On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Herwig Hochleitner
<hhochleit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So to summarize:
>
> You suggest to
>
> a) Break expressions like (comp <{:k1 5 :k2 6}) or {{:foo 5} 4} which
> are legal and therefore used in production;
No. The first suggestion does not break {{:foo 5} 4}, which should
have been clear from an earlier post, and while the second breaks
(comp <{:k1 5 :k2 6}), that is not used in production whereas (comp <
{:k1 5 :k2 6}) (note spacing) is used in production but isn't broken.
> Without even showing a page of code using said new syntax, let alone
> make an effort to enumerate cases where it would break.
I did in fact make such an effort, which should also have been clear
from an earlier post.
> Furthermore you don't seem to recognize the gravity of those issues
The only issue arguably possessing substantial gravity is the
oddly-spaced (comp <{:k1 5 :k2 6}) and similar.
> We won't buy ideas before you can make us accept them.
I offer(ed) my ideas for free.
> You can only make us even consider accepting your ideas by demonstrating a
> coherent
> view of the involved issues.
Are you implying that you think I don't have a coherent view? Because
such an implication would be both factually false and an insulting
public mischaracterization of me, perpetrated without provocation.
> You can also do that by soliciting feedback to points you haven't
> fully thought out.
Since there are none, that would seem to be moot. On soliciting
feedback in general, what do you think this thread was for?
Unfortunately, the feedback I've gotten thus far seems to consist more
of knee-jerk hostility than of reasoned debate on the technical
matters.
> Just ignoring or trying to outweigh them with
> promised benefits certainly won't help.
On the contrary, all decisions should be made from a weighing of costs
versus benefits rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, considering
just the costs alone.
> </rant>
It's remarkable how emotional some people get in response not only to
merely words, but even to merely dry, technical words devoid of any
personal attacks, threats, unflattering public disclosures, or
implications of same.
> So without calling any names,
Too late. You already, by implication, called me "incoherent",
"half-blind", and other things.
Meanwhile, I have refrained for the most part from like behavior, and
I have, contrary to one of your implications, made a good-faith effort
to address each objection that has been raised. I get the distinct
impression that several here *first* concluded that my idea was
terrible, and only *then* tried to form an argument proving it so,
rather than examining the idea with an open mind first and then
drawing a logical conclusion based on reason and evidence. However, an
inquiry in search of truth must needs start with the bare facts and
suggestions and ideas and follow, unbiasedly, wherever these may lead;
an inquiry that starts with coming to a conclusion and only afterwards
attempts to apply the tools of reason is not a search for truth but
rather a search for a rationalization for a decision already made,
and, in many such cases, made blindly.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
