SHAKSPER 1998: Re: Anagram

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 05/06/98 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0427  Wednesday, 6 May 1998.

[1]     From:   Pete Wilson <pwilson@world.std.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 May 1998 12:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Perl-Proven Anagrams Challenged

[2]     From:   John Owen <Ucbubba@aol.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 May 1998 14:38:16 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0424  Re: Anagram

[3]     From:   Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:42:05 -0600 (MDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0424  Re: Anagram


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pete Wilson <pwilson@world.std.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 May 1998 12:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Perl-Proven Anagrams Challenged

I have long admired the scholarship and the inventiveness, shall we say,
of Mr. Peschko but in this case, if you will forgive my cavil, I must
object. While perl is suitable and even to be preferred for many
applications, I submit that the anagram script, while not an absolute
abomination, could be better written in the modern C or even the
postmodern C++ language. It's well known, after all, that interpreted
languages, of which perl is the premier example (and an outstanding
interpreted language it is, to be sure) are, shall we say, turgid of
execution and prodigal of machine resources. For a program that is
certain to be run as often as the anagram program, most experienced
programmers will want to take advantage of the much faster
execution-faster by literally hundreds of thousands of nanoseconds-of a
compiled language like C. Even better, today's knowledgeable programmers
will favor the postmodern programming paradigm (PPP) and will choose C++
thereby to employ the eagerly-sought (but rarely gained) advantages of
an object-oriented realization with its attendant polymorphism and,
especially, the code reusability so very attractive in applications like
the anagram program.

With all kindest regards,
Pete Wilson (pwilson@world.std.com)

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Owen <Ucbubba@aol.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 May 1998 14:38:16 EDT
Subject: 9.0424  Re: Anagram
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0424  Re: Anagram

>Oh boy.. hope that after this message, you don't curse me as a wanton
>waster of bandwith... If you take the first sentence:

 >To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the
mind
 >to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....

 >and break it into its component letters, you get:

 >a a a a
 >b b b
 >d d
 >e e e e e e e e e e e e
 >f f f f
 >g g
 >h h h h h h
 > i i i i i i
 >l l
 >m
 >n n n n n n n n
 >o o o o o o o o o o o o
 >q
 >r r r r r r r r
 >s s s s s s s s
 >t t t t t t t t t t t t t t
 >u u u u u
 >w w

Yes I get the point now, I just don't get the point of it all.  Is this
one of infinite those monkeys  pecking away on infinite typewriters
would write Hamlet arguments?

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:42:05 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: 9.0424  Re: Anagram
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0424  Re: Anagram

PS: Regarding the anagram checker, it looks like the email formatter cut
things up so the lines were only seventy-five or so characters long.

Hence,

> while ($char = substr($line1, $xx++, 1))
> {                                       # go through output a character
> a time

should be:

> while ($char = substr($line1, $xx++, 1))
> {                             # go through output a character a time

and so forth... The script will not work unless you 'tie together' all
of these comments so they are on one line.

Ed


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.