3 ms·
It's not really about parsing Roman numerals as it is an elegant way to print Roman numerals. Also, the entire book that's from, _Thinking Forth_, is available
by spc476 18y ago
It's not really about parsing Roman numerals as it is an elegant way to print Roman numerals.
Also, the entire book that's from, _Thinking Forth_, is available on the web: http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/
It was one of two books that really affected how I program and even though it's about Forth (and I've never really did much Forth programming), it's worth reading.
- mdemare 18y agoThe problem with parsing Roman numerals is that, unlike the decimal system, there are many permutations of digits that are illegal. That is, you can't say, let's party like it's MIM, or even MICM, no, you have to say MCMXCIX. The problem with printing Roman numerals is that MAXINT is 3999, (and MININT is 1). I wonder what sculptors will put on their statues two millennia from now...
- keenerd 18y ago> The problem with parsing ... Parsing them is easy.* Validating them is hard. * But ICM "could" mean 901 or 899, depending on order of evaluation. For very forgiving values of "could".
- triplefox 18y agoThere is a certain universality in the "Forth philosophy" across many developer communities. (one could stretch it to include life too, but it gets a bit tired at that point) Unix wizards believe in "Worse is Better." Lisp and Smalltalk hackers like to have a system that is "elephants all the way down." The Zen of Python says "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." Rails popularized "Convention over configuration." The specific interpretations vary, but implicitly, they all deride the obvious alternative: piling on layers of heavyweight complexity to gain some perceived flexibility and modularity.