I wouldn't have recognized him if he had.

GHC has an API! http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/As_a_library

Or you could just un-check "simple passcode" in Settings...

Take the one thing a computer can do better than humans and use it as a captcha? Huh?

For Project Euler, they are all textual questions and require reasoning rather than mere calculation.

I was surprised to see Mathematician as #2. That contradicts everything I've read about math careers on HN.

This would make sense if they're counting Operations Research as a type of Mathematician. Those are the people who design the algorithms (not necessarily write the code) for air flight planning, supply-network chains, personnel scheduling, and most forms of resource allocation. Lots of applications in resource extraction, manufacturing, transportation, military, and infrastructure design.

This assumes that they're talking about "Mathematician" as a career, and not just what you can expect with a Math major. If you have a degree in math, you can get quite a high-paying job in a broad range of other industries (like programming and finance, also on the list) because people will just assume you're the smartest person they've ever met.

> If you have a degree in math, you can get quite a high-paying job in a broad range of other industries (like programming and finance, also on the list) because people will just assume you're the smartest person they've ever met.

I do get people who assume that, especially when they hear what a CMS degree consists of, but I have yet to work out the high-paying job bit.

At work, I mostly only get to do 2D Euclidean geometry, where people seem amazed that you can find mutually tangent circles to make windows look nice.

I've proven theorems in my sleep before. It seems to be a generally accepted thing.

John Cleese gave a related talk which I found very interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGt3-fxOvug

That was interesting, thanks

Hm, this might explain something. In old B&W videos people's impromptu speech seems much more eloquent than today. I wonder if the luxury of instant text communication has something to do with it.

I'm not sure actually.

Does anyone else get nauseated reading corporate speak like this?

Why are people still talking about this?

It's like complaining that a Lamborghini sucks because the cupholders are hard to reach. I'm sure it would bother some people, but it's not really worth discussing, is it?

Note that the article is from 2005. Also comparing a lamborghini cup holder with syntax of a programming language doesn't make sense at all. The syntax of a language is something you look at and work with for maybe 8 hours a day and is the key part in communicating the language with the compiler and your coworkers.

The reason I, and I guess many other people don't like the lisp syntax is pure taste and psychological. I don't really care about a list of technical arguments why it is good. I don't like reading or writing the syntax lisp is written in and that will not change. That has nothing to do with being openminded or possible technical superiority over C style syntax. Writing and reading source code is far more enjoyable using other syntaxes solving the exact same problems so why should I bother with lisp?

PS: Who on earth would drink coffee in his fancy lamborginhi :D

It's actually more like saying a Lamborghini sucks because the steering wheel is square. It's a very basic feature of the language, and not one that you can avoid using.

> Why are people still talking about this?

The post is from 2005 ;-).