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  17777 
Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:47 GMT, Alex Martelli <al***@aleax.it >
wrote:
[...this is Stephen again...] Just because physicists don't have a perfect model yet, it doesn't
change basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes.
'Basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes' are
elusive things! The earth is not flat. All observations are made in
the context of a model of reality.
[...] 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,
Doubtful, but I can't be bothered to get into that.
and our minds are
no more special than any other arrangement of matter.
Unqualified, that's clearly nonsense.
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.
(I like your general thrust, but I think it's simpler than that -- the
many-worlds theory just says "let's forget about the collapse of the
wavefunction", and everything seems to work out fine.)
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.
Yes. We can explain the social aspects of reality even if not in
complete detail. It doesn't bring up any major philosophical
problems, French sociologists notwithstanding .
[...] 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.
Certainly some philosophers seem over-concerned with the history of
philosophy.
John an***@vredegoor .doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) writes: 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.
But this is all quite irrelevant to the question of the validity of
realism. Robin and Anton both are merely making points about the
particular common-sense *models* of reality that we carry with us in
order to get through the dayy without spilling our coffee or trying to
walk through doors.
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 :-)
Weak link, very weak, Anton. ;-) Still, at least you're trying, unlike
me...
John
On 26 Oct 2003 17:54:58 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote: Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:47 GMT, Alex Martelli <al***@aleax.it >
wrote:
[...this is Stephen again...] Just because physicists don't have a perfect model yet, it doesn't
change basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes.
'Basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes' are
elusive things! The earth is not flat. All observations are made in
the context of a model of reality.
Well, I still think that the *local* 'flatness' of the Earths surface
is highly significant (at least the fact that the general
sphericalness has less significance at a local scale than the hills
and valleys and other lumps and bumps), even if only locally. Our
current models are much more general, of course, but showing that
something can be explained as local effects in a new and more general
model is not the same as proving that easily observable consistent
patterns are insignificant.
In the case of the Earths flatness, the historical model has not only
been superceded but now seems cringingly obsolete as our daily lives
have exceeded the limits of that model - not a day goes by without
some reminder of the non-flat nature of the Earth at non-local scales.
But are we likely to exceed the limits of perceptions where time is
significant any time soon? Ever? If so, how come no smug gits from the
future have come back to tell us how it is done?
If you say that our perception of time is not a universal absolute,
well some aspects of that are already proven fact and other aspects
are perfectly plausible. I have no problem with that. But to claim
that our local perception of time has no basis in our locally
perceptable 'region' of reality is, IMO, daft.
All the evidence shows that there is a consistent arrow of time that
we cannot opt out of - and 'local' in this case seems a lot bigger
than a few tens or hundreds of miles. Current evidence suggests that
works much the same in distant galaxies as it does in the next town
down the road, as long as we allow for relativity where relevant. and our minds are
no more special than any other arrangement of matter.
Unqualified, that's clearly nonsense.
It is qualified by the context of the discussion - the claims that
there is no reality separate from perception (and therefore that the
arrangement of matter called a brain has a special ability to write
the rules that all matter in the universe follows).
As I said in another post...
"""
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.
"""
Yes, the human brain is (currently, so far as we know) unique. It is
special. But it does not need magic powers in order to be special. 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.
(I like your general thrust, but I think it's simpler than that -- the
many-worlds theory just says "let's forget about the collapse of the
wavefunction ", and everything seems to work out fine.)
Yes, but why can we see the affects of superposition at the
microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic. That is what strikes me
as odd - if parallel universes work as an explanation, then why do
they work differently at the two scales. In particular, why can we not
see evidence of it at the scales we are good at percieving when we can
see the evidence so clearly at the scales we are not naturally
equipped to percieve at all. 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.
Certainly some philosophers seem over-concerned with the history of
philosophy.
Looking at that again, I overstated it of course. Wisdom is not such a
cheap thing. But still, these philosophers simply did not have access
to much of the knowledge that, thanks to science, we now take
more-or-less for granted.
One last thought, at least for today...
If there is no reality separate from perception, and if 'reality' is
therefore just another perception, how come it is so bloody complex
and impossible for most of the organisms capable of perception to
understand?
When essentially everyone on Earth believed in a flat Earth, why was
there any perceptible evidence that the Earth was not flat - unless it
was because of an independent reality 'taking precedence' over
perceptions?
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
On 26 Oct 2003 18:01:47 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote: Weak link, very weak, Anton. ;-) Still, at least you're trying, unlike
me...
<desperate attempt to lighten the tone>
I'm *very* trying ;-)
OK, sorry for the bad joke.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
In article <j2************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Stephen Horne
<st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes On 26 Oct 2003 18:01:47 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote:
Weak link, very weak, Anton. ;-) Still, at least you're trying, unlike
me...
<desperate attempt to lighten the tone>
I'm *very* trying ;-)
OK, sorry for the bad joke.
Well here's even more fun the following quotes from this http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp.../Semantic.html
seem to be in my corner, but as before I'm getting dizzy even reading
it.
'''
That process physics could be implemented by a model of Mind in the SNN
to reveal the fundamental semantic, temporal, experiential nature of
reality is deeply satisfying for a number of reasons: 1.) the essential
semantic nature of reality has been thrust upon us by the rigorously
proven limitations of self-referential syntactic systems, and so rests
upon the most secure imaginable and uncompromisingl y honest intellectual
foundation; 2.) it is, of course, Mind in which semantic and the Meaning
to which it corresponds is ultimately registered[10]; 3.) Mind, as the
theoretical statistician turned economic theorist and pioneering
biophysical economist, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen argues, appears to be
required for the experience of what Dr. Cahill calls the "present
moment" or the "now" required if we are to make meaningful observations
at all.
'''
'''
To elaborate upon this third point: Georgescu-Roegen tells us of an
illustration by Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Percy Bridgman, showing
that with the advent of relativity in physics, it is perfectly possible
for two separated observers travelling in different directions through
space to register a signal from a third position in space as two
different facts. One observer may, for instance, detect a " ‘a flash of
yellow light’ " while the second registers the same signal as " ‘a glow
of heat on his finger.’ " Bridgman’s point, according to Georgescu-
Roegen, is that for relativity to be able to assert that about the same
event implies that even relativity physics really presupposes
simultaneity in some absolute sense despite its attempt to show
simultaneity’ s problematic nature with the registration of a single
event as two distinct facts. Furthermore, relativity physics does not
show how this absolute simultaneity could be established.
'''
--
Robin Becker
Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes: On 26 Oct 2003 17:54:58 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote:
Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
[...] Just because physicists don't have a perfect model yet, it doesn't
change basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes.
'Basic facts that anyone can observe by opening their eyes' are
elusive things! The earth is not flat. All observations are made in
the context of a model of reality.
Well, I still think that the *local* 'flatness' of the Earths surface
is highly significant (at least the fact that the general
[...]
I think all this is irrelevant to the question at hand (realism).
and our minds are
no more special than any other arrangement of matter.
Unqualified, that's clearly nonsense.
It is qualified by the context of the discussion - the claims that
there is no reality separate from perception (and therefore that the
arrangement of matter called a brain has a special ability to write
the rules that all matter in the universe follows).
[...]
Oh, OK.
[...] Yes, but why can we see the affects of superposition at the
microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic. That is what strikes me
as odd - if parallel universes work as an explanation, then why do
they work differently at the two scales. In particular, why can we not
They don't.
see evidence of it at the scales we are good at percieving when we can
see the evidence so clearly at the scales we are not naturally
equipped to percieve at all.
We see exactly the effects that the theory predicts. They're just
very small.
[...] One last thought, at least for today...
If there is no reality separate from perception, and if 'reality' is
therefore just another perception, how come it is so bloody complex
and impossible for most of the organisms capable of perception to
understand?
[...]
Yeah -- hence the solipsism joke.
John
On 26 Oct 2003 20:56:09 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote: Yes, but why can we see the affects of superposition at the
microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic. That is what strikes me
as odd - if parallel universes work as an explanation, then why do
they work differently at the two scales. In particular, why can we not
They don't.
Are you claiming that in schroedingers experiment that the dead and
live cats interact in some way that can be measured outside the box
without collapsing the waveform?
I was also under the impression that the largest 'particle' to be
successfully superposed in an experiment was a buckyball (or something
like that - at least a 'large' molecule of some kind or another) and
the timescale for that superposition was tiny.
Yet the whole point of the thought experiment is that according to the
theory, as conventionally described (I know next to nothing of the
detail), it should be possible for a cat to be superposed almost as
easily as it is possible for a subatomic particle - a simple
cause-and-effect chain is all that is needed. If that is the case,
superpositions of macroscopic objects should be happening all the
time.
Now either the superpositions are in parallel universes with each
state undetectable from an observer in another one of those universes,
or they are in the same universe and detectable in some way, or there
is a differentiation between the microscopic and macroscopic scales,
or - and this is very likely, I admit - I am seriously confused about
what the hell is going on (the natural state for a human confronted
with quantum theory).
see evidence of it at the scales we are good at percieving when we can
see the evidence so clearly at the scales we are not naturally
equipped to percieve at all.
We see exactly the effects that the theory predicts. They're just
very small.
OK - so why is it not possible to detect the superposition of that
cat? Why is the experiment still considered a thought experiment only?
I would have thought, with a huge number of particles affected by the
superposition of states, there would be a huge number of interactions
between the particles in those two superposed states.
Or am I just seeing the effects of superposition in the wrong way?
Yeah -- hence the solipsism joke.
Ah - sorry - I'm not actually familiar with that term.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
"Rainer Deyke" <ra*****@eldwoo d.com> writes:
Joe Marshall wrote: 2. But the computer shouldn't wait until it can prove you are done
to close the file.
Wrong. The computer can prove that I am done with the file the moment my
last reference to the file is gone. I demand nothing more (or less).
But in practice, the computer will only prove you are done with the file
the next time it decides to check. This is different from "the moment
my last reference...is gone" because for very good preformance reasons,
the computer doesn't check at each unbinding. (And no, reference counts
aren't a good idea either.)
Common Lisp as currently formulated does not have finalizers, although
there have been over the years proposals to add them. There are still
some unresolved issues regarding how to limit what such finalizers can
do. In any case, that will also not give immediate results.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes: On 26 Oct 2003 20:56:09 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote:
Yes, but why can we see the affects of superposition at the
microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic. That is what strikes me
as odd - if parallel universes work as an explanation, then why do
they work differently at the two scales. In particular, why can we not
They don't.
Are you claiming that in schroedingers experiment that the dead and
live cats interact in some way that can be measured outside the box
without collapsing the waveform?
Well, in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) there *is* no
wavefunction collapse: everything just evolves deterministical ly
according to the Schrodinger equation. But of course, since cats are
big lumps of matter, one wouldn't expect to be able to measure
interference effects using cats.
I was also under the impression that the largest 'particle' to be
successfully superposed in an experiment was a buckyball (or something
like that - at least a 'large' molecule of some kind or another) and
the timescale for that superposition was tiny.
The largest *measured* superposition, yes. The Copenhagen
interpretation says that the world evolves according to the
Schrodinger equation until, um, it stops doing that, and collapses to
an eigenstate. When does the Copenhagen interpretation say the wfn
collapses? It doesn't! It denies any meaning to that question.
That's claiming that we just "shouldn't" ask about this part of
reality, and stop our enquiry there. Why should I follow that
instruction when the MWI explains exactly what happens? If a theory
explains more than its rival, one rejects the rival theory. And it
doesn't make any sense to say "there are many universes, except for
large objects, for which there is only one universe". This brings us
into epistemological issues which Deutsch deals with in his book much
better than I can.
Of course, there's more to this debate than Copenhagen vs. MWI, but
the other rival theories all (to my very limited knowledge) seem to be
either re-hashings of MWI in disguise, or complicated theories that
introduce ad-hoc irrelevancies without any compensating benefit. And,
to dispense with the absurd objection that MWI is 'expensive in
universes', since when has complexity of *entities* been a criterion
on which to judge a theory?? Complexity of *theories* of the world is
a problem, complexity of the world itself is not. Indeed, one thing
we know independent of any theory of quantum mechanics (QM) is that
the world is damned complicated!
Yet the whole point of the thought experiment is that according to the
theory, as conventionally described (I know next to nothing of the
detail), it should be possible for a cat to be superposed almost as
easily as it is possible for a subatomic particle - a simple
cause-and-effect chain is all that is needed. If that is the case,
superpositions of macroscopic objects should be happening all the
time.
They do, yes!
Now either the superpositions are in parallel universes with each
state undetectable from an observer in another one of those universes,
*The fact that those superpositions exist* is justified by the fact
that MWI is the best theory of QM that we have. The particular nature
of a particular large object's superposition is not measurable.
Contrary to popular belief, this raises no major epistemological
problems for MWI, and does not turn it into metaphysics.
or they are in the same universe and detectable in some way, or there
is a differentiation between the microscopic and macroscopic scales,
or - and this is very likely, I admit - I am seriously confused about
what the hell is going on (the natural state for a human confronted
with quantum theory).
Saying that superpositions are "in one universe" or another seems to
be playing mix-n-match with the various theories.
[...] We see exactly the effects that the theory predicts. They're just
very small.
OK - so why is it not possible to detect the superposition of that
cat? Why is the experiment still considered a thought experiment only?
Simply because that's what QM predicts for large objects. The
'accident' of the size of Planck's constant means that interference
effects are small for large objects. The universes involved are none
the less real for that: denying that requires doublethink.
Interference effects aside, why *should* we experience anything
unusual when "we" (scare quotes because issues of personal identiy
come up here, of course) exist as a superposition, ie. when we exist
in multiple universes? There is a very close parallel here with
people's disbelief in the round-earth theory because they couldn't see
why they wouldn't fall off the earth if they moved too far from "the
top of the earth". Why don't we fall off the earth? Because the
(scientifically justified) theory says we won't. Why doesn't the me
in this universe experience multiple universes simultaneously?
Because the (scientifically justified) theory says I won't. Why
*should* we experience multiple universes? -- universes are entirely
independent of each other apart from interference effects that are
only large for very small objects, or slightly larger and very
carefully constructed ones.
But again, for those arguments in more detail you're vastly better
advised to go to David Deutsch's (extremely readable and enlightening)
book than to me :-)
[...] Yeah -- hence the solipsism joke.
Ah - sorry - I'm not actually familiar with that term.
Well, explaining a joke always spoils it, but: a solipsist is a person
who believes that he is the only real thing in existence. The rest of
the universe, to a solipsist (to *the* solipsist, in fact ;-) is
simply the result of his own imaginings. Deutsch very clearly
presents an argument that this position is indefensible and
meaningless, starting from that joke I quoted.
John
In article <87************ @pobox.com>, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee)
wrote: Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
On 26 Oct 2003 20:56:09 +0000, jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote:
> Yes, but why can we see the affects of superposition at the
> microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic. That is what strikes me
> as odd - if parallel universes work as an explanation, then why do
> they work differently at the two scales. In particular, why can we not
They don't.
Are you claiming that in schroedingers experiment that the dead and
live cats interact in some way that can be measured outside the box
without collapsing the waveform?
Well, in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) there *is* no
wavefunction collapse: everything just evolves deterministical ly
according to the Schrodinger equation. But of course, since cats are
big lumps of matter, one wouldn't expect to be able to measure
interference effects using cats.
For an interesting discussion of the shortcomings of MWI (not to mention
CI) have a look at
<http://www.npl.washing ton.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html>. I was also under the impression that the largest 'particle' to be
successfully superposed in an experiment was a buckyball (or something
like that - at least a 'large' molecule of some kind or another) and
the timescale for that superposition was tiny.
You all might also be interested in Objective Reduction theories. Some
of them suggest that the brain itself is a fairly large object in
superposition. See <http://www.consciousne ss.arizona.edu/quantum/>
Enjoy.
--
- rmgw
<http://www.electricfis h.com/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wesley Electric Fish, Inc.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
- Isaac Azimov, _Foundation_ 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: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
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: 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: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
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...
| |
