Beta
×

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Knuth Plans 'Earthshaking Announcement' Wednesday

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the perhaps-metafont-ported-to dept.

701

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Donald Knuth is planning to make an 'earthshaking announcement' on Wednesday, at TeX's 32nd Anniversary Celebration, on the final day of the TUG 2010 Conference. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know what it is. So far speculation ranges from proving P!=NP, to a new volume of The Art of Computer Programming, to his retirement. Maybe Duke Nukem Forever has been ported to MMIX?" Let the speculation begin.

cancel ×

Who is Knuth?

Get out.

Re:Who? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740330)

No, seriously - I've been working as a software engineer doing R&D work on complicated real time systems for years, and I'd never heard of his name, nor knew of his contribution (that he was responsible for said works) at all until now.

Makes me wonder why anyone would assume everyone on ./ knows who he is, what he's done, or why we should care what he has to announce...

Re:Who? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740362)

No, seriously - I've been working as a software engineer (...)

Ah, you are forgiven, then. You don't actually need to know anything about programming.

Re:Who? (2, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740512)

You know. The Feivel guy...

Re:Who? (5, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740384)

Makes me wonder why anyone would assume everyone on ./ knows who he is, what he's done, or why we should care what he has to announce...

Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up. You could be a philosopher who has never heard of Aristotle or Plato. Or a FLOSS developer who has never heard of Richard Stallman. A game developer who has never heard of John Carmack. I could go on, but I'm not sure I could find a good stopping point and I'm fighting the impulse to just be insulting. Your ignorance is appalling. Please just smash your computer with a sledgehammer and go for a long walk on a short pier.

Re:Who? (1, Informative)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740394)

Long walk off a short pier.

Re:Who? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740452)

Long walk off a short pier.

I don't know. If I had to do it, I'd take the tiniest steps just to make it last as long as possible :)

Re:Who? (0, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740442)

To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up. You could be a philosopher who has never heard of Aristotle or Plato. Or a FLOSS developer who has never heard of Richard Stallman. A game developer who has never heard of John Carmack.

Who?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740454)

Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up.

Indeed, although I'd like to counter with the thought that the world is not worse off for not knowing who first discovered how to make fire or a wheel.

Re:Who? (5, Funny)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740456)

I talked to a guy in Saint Louis once who was a genetic engineer for Monsanto. He didn't believe in evolution.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740586)

Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up. You could be a philosopher who has never heard of Aristotle or Plato. Or a FLOSS developer who has never heard of Richard Stallman. A game developer who has never heard of John Carmack. I could go on, but I'm not sure I could find a good stopping point and I'm fighting the impulse to just be insulting. Your ignorance is appalling. Please just smash your computer with a sledgehammer and go for a long walk on a short pier.

really? i'm a delivery driver and i know who all the people listed in this post are. i don't think i've heard of donald knuth though.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740386)

I've been working as a software engineer doing R&D work on complicated real time systems for years, and I'd never heard of his name, nor knew of his contribution (that he was responsible for said works) at all until now.

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing you're doing "R&D" on "complicated real time systems" without a thorough knowledge of algorithms -- and it's virtually impossible to seriously study algorithms and not know who Knuth is.

On balance, I think you're full of shit.

Re:Who? (1)

Even if you avoid tAoCP...I'll admit, I've only barely cracked the cover...every serious book on algorithms I've come across gives him several citations and at least a passing reference in the text or liner notes. Hell, my undergraduate discrete math book had a blurb in it where the author couldn't resist describing his attempt to collect $2.56 from Knuth. Re:Who? (-1) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740414) Well, after doing a small survey in our office... only 3 of 20 software engineers had even heard of him, only one knew anything about him... Perhaps more ironically, the one who knew of him is a C# web programmer, and none of our core tech (C++/Haskell) guys knew anything about him (or heard of him)... Re:Who? (0) ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740556) >>Well, after doing a small survey in our office... only 3 of 20 software engineers had even heard of him, only one knew anything about him... Which of them went through real university program in software engineering? I find it implausible that anyone could spend four years studying algorithms (among other things) without hearing his name dropped at least once. Of course, given the quality of our education system, it's possible they heard the name and promptly forgot it. Whenever I guest lecture at the local community college (about once a semester) I find it fascinating all the things the students have never heard of. Re:Who? (0) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740588) All the programmers here (myself included) have a B.Sc, most with honours. Most from Australian universities, maybe 4-5 from various parts of the world (Germany/UK/US). Re:Who? (1) mzs (595629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740430) You're full of it! I work with pSOS and vxWorks realtime systems for my job. On the shelf in my office, the Knuth volumes. In uni, my papers were written in latex. Re:Who? (0) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740474) No seriously, get out. And to paraphrase Mr. Knuth "lots of people own my books, it's a shame more of you haven't actually read them" About the check fraud in his awards. (0) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740528) What exactly was the nature of the fraud? What did they do that made him have to stop sending real checks? Re:Who? (5, Funny) Snarf You (1285360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740208) You must be Knuth here. Re:Who? (0) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740288) Knuth said. I speculate... (0) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740098) ...that we will know tomorrow :) Re:I speculate... (4, Funny) JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740262) I speculate it'll be something as earth shattering as the "it" announcement was, or how every person has a Segway in their home now. Re:I speculate... (3, Funny) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740378) TeX to ship with iPhone. Re:I speculate... (1, Funny) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740416) and used to generate a flash-runtime at execution time. dunno (-1, Redundant) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740110) maybe its a secret P!=NP (1, Insightful) afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740118) Would be shocking, but as smart as Knuth is I doubt that's the kind of thing he'd be discovering at this point in his career. Breakthrough proofs tend to be completed by kids in their early to mid 20's, it's when the brain is still plastic enough for truly out of the box thinking but where enough knowledge has been gathered to actually work on the hard problems. Re:P!=NP (5, Insightful) Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740210) unless of course, your Albert Einstein, Galileo, Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Ernst Ruska, or any number of other important members of the scientific community throughout the centuries. many of these people did not provide 'breakthroughs until well into there 30's, and most of them continued to provide useful advances in science well into there later years. Re:P!=NP (3, Insightful) afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740282) Einsteins miracle year was when he was 22. Re:P!=NP (1, Informative) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740368) The miracle year was 1905. He was 26. Re:P!=NP (1, Informative) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740550) 1905 was special relativity...1915 was general relativity (at least the modern version)...he continued to provide important breakthroughs and challenges related to gravitation and quantum mechanics (some right some wrong) well into the 1930's. I'd say that is more than "in his 20s" given that he was born in 1879 Re:P!=NP (3, Insightful) c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740428) Acting as an advocate for these people with your spelling, grammar and punctuation skills takes irony to epic levels. Re:P!=NP (1) Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740458) unless of course, your Albert Einstein I don't have an Einstein. It's considered rude to own people these days. Scientists != mathematicians. It's often said that the latter peak early. Re:P!=NP (1, Funny) turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740560) I don't have an Einstein. It's considered rude... It really depends on your frame of reference. Re:P!=NP (1) bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740252) Uh, there are tons of examples to the contrary. Re:P!=NP (-1) Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740266) Not to mention Knuth (according to his interview in Code Complete) is more of a documenter/historian, not an inventor of proofs. He's certainly bright enough though, so it's not out of the question. Re:P!=NP (3, Insightful) Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740314) ...And most people can speak without the aid of a speech synthesizer and can move around that have brilliant minds, yet that doesn't stop Stephen Hawking. We can make trends all we want but the fact is, every human is different, trends only help somewhat but there are more people who break the trend that do extraordinary work than those who follow it. Re:P!=NP (4, Insightful) LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740320) Breakthrough proofs tend to be completed by kids in their early to mid 20's, it's when the brain is still plastic enough for truly out of the box thinking but where enough knowledge has been gathered to actually work on the hard problems. Perhaps also because they actually have the opportunity. Older people, who may still be plenty capable while having much more experience, seldom have the opportunity (due to mortgage, family, etc.) Almost all incentives are given to youth (which makes sense). But older people seldom get a break. I think this, more than anything else, is what causes peoples brains to go stale. Re:P!=NP (2, Insightful) Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740342) Also, until recently a lot of them had a lack of continuing education and a lack of fresh ideas. Someone young and looking to get ahead is going to put a lot more time in classes taught by different people and keeping up to date with the trends. Re:P!=NP (1) kzieli (1355557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740372) Actually it doesn't seem to matter how old you are, but how long you have been working in the particular field. In pretty well anything it takes 10 years of concentrated practice to reach your peak. That is about the time you would expect someone to do their best work before starting a gradual decline. The crux here is not brain age but specific experience. If you don't have it you are more likely to ask the dumb questions that lead to novel answers, and if you do have it then you won't. Re:P!=NP (2, Interesting) bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740424) The genius of it is thinking up something fantastic in your 20s, and savoring the idea for 50 years and announcing it as an older man. Damn, I wish I'd saves some of my best thinking for a rainy day. Re:P!=NP (2, Insightful) retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740470) More to the point, Knuth is foremost an algorithmist. I don't think he cares very much about P$\neq\$ NP as an ends in itself since it is probably going to be (and certainly is expected to be) a very abstract math result without much insight into algorithms per se. It's just not his style to spend much energy on it.

Some may laugh at this, but Knuth is a very practically-minded guy who also loves, and is quite capable of, playing with and generalizing these practical ideas and tools into theory. The "serious" attacks on P/NP are just the opposite. I'd guess he's probably taken a few cracks at it for fun and to test out new ideas, but one of them working would really be a longshot. Knuth has a LOT of ideas, but his being the _very first_ one to have the purely algorithmic insight to solve P/NP are quite slim.

Likely... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740124)

He's discovered Wu Tang and Shaolin are one and the same.

Hmmm... (5, Funny)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740128)

Probably that Duke Nukem Forever won't be running any dedicated servers...

Re:Hmmm... (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740292)

No, no, it's that Dragon's Lair 3 is on;y available on the iPhone.

Wait, Don Bluth? Knuth? he invented Flarp?

onionman (975962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740136)

I thought Knuth was already retired... as in, I think he explicitly retired so that he would have time to finish the books!

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740142)

Probably meant to link here [wikipedia.org] .

What I would do... (5, Funny)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740158)

Step #1: Wait for him to prove and confirm P!=NP

Step #2: Solve for N:

So P!=NP,

therefore P!/P=N,

thus the Ps cancel and we are left with N=!.

Step #3: ???

Step #4: Profit!

What I would do...is learn factorials again (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740194)

P! divided by P will not cancel out the P's. It would be actually give (P-1)!.

Re:What I would do...is learn factorials again (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740318)

I believe they originally meant P does not equal NP, not P factorial equals NP. You see, the joke is that Knuth posited an unproved theorem that P=NP when talking about scaling database management overhead. See this handy reference [xkcd.com] .

Re:What I would do...is learn factorials again (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740360)

I believe you missed the joke.

Re:What I would do... (1)

teh moges (875080) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740196)

Wouldn't the result be (P-1)!=N ?

Re:What I would do... (1)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740206)

but this is only true if N != 1

Re:What I would do... (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740298)

Only works if the ! operator acts the same whether it's prepended to P or appended to P. (i.e. if P!=!P)

I'll bet it's that (5, Funny)

Xenophore (1260104) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740178)

TeX has been adopted by W3 as the new HTML 6 standard.

\begin{awesome}

Awesome!

\end{awesome}

Re:I'll bet it's that (3, Funny)

lahvak (69490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740400)

I believe that should be

\setupawesome[extra awesome]

\startawesome

Awesome!

\stopawesome

Re:I'll bet it's that (1)

jordan_robot (1830144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740448)

You owe me a new keyboard.

It's a TeX conference (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740180)

So it probably TeX related. I don't see Knuth going off topic so much. Of course, the TeX engine is earth in that community, so who knows?

TeX (5, Funny)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740186)

TeX 3.15 will get released. Subsequently, the universe will collapse.

Re:TeX (4, Funny)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740272)

In the new universe, trigonometry will be easier, and equations will always look good in print.

Re:TeX (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740382)

In the new universe, trigonometry will be easier, and equations will always look good in print.

Will pi = 3?

Re:TeX (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740482)

No. But you'll have e fingers on each hand.

Well...If its a TeX conference then... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740190)

It's probably something about a clever algorithm for continuously updating the layout of a TeX like document in WYSIWG style. LyX is a nice tool, but it would be very cool to have a crisp realtime document layout algorithm. One you have the capability to do that with TeX source code, then I can imagine we'll see much richer non-MS-Word editing environments.... hopefully written in pure javascript so I can have a real document editor on the iMaxi or ChromeOldS

Final TeX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740202)

TeX will be finalized and no more changes will be made to it.

Re:Final TeX (2, Funny)

Unordained (262962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740284)

so ... you're saying Knuth finished calculating every digit of Pi?

Re:Final TeX (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740522)

He calculated all the digits of bleen in his head.

Re:Final TeX (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740572)

Since pi can be approached with arbitrary accuracy by the sum of a particular series of rational numbers, the "final digit" of pi would be the sum of the similarly "final digits" of all the repeating decimal values that are contained in the series. Assuming that every non-zero digit occurs with equal frequency in the repeating decimal portions of those rational numbers (this is unproven, but there is no particular reason to speculate it would not be true), considering only the "final" column of these rationals, since every digit occurs with equal frequency in the sum, the sum of those digits must end in either a "0" or a "5". Since a trailing "0" can be ignored, "0" cannot be the last digit - so the last digit must be "5".

I don't think proving P!=NP is earthshaking (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740212)

I mean sure, it's nice to have a proof and all, but P < NP is a fairly widely accepted notion that is already believed to be true even in absence of a full proof, so if a proof were to be forthcoming it would provide greatly desired closure to the open problem, make the discoverer of the proof rich and famous, but would not be likely to really change anything.

Far more significant, IMO, would be the revelation and proof that P=NP.

That said, my money's on the announcement being a new volume of TAoCP.

Re:I don't think proving P!=NP is earthshaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740398)

Far more significant, IMO, would be the revelation and proof that P=NP.

I don't think so. It would also "provide greatly desired closure to the open problem, make the discoverer of the proof rich and famous, but would not be likely to really change anything."

Nowadays, it is fairly widely accepted that solutions that are exponential in the worst case but very good in common cases are a better choice in practice than solutions that are gigantically polynomial in both worst and common cases.

Re:I don't think proving P!=NP is earthshaking (5, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740502)

A proof that P=NP would have much more potential to genuine change things simply because it would disprove a ubiquitous assumption: that P NP. Historically, when universally popular assumptions have been proven wrong, the resulting paradigm shift in the way people think about the matter produces some fascinating changes. P!=NP would give closure to an open problem but would not be so earth-changing because we already operate under the assumption that the premise is true.

Re:I don't think proving P!=NP is earthshaking (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740418)

The revelation that P!=NP is provable would be fairly damn significant. I mean, it would be a lot more significant than the things people are (mostly jokingly) suggesting about web standards and software and stuff like that.

Re:I don't think proving P!=NP is earthshaking (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740554)

The important thing here would not necessarily be that P!=NP, but instead the details of the proof. HOW you prove it is the big thing.

I'm dreaming (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740216)

Will he announce of a replacement for TeX ? Some language that would actually make sense and won't generate completely obscure error message ?

Don't get me wrong, I love LaTeX (I know LaTeX is not TeX) and I am using it everyday. But everyday, I hope there will be a better tool (and no word is not an option, and no graphical wrapper around LaTeX are not really helpful as well).

In surprising move ... (5, Funny)

vbraga (228124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740230)

... Knuth migrated to Word 2010.

Re:In surprising move ... (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740410)

Please someone with mod points change the parent from "Informative" (whaat?) to "funny" - because it is.

Re:In surprising move ... (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740450)

Mods might be handing out "Insightful" mods for the karma boost. "Funny" is just a score with no long-term meaning.

Re:In surprising move ... (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740514)

Well someone changed it to "Funny"; and thanks! to that someone. And it certainly has a long-term meaning to me in this context.

He's in the next Mac/iPhone commercials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740234)

or something big and dramatic. It wouldn't be anything as simple as retirement.

Email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740238)

I bet he has finally broken down and finally got a real email address :P

Re:Email (1)

evilpenguin (18720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740294)

God, I miss CompuServe...

Or FIDOnet...

first post

Re:first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740326)

hahaha you just majorly fucking failed dude. Eat a whole can of shit for breakfast tomorrow. LAWLZ!!!~!~!~!

I *KNOW* what the anouncement is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740258)

A little birdie told me....He's going to replace Larry King!

But he has a deal with the Laundry (4, Funny)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740280)

He has a deal with the mysterious British agency known as the Laundry. He doesn't publish the fourth volume and they don't render him metabolically inactive. Don't any of you pay attention to what Charlie Stross has to say?

Frost 4iSt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740312)

Keep, and I won't while the project so there are people Lite is straining 200 running NT IS DYING LIKE THE been many, not the BY THE POLITICKhERS

That he is... (3, Funny)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740332)

That he is a computer simulation fooling all of us for over 50 years...

Re:That he is... (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740390)

Running on an MMIX CPU?

Re:That he is... (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740412)

That he is a computer simulation fooling all of us for over 50 years...

But how could we know for sure?

Even if he proves it, it doesn't mean it actually worked....

Re:That he is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740436)

I suspect he's finally figured out how to KEEP those damn neighborhood kids off of his lawn.

Re:That he is... (5, Interesting)

jordan_robot (1830144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740484)

That he is a computer simulation fooling all of us for over 50 years...

I think you mean that we're all a computer simulation he has been running for over 50 years...

Re:That he is... (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740492)

that or an Asgaard.

could it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32740364)

a play on words...the "Earthshaking" part?...for someone so precise it seems unlikely that the choice of words is coincidental...

Earthshaking! Of course! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740494)

That's it! You've figured it out! He's discovered a graboid [wikipedia.org] in his basement!

Earthshaking at TUG 2010? (2, Funny)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740402)

TeX version 4.0 .

Re:Earthshaking at TUG 2010? (2, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740440)

I know he's the authority on algorithms but I doubt he can change one of the most fundamental constant in mathematics.

It'll be a update to the Potrzebie System (2, Insightful)

qwerty shrdlu (799408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740466)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie

or just (4, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740510)

drink a beer, relax, and wait until tomorrow for the announcement. Which is sure to be disappointing now.

I predict he announces that computer programming is best practiced as a semi-automated assembly-line-style set of interchangeable tasks rather than an "art". He'll say that programming as an "art" is anachronistic. inefficient, and impractical, and that the conventional approach and the people who promote it have been holding back progress in software creation because a faster, cheaper, more modern, dumbed-down approach doesn't appeal to them professionally or aesthetically.

And then he'll announce his new software construction method that can be done by ordinary people with a short period of training for 1/5th what computer programmers make. It works great, but it's boring and repetitive and never creative. It delivers software in a predictable amount of time with a predictable budget and reasonable (also predictable) quality. And the development costs less than half of conventional approaches.

That's my prediction.

Earthshaking? (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32740538)

If the boobs didn't do it, a mathematical proof won't either. :P

Slashdot: News for Nerds

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Need an Account?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

• b
• i
• p
• br
• a
• ol
• ul
• li
• dl
• dt
• dd
• em
• strong
• tt
• blockquote
• div
• quote
• ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>