wlang2 rewrites

[Logan Stromberg]

My tendency towards blind, baseless assumptions is going to kill me someday.

I'm about 30% through rewriting my wlang1 paper. Since I originally got 0% on it my assumption was "I can rewrite the paper about the same language, this time using actual facts rather than my own meandering thoughts (including such gems as "C++ language uses strong safe typing", "Dynamically typed languages cannot be compiled", etc). Since I assume everyone else got 0% on their wlang1, this is the expected thing to do so we can demonstrate our understanding of our chosen language in terms of the actual concepts we have learned in class like type systems and continuations, thereby exposing how foolish and naive we were before taking this class." Nowhere in my thought process was the statement in the first confounded line of the wlang2 assignment description (which I had previously never bothered reading) "You should plan on choosing a different language".

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, I am dead.
-logan

[Jay McCarthy]

You should keep reading the rest of the paragraph:

"You should plan on choosing a different language. However, it is
possible that I may suggest you revise your first paper and improve
it. This revision is reflected in the greater length. If you are
offered a resubmission, be sure to improve all parts of the paper.
(For example, I suggest that you improve A, B, and C, then you improve
A and the paper would be 650 lines if you deleted B and C, you should
not delete B and C, but should improve everything and arrive at more
than 650 lines.)"

I think there were only two people that I suggested they pick another language.

Jay

> --
>
>



--
Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93

[Logan Stromberg]

Okay, that makes more sense. In my wlang1 evaluation it was ambiguous as to whether you wanted me to write about the same language or a different one next time. The closest thing I could find was the statement "I would expect to see more of __ in a future version.". But this works too as long as I, you know, don't die of stress as I thought I would.

-Logan

[Isaac Davis]

If you had a lot of "padding" in your first paper would it be
acceptable to have fewer lines providing a significant amount of
content was added?

> --
>
>

[Jay McCarthy]

Yes