I originally used Guttenburgh to get Hamlet and coded the Quanta method in Python and it did not work. I then moved to Algorithm 1 in the paper and got Copilot to (mis) convert it to Python and then spent time getting Copilot to admit its mistakes. The resultant code seemed to work but I found the Quanta suggested data of the words of hamlet to be uninspiring as for the calculated theta (max set size before halving), was often from ~50% of the total number of words in hamlet to often more than the words in hamlet. I've yet to investigate theta in more depth...

I don't want an electric Suv - I need an electric Carver for £5,000 and a car share of something larger and more luxurious for less frequent long trips.

You mean this? https://carver.earth/en/

Yep. Fun, weather protection, and small - just too pricey at the moment.

Python is a scripting language. It allows me to develop a right answer in record devopment time and with a high degree of confidence that the result does what it needs to do. If, then, there are speed problems then I can optimise my existing code or rewrite sections in other languages, but crucially use my initial code to aid in testing the more obscure rewrites. Most of the time, some thought upfront will tell you if you will need a compiled solution early on, but even then - getting it correct in Python before getting it fast in something like C++ can be faster - the spec is often revised as implementation can change specsand Python is more agile.

Execution speed is more than execution speed - you need to be correct, and being fast enough is quality; faster may be wasteful.

"People don't use...". They did and they will and you will have to read and understand and maintain that cruft for years to come.

Lingua franca "language used as a means of communication between populations speaking vernaculars that are not mutually intelligible." Javascript is too Web focused. Python and C are better candidates as they are more than Web.

Nearly everybody can read JS, significantly less people can read Python or Ruby, it's not even the same ballpark.

Stick to a detailed comparison with... Shell !? So that's the context for universality he's touting.

The articles structure makes it difficult to comprehend.

Code is helped by being readable.

Saying your code is going to "look like sh£t anyway" seems rather defeatist, and an _excuse_ to write unreadable code.

"Is SQL declarative?" https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2003...

Re: "Shouldn't an SQL engine not care about if you used IN, EXISTS, or JOIN if it is truly declarative shouldn't it just give you the correct answer in reasonable time if possible by any of the three methods?"

I don't see this as evidence SQL is not declarative. Declarative doesn't mean there must be only one way to do (request) something, and it doesn't mean the optimizer is required to be well-written in practice. Maybe in some RDBMS it does process all 3 fast. That's not a characteristic of SQL the language.

Oh my blog isn't giving an analytical solution, if that is what you want to do, it is simulating the problem to find a solution.

(The video does do an analytical solution though).

Here is a related problem. I think it's related anyway:

WITHOUT USING A CALCULATOR!

How many chocolate chips must one mix into the dough used to bake one hundred thousand chocolate chip cookies, such that ninety-eight percent of the cookies contain at least two chips?

I don't recall the precise numerical answer but I do know how it's done; I solved that problem in a final exam at Caltech in less than fifteen minutes.