🚀 go-pugleaf

Joel Garry wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 08:29:40 -0500, Hackman <@jump.nospam.net> wrote:
> >E. Faubion wrote:
> >>
> >> eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)
> >>
> >> >The rate of what?
> >>
> >> Never mind.  It's obviously beyond you.
> >>
> >> >No, but you're dealing with someone with a solid grounding in basic (and even
> >> >some quantum) physics, and I recognize that this is something you're missing.
> >> >Pretty odd considering your claim to "expertise" in this area.
> >>
> >> In 1992 I wrote a computer program for accident investigators and the
> >> last update was last year.  Seems odd I could write something like
> >> that and have it reviewed in a national police magazine if I didn't
> >> have at least some understanding of the subject.  Perhaps I should
> >> have consulted you first?  We could have marketed it as a game. :=]
> >>
> >
> >well, outside of your programing ability (yeah right), his math and
> >physics was correct, your was not...plain and simple....your just not
> >hoinest enough to say that you made a mistake.  Pity.  I figured one day
> >you would grow up and become a man and admit when your wrong Earl, but I
> >guess not....
> 
> Wish I could remember the specfics, but weren't there inherent rounding
> errors in GWBASIC?  I know I found some in Basic+ in 1980, 'cause I had
> to justify $50,000 when I wrote a program that avoided the error, and think I
> later found some in GWBASIC, but it was too long ago to remember such details.
> 

GWBASIC uses Microsoft storage for doubles and longs, and not IEEE and
yes, there is some GREAT rounding errors.
They *can* be programed around, but by the choice of language used I can
assure you that Earl didn't do this....


> Of course, with C, anything can happen, eh?  I shudder to think what an
> unaudited physics program written by an amateur with no proper QA or
> "correct" (in the Orr sense) design in a language designed for writing
> operating systems rather than applications could have wrong.  And that
> user guide sure didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about it, either.
> 

hahaha 8;)  I still would love to see the source...

I wonder if Earl knows just what goes into the production of software ?