Talk:568: Well 2
- Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? 188.8.131.52 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --Pudder (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be self-documenting (inherently clear to the reader). I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible). Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do: writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of precision that programming requires.) 184.108.40.206 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- What you need to do is invent audio.
- Some sort of a warm wax jar that will take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving with each step.
- It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
- I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)