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  17764  jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87******* *****@pobox.com >... 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".
How does MWI generalize to quantum field theory? If it does not generalize,
as I will bet it is the case (I would know otherwise) it explain much *less*
than the standard interpretation. Between two theories, one explaining
more and one explaining less, we prefer the one that explains more.
It is as simple as that and it explain why MWI is not popular at all
outside philosophical circles. I will gladly admit that the orthodox
theory is not perfect, but it is the best we have, at least according
to most physicists. There are always exceptions (Deusch): please do
mistake the exceptions for the norm.
Michele Simionato mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes: Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:
[...] In the last couple of centuries we have
lost our faith in God (fortunately/unfortunately) so now there is
[...]
Again, I think the statistics are against you, Michele! Most people
on the planet believe in a God. Most Americans believe in a God.
Dunno for sure about Europeans, but I'd be surprised if it were
otherwise.
My point is that this is an INTERPRETATION: depending on your religious
belief you may find the realistic interpretation more or less appealing
(Einstein was against it).
This is not a point of Physics: both interpretation say that when we
measure we will get 50% of dead cats, and actually we get that. This
is Physics; the rest is speculation. You may adhere to the realist
That way of thinking (instrumentalis m) is seductive, but wrong. I
refer you to Deutsch's book again (getting repetetive, I know).
interpretation, but in this case you must loose the property of
locality, and most people are so unhappy with this, that they
[...]
Not in the MWI (I'm extremely hazy on this point now, though :-( if I
ever did really understand it).
What it is really interesting it to understand how measurement works,
how to pass from microscopic to macroscopic, how to give a better
description of what happens behind the wave function collapse.
This is an *hard* job, but there is an active line of research on
[...]
It's rather easier if you accept the MWI, of course.
John mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes: jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87******* *****@pobox.com >...
[...] How does MWI generalize to quantum field theory? If it does not generalize,
as I will bet it is the case (I would know otherwise) it explain much *less*
See Q14 of:
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
(MWI FAQ, which also gives details of that popularity contest I
mentioned. I think their wording on this point ("metatheory ") is
perhaps a bit misleading, mind.)
than the standard interpretation. Between two theories, one explaining
more and one explaining less, we prefer the one that explains more.
It is as simple as that and it explain why MWI is not popular at all
outside philosophical circles. I will gladly admit that the orthodox
theory is not perfect, but it is the best we have, at least according
to most physicists. There are always exceptions (Deusch): please do
mistake the exceptions for the norm.
<sigh> I've already answered those points.
John an***@vredegoor .doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote in message news:<bn******* ***@news.hccnet .nl>... mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) wrote:
A good rule of the thumb is "never believe anything you read and you don't
understand". Sometimes, you should not believe even what you think you
understand ...
In Scientific American (I think it was the may 2003 issue) I read
something about parallel universes. One idea goes like this (adapted
to make it fit my brain).
Suppose you're sitting in a chair in the middle of a virtual 2X2X2
cube. Next imagine a cube filled with protons (or some even smaller
particles) as tightly as possible. The difference between this cube
and the cube you are sitting in is that in your cube some of the
protons are absent. The cubes could possibly be represented by Python
long integers [1], where the full cube would be a long with all bits
set to one and different cubes would have some zero bits at
corresponding positions.
There can not be more different cubes than 2**(number of protons per
cube) so in an infinite universe (or even in a big enough universe) at
some distance from you a cube identical to the one you are occupying
would exist, or else one would need a very good reason why the cube
you are occupying is unique.
Anton
[1] How many protons would fit inside a 2x2x2 meter cube is left as an
exercise for the readers
<G>
are we allowed to assume that the protons will compress into true cubes,
or that they remain true spheres?
</G>
(no, i'm not about to do the arithmetic)
robert jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87******* *****@pobox.com >... [...snip most of a huge list of arguments from authority...]
No, no, please don't get me wrong!
The whole point of my post was an encouragement to DO NOT believe
authority (including mine, of course). If I wrote something like
"I have a background in Theoretical Physics with ten years of
research experience ... etc. etc." this has not to be interpreted
as "Ah, I am so much better than you".
Of course not. You should not believe me because of authority,
nor you should not take my word for granted. Also, you are perfectly
free to adhere to Deutsch views, I am not trying to convince you.
But when I see a statement such as
"It's a bit of an embarrassment to Physics that some physicists
apparently still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation"
I simply cannot let it pass.
I do think this statement is strongly misleading and I cannot let
people in this newsgroup to get a false impression abot Physics. False in
my own view, of course. But here is the reason why I pointed out my
background in Physics: my background is very relevant in this context
(how popular is MWI between physicist). For sociological questions like
this, first hand experience does matter: I do know from the inside what
physicists really do; and there is a big difference between reading
books and being a physicist. So, I think I was perfectly right in
stressing my background before presenting my observations. You may
believe me or not, but at least you know that I talk for direct
experience.
Well, perhaps the sample consisting of "Physicists Michele Simionato
knows" has *some* merit <wink>
How may physicists do you know, personally? Not offence intented, but
first hand experience does matter, as I said. Not only I know lot of
physicists (I was at conferences with big names such as Mandelbrot,
Higgs, Seiberg ... etc.) but, more importantly, I do know the
opinion of the other physicist about those "great names".
You will be surprised how much irrespectful it is.
but the single serious survey of
"great and good" Physicists' opinions I have read about (sorry, can't
give reference... but I think it must have been either in one of those
flaky books by Frank Tipler, or in Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality"
that I read about it) revealed that a large majority believed
(essentially -- obviously there are subtleties) in the MWI. Not sure
when that was carried out either, but it was back when Feynman was
still alive.
Who is making argument from authority now?
Precisely, and IMHO (as well as, if you want argument from authority,
rather cleverer folks, like Deutsch)
Arguments from authority have the problem that you can always choose
your preferred authority, so you are always right. I would not qualify
Deutsch or Tipler as "great" physicists, but this is beside the point.
I would qualify Albert Einstein as a "great" physicist. He didn't believe
the Copenhagen interpretation either; he believed in the hidden variables theory.
Such a theory has been proved to be wrong by real world experiments,
so he was wrong. Everybody (unless he is Dutch) can be wrong, so please
let's stop the arguments from authority. The argument from personal
experience is different in the sense that at least I am not invoking
somebody else to support my views.
Finally: notice that I didn't make any specific claim against MWI
in this posts, I limited myself to few sociological observations
and a few facts. An objective fact is the number of conferences
about MWI theory. Please, look at http://www.physics.umd.edu/robot/confer/confmenu.html
and compute yourself the percentage of conferences about MWI
(including or not including the ones mixed with philosophy
conferences).
Also, please believe that physicist are no stupid, so there must
be some reason why there is relatively little active research about MWI.
BTW, you may interpret this statistical observation as a disguised
argument from authority and you may be right, but it is so difficult
to get rid of arguments from authority! ;)
I write all this for the benefit of c.l.py regulars, anybody has
the right to follow Deutsch's views, but they should not be presented
as dominating in the physics community ("some physicists
apparently still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation" ).
Michele Simionato an***@vredegoor .doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote in message news:<bn******* ***@news.hccnet .nl>... In Scientific American (I think it was the may 2003 issue) I read
something about parallel universes. One idea goes like this (adapted
to make it fit my brain).
Suppose you're sitting in a chair in the middle of a virtual 2X2X2
cube. Next imagine a cube filled with protons (or some even smaller
particles) as tightly as possible. The difference between this cube
and the cube you are sitting in is that in your cube some of the
protons are absent. The cubes could possibly be represented by Python
long integers [1], where the full cube would be a long with all bits
set to one and different cubes would have some zero bits at
corresponding positions.
There can not be more different cubes than 2**(number of protons per
cube) so in an infinite universe (or even in a big enough universe) at
some distance from you a cube identical to the one you are occupying
would exist, or else one would need a very good reason why the cube
you are occupying is unique.
Anton
I fail to see the argument, sorry. OTOH, I have few observations
that may be of interest (even if way off topics, as all of this
most interesting thread ;)
According to the inflationary paradigm (which is a serious
paradigm with observational support) we live in a small
portion of the entire Universe. That means the following:
1. the observable Universe, i.e. the causally connected part of the
Universe, is next to nothing with respect to the full Universe;
2. there could be infinitely many other words in the outer part of the
Universe;
3. the cosmological horizon is expanding with time, so those others
worlds will become available to us if we wait a few billions years;
4. we still live in an inflationary epoch, so the rate of expansion
of the universe will increase with time.
I would consider all these points (including the last one, only discovered
2-3 years ago) serious science. This means, they may be wrong, but they are
serious, based on some experimental/observational evidence.
So, I would say that serious science (at least serious according to me ;)
can accept many worlds in the inflationary context: actually it predicts
them. The real point is that there is only ONE universe that matters, i.e.
the casually connected part of the Universe where we live: the rest of
the Universe cannot influence us in any way. Nevertheless, it influenced
us in the far far away past (when we were in causal contact with a much
bigger part of the Universe) and it will influence us in the far far
away future, as the cosmological horizon increases.
Nowadays, the causal radius of the Universe is something like 45 billions
of light years (notice that the Universe is 15 billions of years old,
but the causal radius is not 15 billions of light years, since the concept
of "distance" is rather tricky in general relativity), so it contains
only 10^52 cubes of 2x2x2 meters. I strongly disbelieve that in some of
the other cubes there is a copy of myself replying to a copy of Anton
Vredegoor in a copy of c.l.py.
10^52 is a very little number as compared to infinity!
Moreover: reasoning about infinity is tricky. An infinite Universe does not
necessarely means that all possible combinations are available. The
set of even numbers is infinite, but does not contain any copy of the
number "2", nor it contains any odd number, by definition.
It is quite risky to make any statement about infinity, unless you are
talking about a very specific kind of infinite that we have under mathematical
control, such as Cantor theory of transfinite sets. So, be careful:
the infinity of mathematicians and physicists is quite different
from the infinity of the philosopher.
Michele Simionato jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87******* *****@pobox.com >... mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes: In the last couple of centuries we have
lost our faith in God (fortunately/unfortunately) so now there is
[...]
Again, I think the statistics are against you, Michele! Most people
on the planet believe in a God. Most Americans believe in a God.
Dunno for sure about Europeans, but I'd be surprised if it were
otherwise.
My fault, I was too concise and I didn't express clearly what I meant.
Here is what I had in mind when I wrote "In the last couple of centuries
we have lost our faith in God ...":
1. the "we" has to be qualified as "we scientists and educated people";
2. the "lost our faith in God" has to be interpreted as "lost our faith
in God as a way of scientific explanation of reality".
Look at the context: I was talking about Berkeley, who had the possibility to
recur to God as a way of ensuring realism; this possibility is (fortunately/
unfortunately) precluded to modern science, just in the same sense that we
cannot invoke angels as an explanation for the motion of planets.
I was by no means implying that most of people (or most of modern scientists)
are unbelievers. This would simply be not true. I meant that there is a
consensus in the modern scientific community that we cannot use God as a
way of scientific explanation. Things were different at the time of Berkeley.
Also I had in the back of my mind the idea that in the Germany of the
twenties, after the World War I, there was quite a luck of faith in
the traditional concept of God (see books such as "Demian" by Herman
Hesse, for instance) and it is not strange, in that historical/philosophical
context that somebody came out with concepts like the indetermination principle
or the refusal of realism. I would not expect those concepts coming out
in the context of victorian U.K., for instance. Not that I am advocating
the view that Physics is determinated by the sociological context, but
certainly it is influenced by it. Vice versa, the sociological context can
be influenced by Physics (expecially after we made the bomb).
Michele Simionato mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes: jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87******* *****@pobox.com >... [...snip most of a huge list of arguments from authority...]
[...] But when I see a statement such as
"It's a bit of an embarrassment to Physics that some physicists
apparently still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation"
I simply cannot let it pass.
I do think this statement is strongly misleading and I cannot let
people in this newsgroup to get a false impression abot Physics. False in
my own view, of course. But here is the reason why I pointed out my
background in Physics: my background is very relevant in this context
(how popular is MWI between physicist). For sociological questions like
this, first hand experience does matter: I do know from the inside what
Well, we simply disagree about the epistemology of this, and the
statement of mine that you quote just reflects that disagreement. A
discussion of popularity can't clear that up.
[...] but the single serious survey of
"great and good" Physicists' opinions I have read about (sorry, can't
give reference... but I think it must have been either in one of those
flaky books by Frank Tipler, or in Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality"
that I read about it) revealed that a large majority believed
(essentially -- obviously there are subtleties) in the MWI. Not sure
when that was carried out either, but it was back when Feynman was
still alive.
Who is making argument from authority now?
<cough, splutter> I was responding to you! Am I to be reprimanded for
responding to your anecdotes with an actual survey?
Precisely, and IMHO (as well as, if you want argument from authority,
rather cleverer folks, like Deutsch)
Arguments from authority have the problem that you can always choose
your preferred authority, so you are always right. I would not qualify
[...]
<gasp> How *dare* you aim this at me, when *YOU* posted an enormous
list of arguments from authority, and *I* told you off for doing so?
Even in the section you quote, I explictly labelled my parenthesised
comment as argument from authority (hence invalid). The cheek of it
*ASTOUNDS* me! :-)
I hereby give up on this thread in disgust, this'll be my last post
(the rest of the NG will be very pleased to hear ;-).
Finally: notice that I didn't make any specific claim against MWI
in this posts, I limited myself to few sociological observations
Yes, I was QUITE well aware of that! ;-)
and a few facts. An objective fact is the number of conferences
about MWI theory. Please, look at
http://www.physics.umd.edu/robot/confer/confmenu.html
and compute yourself the percentage of conferences about MWI
(including or not including the ones mixed with philosophy
conferences).
If you read my posts, you would know that I *agree* with you that the
fact that this is still an issue is unfortunate and takes time away
from more important issues of new Physics.
Also, please believe that physicist are no stupid, so there must
be some reason why there is relatively little active research about MWI.
Yep, because there's probably not much to be done on MWI in itself. I
agree with you there.
I write all this for the benefit of c.l.py regulars, anybody has
the right to follow Deutsch's views, but they should not be presented
as dominating in the physics community ("some physicists
apparently still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation" ).
OK, I give you that, I shouldn't have implied that that the overall
number (or fraction) of CI-believers or non-MWI-believers was small
(though I certainly don't know whether it's a majority or not -- and
I'm afraid your anecdotes don't persuade me that you do, either).
Amongst jobbing Physicists (rather than the "great and good" of that
survey), I would *guess* the fraction of CI-believers or people who've
never really thought about it is much higher (partly because some
parts of the 'front-line' of Physics, cosmology and quantum
computation in particular, tend to rub the inadequacy of CI in your
face).
John
Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ff******* *************** **********@4ax. com>... Not exactly. When we look at superpositions of subatomic particles,
there are observable artifacts of the interactions between
superpositions - the interference patterns. Without those
interactions, the theory of superpositions would be pointless as there
would be no effects of superposition to observe - the theory would
have no predictive or explanatory power.
My point is that the cat is superposed in the same way as the
subatomic particle, and yet we are unable to observe any artifact of
that superposition. *All* we can see is a single state resulting from
the waveform collapse when we observe the cat, but this is
emphatically not the case with subatomic particles where we can
observe artifacts of the superposition itself.
There is no such a big difference between the Scroedinger's cat experiment
and the narrow slits experiment:
| |
| |
A | S
P | |
-> | |
B |
| |
| |
The particle P passes through one of the slits A,B and ends its life on the
screen S, producing a spot. Getting the spor corresponds to opening the box in
the cat experiment. If you repeat the experiment many times
with many particles, the distribution of the spots is an interference
pattern. But if you perform the experiment with a single particle, then
you have 50% of probability of getting the spot in the upper side of the
screen, and 50% in the lower side (assuming a symmetrical experimental
disposition). This corresponds to have the cat 50% of times alive
and 50% of times dead when we open the box. Having only seen the spot in S,
it does not make sense to ask whether the particle passed through A or through
B, exactly in the same sense that it does not make sense to ask if the cat
is dead or alive before opening the box (this according to the
orthodox interpretation) . If you watch to see if the particle really passes
for A you necessarely perturb the system. For instance, you can close the
slit B, and make sure that the particle passes trought A, but then the
interference disappear.
When the particle reach S and you get the spot, then the collapse
of the wave function happens. It is less spectacular than opening
the box, but in principle it is the same operation. I will not
claim that the collapse is understood, not that it is an easy
task to understand it :-(
Michele Simionato
On 29 Oct 2003 05:23:26 -0800, mi**@pitt.edu (Michele Simionato)
wrote: Stephen Horne <st***@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ff******* *************** **********@4ax. com>... Not exactly. When we look at superpositions of subatomic particles,
there are observable artifacts of the interactions between
superpositions - the interference patterns. Without those
interactions, the theory of superpositions would be pointless as there
would be no effects of superposition to observe - the theory would
have no predictive or explanatory power.
My point is that the cat is superposed in the same way as the
subatomic particle, and yet we are unable to observe any artifact of
that superposition. *All* we can see is a single state resulting from
the waveform collapse when we observe the cat, but this is
emphatically not the case with subatomic particles where we can
observe artifacts of the superposition itself.
There is no such a big difference between the Scroedinger's cat experiment
and the narrow slits experiment:
| |
| |
A | S
P | |
-> | |
B |
| |
| |
The particle P passes through one of the slits A,B and ends its life on the
screen S, producing a spot. Getting the spor corresponds to opening the box in
the cat experiment. If you repeat the experiment many times
with many particles, the distribution of the spots is an interference
pattern. But if you perform the experiment with a single particle, then
you have 50% of probability of getting the spot in the upper side of the
screen, and 50% in the lower side (assuming a symmetrical experimental
disposition) . This corresponds to have the cat 50% of times alive
and 50% of times dead when we open the box. Having only seen the spot in S,
it does not make sense to ask whether the particle passed through A or through
B, exactly in the same sense that it does not make sense to ask if the cat
is dead or alive before opening the box (this according to the
orthodox interpretation) . If you watch to see if the particle really passes
for A you necessarely perturb the system. For instance, you can close the
slit B, and make sure that the particle passes trought A, but then the
interference disappear.
When the particle reach S and you get the spot, then the collapse
of the wave function happens. It is less spectacular than opening
the box, but in principle it is the same operation. I will not
claim that the collapse is understood, not that it is an easy
task to understand it :-(
OK, but there is still an artifact. In order for a sufficiently large
number of repetitions to build an interference pattern, the points on
S cannot be simple projections of P through A or B.
With the cat, the there are two possible final states - either the cat
is alive or dead - essentially the 'projections' of the initial
radioactive decay through the cause-and-effect chain with the detector
and poison.
There is still a clear artifact at the microscopic scale (the point
detected on S is NOT a simple projection through either A or B)
whereas no such artifact can be detected at the macroscopic scale (the
cat ends up either alive or dead, just as it would without any quantum
considerations) .
I don't claim to understand quantum theory by any means, but I do know
that in principle if there were no artifacts of quantum effects no
sane human would have invented them.
So why don't we find cats that are half-dead and half-alive (between
the projections of A and B), or cats which are more dead than dead
(further to the A side than the projection of A)?
Perhaps cats simply don't have a particle/wave duality issue to worry
about.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk 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: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
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: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
| | |
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...
| |
