Why are old textbooks and manuals so boring? I'm not asking for w(p)gtr bullshite, but these books are written in such a matter-of-fact way it makes them more difficult to follow.
Name:
ఠ_ఠ 2012-11-07 21:40
Those are from a time where people had something scarce these days:
ఠ_ఠ (Concentration) ఠ_ఠ
All is instantaneous now. Because of that, when people realize that they have to digest an idea to understand it (what you call boring), they run away.
>>2
Can I get the tl;dr version of this post?
Bullet points, maybe?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 23:14
I don't understand what you're talking about. 70s DEC manuals are the shit.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-08 1:42
Concentrate. Find a comfy chair, get a cup of tea, relax, and start reading. Read for half an hour, then get some air, then continue reading. Repeat until x needs to be done.
>>5
Take a look at the manual of a very early personal computer, the Altair 8800: http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/altair/d/88opman.pdf
In a mere 100 (typewritten) pages, the operator manual gives a complete description of the device and is enough for a reader who don't even know what a computer is to learn programming.
Nowadays, complete noobs get some shite like le w(P)GtR as an introduction to computer programming and will never have the slightest clue of what a computer is
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-08 4:31
>>7
People don't need to understand a computer to do low skilled programming work. Being able to structure code to take advantage the computer's strengths needs a lot more education, training and skill.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-08 4:47
>>8
Symta (needs a lot more education, training and skill):
get FileName |c:[T:@4.utf8 L:@4.ul D:@L.y? @Xs] [[T D] @Xs,r]
C/C++ (don't need to understand a computer to do low skilled programming work):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
chunk *loadChunks(char *FileName) {
int I, L;
uint8_t *D, *P, *E;
chunk *C=0, *T, *N;
FILE *F = fopen(FileName, "r");
fseek(F, 0, SEEK_END);
L = ftell(F);
D = P = (uint8_t *)malloc(L);
E = P+L;
fseek(F, 0, SEEK_SET);
fread(D, 1, L, F);
fclose(F);
while (P < E) {
T = (chunk *)malloc(sizeof(chunk));
memcpy(T->Tag, P, 4);
T->Tag[4] = 0;
P += 4;
T->Len = *(uint32_t *)P;
P += 4;
T->Data = (uint8_t *)malloc(T->Len);
memcpy(T->Data, P, T->Len);
P += T->Len;
T->Next = C;
C = T;
}
for (T = 0; C; C = N) {
N = C->Next;
C->Next = T;
T = C;
}
free(D);
return T;
}
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-08 4:55
>>1
I've exactly the opposite feeling. Modern publications use a lot advanced math and theories (often cross-referencing neighbor disciplines), which were present earlier. Try following Fermat Theorem proof and compare it to Pythagoras Theorem proof.
>>9
Hurr (needs a lot more durr): hurr(durr)
Symta (needs a lot more education, training and skill): get FileName |c:[T:@4.utf8 L:@4.ul D:@L.y? @Xs] [[T D] @Xs,r]
>>10
I hate this image. Not because it doesn't have a valid point about common structures, but because it's just comparing two images so le redditors squeal, ``OMG! SO DEEP!'' and ejaculate all over their Neil deGrasse Tyson dakimakura.
>>7
That's dumb. Having to do things manually (literally with the manual) is dumb. You're using a computer, you can learn interactively with what's on the screen.