists. If it cannot, then the statement that there is
an objective reality is as true as any other statement, and requires no
proof.
The justification of scientific knowledge doesn't require proof in the
usual sense of the word, so your statement seems ill-founded. My
guess is that the concept of reality is a metaphysical one, though
(inevitably quoting from Deutsch again):
"The reliability of scientific reasoning is ... a new fact about
physical reality itself..."
John This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: RobertMaas |
last post by:
After many years of using LISP, I'm taking a class in Java and finding
the two roughly comparable in some ways and very different in other
ways. Each has a decent size library of useful utilities as a standard
portable part of the core language, the LISP package, and the java.lang
package, respectively. Both have big integers, although only LISP has
rationals as far as I can tell. Because CL supports keyword arguments,
it has a wider range...
|
by: mike420 |
last post by:
I think everyone who used Python will agree that its syntax is
the best thing going for it. It is very readable and easy
for everyone to learn. But, Python does not a have very good
macro capabilities, unfortunately. I'd like to know if it may
be possible to add a powerful macro system to Python, while
keeping its amazing syntax, and if it could be possible to
add Pythonistic syntax to Lisp or Scheme, while keeping all
of the...
|
by: nobody |
last post by:
This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.
The opinions expressed herein are my personal ones, coming
from several years of experience with Lisp. I did plenty of
AI programming back in the day, which is what would now be
called "search" instead.
|
by: nobody |
last post by:
Howdy, Mike!
mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote in message news:<3d6111f1.0402271647.c20aea3@posting.google.com>...
> I'm a C++ programmer, and have to use lisp because I want to use
> emacs. I've gotten a book on lisp, and I must say lisp is the ugliest
> looking language syntax wise. What is up with this: (defun(foo()).
(DEFUN FOO () NIL)
> What were the lisp authors thinking? Why did Stallman use lisp in
|
by: Mark Tarver |
last post by:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.
Mark
| | |
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
| | |
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
