On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 25/10/2024 09:59, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that sense the companies themselves have gone 'socialist' in
>>>>>>>>> that, like
>>>>>>>>> Marx, they regard economics as a zero sum game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect. By design they do what they do, and whether the economy is
>>>>>>>> zero sum (it is not) or not, does not really apply. That is why
>>>>>>>> todays
>>>>>>>> crypto-socialist government is so extremely dangerous. It subverts
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> distorts the markets, just by existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to large corporations subverting and distorting the
>>>>>>> markets,
>>>>>>> as God intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do it with the help of the governments. By themselves, per
>>>>>> definition, they are not able to over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is, it isn't about creating more wealth, it's about who gets to
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> what there is left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e., a zero-sum game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not, and that is proven by economics. The proof is that we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> 8.2 billion people on the planet and we've never had it better.
>>>
>>> FSVO "we".
>>>
>>>>>> If economy was zero sum, we'd be dead by now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it time...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. No proof, so far.
>>>
>>> "So far, so good," the man falling past the 5th floor of the
>>> Empire State building was heard to say.
>>
>> That's nonsense and you know it.
>
> Well no, it isn't.
> Civilisations have fallen through no apparent fault of their own.

Irrelevant. The question was if the economy is zero sum or not. That is
pure nonsense and a child can realize it when looking at the population
increase from the time of jesus until now.

> Egypt's soldiered on nearly 3000 years before vanishing under Rome and then
> falling victim to Islam.
>
> But I reiterate, of course no economy is actually a zero sum game nor has
> been since we invented agriculture.
>
> It is just that Marxism is steeped in the ethics of the hunter-gatherer
> political structure (no one owns anything: All property is common) and
> economics, and that *is* a zero sum game. If you kill the game and pick the
> fruit, the next door tribe can't.
>
> The fact that the conditions where all this worked ceased to exist 5000 years
> ago doesn't deter the nostalgia of the True Marxist from trying to turn the
> clock of civilisation back that far.
>
>
>

Is the economy a zero sum game?

To determine whether the economy is a zero-sum game, we must first
understand what a zero-sum game entails. In a zero-sum game, one party’s
gain is exactly balanced by another party’s loss. This concept is often
illustrated through examples like sports or simple resource distribution
scenarios, where the total amount of resources (or points) remains
constant.

Understanding Economic Growth

The economy, however, operates differently. It is not merely a static set
of resources that are redistributed among participants; rather, it is
dynamic and capable of growth. The economic “pie” can expand as innovation
occurs and as goods and services become more efficient and available. For
instance, advancements in technology can lead to increased productivity,
allowing for more goods to be produced without necessarily increasing the
input costs proportionately.

Historical Evidence Against Zero-Sum Thinking

Historically, there have been numerous instances where predictions based
on zero-sum thinking have proven incorrect. For example, claims made in
the 19th century suggested that once coal supplies were exhausted, society
would regress to primitive living conditions. Similarly, forecasts from
the mid-20th century predicted dire consequences due to overpopulation and
resource depletion. These predictions failed to account for human
ingenuity and technological advancements that have continually created new
forms of wealth.

Current Economic Indicators

Today’s economic indicators support the notion that the economy is not a
zero-sum game. Since 1848, real income per person has risen
significantly—by anywhere from 2,500% to 5,000%. Furthermore, while global
population has increased dramatically over time, the percentage of people
living in extreme poverty has decreased from over 89% to less than 9%. If
the economy were truly a zero-sum game, such improvements would not be
feasible.

Innovation as a Driver of Wealth Creation

Wealth creation stems from innovation and entrepreneurship. When
individuals or companies develop new products or improve existing
processes, they create additional value that benefits society as a whole.
For example, if an entrepreneur invents a new technology that enhances
production efficiency in agriculture, this leads to greater food
availability at lower prices—not just benefiting themselves but also
consumers who gain access to more affordable food options.

Conclusion: The Economy Is Not Zero-Sum

In conclusion, while competition exists within various sectors of the
economy—where one entity may gain at another’s expense—the overall
economic landscape is not fixed but rather expansive due to continuous
innovation and improvement in productivity. Therefore:

The economy is not a zero-sum game; it is capable of growth through
innovation and improved efficiency in producing goods and services.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 25/10/2024 09:59, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that sense the companies themselves have gone 'socialist' in
>>>>>>>>> that, like
>>>>>>>>> Marx, they regard economics as a zero sum game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect. By design they do what they do, and whether the economy is
>>>>>>>> zero sum (it is not) or not, does not really apply. That is why
>>>>>>>> todays
>>>>>>>> crypto-socialist government is so extremely dangerous. It subverts
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> distorts the markets, just by existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to large corporations subverting and distorting the
>>>>>>> markets,
>>>>>>> as God intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do it with the help of the governments. By themselves, per
>>>>>> definition, they are not able to over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is, it isn't about creating more wealth, it's about who gets to
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> what there is left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e., a zero-sum game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not, and that is proven by economics. The proof is that we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> 8.2 billion people on the planet and we've never had it better.
>>>
>>> FSVO "we".
>>>
>>>>>> If economy was zero sum, we'd be dead by now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it time...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. No proof, so far.
>>>
>>> "So far, so good," the man falling past the 5th floor of the
>>> Empire State building was heard to say.
>>
>> That's nonsense and you know it.
>
> Well no, it isn't.
> Civilisations have fallen through no apparent fault of their own.
>
> Egypt's soldiered on nearly 3000 years before vanishing under Rome and then
> falling victim to Islam.
>
> But I reiterate, of course no economy is actually a zero sum game nor has
> been since we invented agriculture.
>
> It is just that Marxism is steeped in the ethics of the hunter-gatherer
> political structure (no one owns anything: All property is common) and
> economics, and that *is* a zero sum game. If you kill the game and pick the
> fruit, the next door tribe can't.
>
> The fact that the conditions where all this worked ceased to exist 5000 years
> ago doesn't deter the nostalgia of the True Marxist from trying to turn the
> clock of civilisation back that far.
>
>
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:13:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:04:37 -0700, John Ames wrote:

>>>> ... but the one has 512 KB Flash/144 KB RAM, and the other only 32
>>>> KB/16 KB.

>>> 512kiB seems to be the recommendation for MicroPython. For the 32kiB
>>> one, I would want to use a cross-compiler for some more
>>> resource-efficient language, like C.

>> Ridiculous! 32K should be more than enough to run a decent compiler
>> natively.

> It never was. Even back in Apple II days, Apple didn't recommend using
> something like a Pascal compiler on their 6502-based platform.

My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running FORTRAN IV.
Better compiler writers in those days...

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

On 25/10/2024 21:12, D wrote:
> Today’s economic indicators support the notion that the economy is not a
> zero-sum game.

D FFS I never claimed economies were a zero sum game, I claimed that
that is *how socialists view it*.
Why not read what I wrote and respond to that, instead of engaging in a
diatribe that actually agrees with me.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 25 Oct 2024 17:16:11 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote:

> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running
> FORTRAN IV. Better compiler writers in those days...

They were quite slow, though.

I remember one story about a (Fortran?) compiler that took 20 minutes
(including loading time) to process a program consisting of a single
semicolon.

Yes, it was a syntax error.

On 25 Oct 2024 19:46:13 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> My personal hell is database programming.

I’ve done a bunch of it. Interfacing to SQL from Python can be done quite
elegantly, just for example.

What, you thought I was using PHP?

On 10/25/24 1:32 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-10-25, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> Being forced to be an Ada programmer - it'd be like one
>> of those legendary Greek tortures of hell ...
>
> Another one is being forced to maintain payroll programs forever.

AAAAUUUGGGGGHHH !!!

Probably writ in COBOL-63 too !!!

Never get on the wrong side of Zeus !

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:13:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:04:37 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... but the one has 512 KB Flash/144 KB RAM, and the other only 32
>>>> KB/16 KB.
>>>
>>> 512kiB seems to be the recommendation for MicroPython. For the 32kiB
>>> one, I would want to use a cross-compiler for some more
>>> resource-efficient language, like C.
>>>
>> Ridiculous! 32K should be more than enough to run a decent compiler
>> natively.
>
> It never was. Even back in Apple II days, Apple didn’t recommend using
> something like a Pascal compiler on their 6502-based platform.
>

Bloat. I started life with an IBM System.360 Model 30. 32K was a pretty
normal system, with 24k available to users. It ran COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I,
and probably others of what there was back then. If Pascal existed, it
probably would have run quite well.

--
Pete

Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:13:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:04:37 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
>>>>> ... but the one has 512 KB Flash/144 KB RAM, and the other only 32
>>>>> KB/16 KB.
>
>>>> 512kiB seems to be the recommendation for MicroPython. For the 32kiB
>>>> one, I would want to use a cross-compiler for some more
>>>> resource-efficient language, like C.
>
>>> Ridiculous! 32K should be more than enough to run a decent compiler
>>> natively.
>
>> It never was. Even back in Apple II days, Apple didn't recommend using
>> something like a Pascal compiler on their 6502-based platform.
>
> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running FORTRAN IV.
> Better compiler writers in those days...
>

OK, I surrender. Somewhere I have a book about the first FORTRAN compiler
for (I think) the 704. Those guys were geniuses.

--
Pete

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2024 17:16:11 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote:
>
>> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running
>> FORTRAN IV. Better compiler writers in those days...
>
> They were quite slow, though.
>
> I remember one story about a (Fortran?) compiler that took 20 minutes
> (including loading time) to process a program consisting of a single
> semicolon.
>
> Yes, it was a syntax error.
>

no semicolons in FORTRAN

--
Pete

On 10/25/24 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2024 19:46:13 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> My personal hell is database programming.
>
> I’ve done a bunch of it. Interfacing to SQL from Python can be done quite
> elegantly, just for example.
>
> What, you thought I was using PHP?

What about pre/no-SQL DBs ?

PHP is fair, but it's not really a good DB
editing lang.

In alt.folklore.computers Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:13:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>>> Ridiculous! 32K should be more than enough to run a decent compiler
>>> natively.
>
>> It never was. Even back in Apple II days, Apple didn't recommend using
>> something like a Pascal compiler on their 6502-based platform.
>
> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running FORTRAN IV.
> Better compiler writers in those days...

Those things are not comparable. IBM 1401 has resonably fast card
reader, many installations had tapes and/or a disc. On home computers
frequently the only mass storage was cassete tape. On ZX Spectrum
cassete was somewhat faster than 100 bytes per second, this is
about 1/10 of speed of 1401 card reader. And several home computers
had slower cassete interface than Spectrum. So normal tactic
on home computers was to keep everthing in RAM and use one-pass
compiler. And Pascal on ZX Spectrum needed 25 kB RAM. Compilers
on 1401 were multi-pass and used external storage.

Also, we expect progressively more from compilers. As a student
I started with ICL Fortran. But in the next semester the course
moved to IBM 360 compatibles and IBM Fortran. Suddenly things
that did work in ICL Fortran no longer worked, in particular IBM
allowed only very simple expressions as array indices, while ICL
allowed arbitrary expressins. Early compiler allowed only very
short varisble/subroutine names, forcing use of obscure names.

Instruction set also have influence: 1401 looks easy to program,
but instructions tend to be somewhat long. Z80 instructions are
shorter, but to do anything one needs many istructions, so program
actually tend to be longer. On Z80 something like p-code may
be attractive to make programs smaller.

--
Waldek Hebisch

According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>:
>> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running FORTRAN IV.
>> Better compiler writers in those days...

Luxury! Mine was a PDP-8 with 4K 12-bit words and low speed paper tape. It had
a Fortran system but it wasn't worth the effort. We mostly used FOCAL, which
was sort of a cut down Joss, and a homebrewed Trac interpreter.

>OK, I surrender. Somewhere I have a book about the first FORTRAN compiler
>for (I think) the 704. Those guys were geniuses.

You're probably thinking of Abstracting Away the Machine, self-published
by Mark Jones Lorenzo. It's pretty good.

Even by modern standards the original Fortran compiler generated very respectable
code. If could do loop merging, turning two nested loops into one when the indexes
were used in simple enough ways.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:58:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 10/25/24 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 25 Oct 2024 19:46:13 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> My personal hell is database programming.
>>
>> I’ve done a bunch of it. Interfacing to SQL from Python can be done
>> quite elegantly, just for example.
>>
>> What, you thought I was using PHP?
>
> What about pre/no-SQL DBs ?

Don’t use them.

SQLite is so powerful and so resource-light (as per its name), what point
is there in using anything less?

On 2024-10-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On 25 Oct 2024 17:16:11 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote:
>
>> My first computer was a 12K (BCD charactersw) IBM 1401 running
>> FORTRAN IV. Better compiler writers in those days...
>
> They were quite slow, though.
>
> I remember one story about a (Fortran?) compiler that took 20 minutes
> (including loading time) to process a program consisting of a single
> semicolon.
>
> Yes, it was a syntax error.

On a PPOE's system it took 40 minutes to assemble a 2000-card
source code deck. When I got my own assembler working, it met
one of my design goals of being twice as fast - so it only took
20 minutes to assemble the same program. For us programmers, who
had rock-bottom priority on the machine, that meant I only had to
beg for half as much machine time.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-10-25, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:32:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-25, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Being forced to be an Ada programmer - it'd be like one of those
>>> legendary Greek tortures of hell ...
>>
>> Another one is being forced to maintain payroll programs forever.
>
> My personal hell is database programming. Gods know I've done enough of it
> but it always feels like shoveling shit against the tide.

I'm proud to say that in 50 years of programming I've managed
to never go near a DBMS.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Irrelevant. The question was if the economy is zero sum or not. That is
> pure nonsense and a child can realize it when looking at the population
> increase from the time of jesus until now.

I take it you're a climate change denier, then.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-10-26, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> On 10/25/24 1:32 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-25, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Being forced to be an Ada programmer - it'd be like one
>>> of those legendary Greek tortures of hell ...
>>
>> Another one is being forced to maintain payroll programs forever.
>
> AAAAUUUGGGGGHHH !!!
>
> Probably writ in COBOL-63 too !!!

No, assembly language. But language is unimportand when
you're trying to keep up with twice-yearly changes imposed
by the federal government, not to mention all the union
contracts that contain all sorts of goofy terms.

> Never get on the wrong side of Zeus !

We're born there, we live there, and we die there.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:38:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I'm proud to say that in 50 years of programming I've managed to never
> go near a DBMS.

Incredibly useful things.

Having an extra arrow in your quiver is usually better than not having an
extra arrow in your quiver.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:58:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 10/25/24 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2024 19:46:13 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> My personal hell is database programming.
>>
>> I’ve done a bunch of it. Interfacing to SQL from Python can be done
>> quite elegantly, just for example.
>>
>> What, you thought I was using PHP?
>
>
> What about pre/no-SQL DBs ?

I've looked at them but haven't used them beyond the 'hello world' level.
Mostly I've worked with DB2, SQL Server, Postgres/PostGOS, and SQLite.
Then there was the nightmare when I was tasked with extracting another
division's data from FoxPro when we moved our bugs database to something a
little more real and shot the fox.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:40:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:58:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/24 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Oct 2024 19:46:13 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> My personal hell is database programming.
>>>
>>> I’ve done a bunch of it. Interfacing to SQL from Python can be done
>>> quite elegantly, just for example.
>>>
>>> What, you thought I was using PHP?
>>
>> What about pre/no-SQL DBs ?
>
> Don’t use them.
>
> SQLite is so powerful and so resource-light (as per its name), what
> point is there in using anything less?

It does work well. I was going to look into SpatiaLite but never got
around to it. Supposedly the syntax is similar to PostGIS, which would be
nice.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:48:00 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Bloat. I started life with an IBM System.360 Model 30. 32K was a pretty
> normal system, with 24k available to users. It ran COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I,
> and probably others of what there was back then. If Pascal existed, it
> probably would have run quite well.

Yes, that was an formidable beast. iirc it had so much RAM to perform a
FFT you had to write partial products to tape, rewind, and take another
pass. The experience was so rewarding that it was close to 10 years with
the advent of microcontrollers that I became interested in programming.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:38:47 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> No, assembly language. But language is unimportand when you're trying
> to keep up with twice-yearly changes imposed by the federal government,
> not to mention all the union contracts that contain all sorts of goofy
> terms.

Ah, the Feds... Lucky for me I'm not on the records management side of the
fence but those poor guys have to deal with NIBRS exports.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-incident-based-reporting-system-nibrs

Crime is under-reported in the US because of the ever changing
requirements for the data to be accepted. UCR was broken and this was
supposed to be much better.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/16/us-news/fbi-quietly-revised-2022-crime-data-
to-show-violent-offenses-rose-rather-than-dropped/

Leaving politics completely out of the picture I'm not surprised by this
or any other revisions that are quietly released months after the first
report.

On 26 Oct 2024 05:53:02 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:58:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> What about pre/no-SQL DBs ?
>
> I've looked at them but haven't used them beyond the 'hello world'
> level.

Actually, there is no such thing as “NoSQL” any more. There are non-
relational DBMSes, but even they all seem to have adopted some form of SQL
as their query language now.

On 26/10/2024 07:11, rbowman wrote:
> The experience was so rewarding that it was close to 10 years with
> the advent of microcontrollers that I became interested in programming.

That was in fact pretty much my take on computers. It took 3 months of
one evening a week to write debug test and finally get a program to run
that I forebore computing until the 1980s
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)