On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote: >> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of >>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about. >> No. You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your analysis >> of it. > > I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up -- not > just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst > possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.
Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a statement since he had no programming experience. I misattributed the "no sense" quote. Please note that that is not the same as "making something up". > Not only did > I never say that Skybuck's proposition "made no sense", but I gave an > example of a language with a loop that does exactly what he wants, and > explicitly described as making sense: > > "There is one sort of loop where it makes sense to have the loop condition > at the end. Python doesn't have such a loop, but Pascal does: the repeat > until loop." As I said above, I read your response as disagreeing with Skybuck's idea: that the loop test should *always* go at the bottom. That you agree with *sometimes* putting the test at the bottom does not contradict that you disagreed with his general proposition. > I don't know whether to be more offended for myself, that you would > invent such a bare-faced falsehood about what I said, or for anyone else > reading this thread, that you should assume they would fail to notice > that not only did I not say what you quote me as saying, but that it is > the *opposite* of what I actually said. No, it was *not* the opposite. It was an overstatement of your position: "I think the proposition is nutty" versus "I disagree with the proposition". Presumably if you think a proposition is nutty or non-nonsensical you also disagree with it and the former is a stronger version of the latter. > I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just > such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by > Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting > false words into my mouth. An apology is due when someone does some damage to things or people (including reputation or feelings) that should have been avoided. My overstating your disagreement with Skybuck was inadvertent, does not change the points I was making (it does not matter whether you thought he was wrong or nutty) and did no significant damage to you or your reputation. You damage your own reputation far more by your use of erroneous protestations, hyperpole and faux indignation [*1] to distract from the actual issue, your implications that I may be lying, deliberately misrepresenting and inventing bare-faced falsehoods, and your propensity to attack others based on unsubstantiated speculation which was the origin of this discussion. So I acknowledge I overstated your position, but sorry, no apology beyond that. Now hopefully having addressed the indignation bit we can get back to the actual points under discussion? > As for the rest of your argument, I am not of the opinion that he is an > inexperienced programmer because his proposal is "nutty" (YOUR word, not > mine) since I don't think his proposal is completely nutty. There are use- > cases for putting the loop condition at the end. I think he is an > inexperienced programmer because of the lack of any sign in his emails > that he has any meaningful experience in programming. Replacing "his proposal is nutty" with "his proposal is wrong", what "signs" did you expect to be present beyond the fact he advocated looping in a way you don't agree with? A CV? As I pointed out (again missing from your quotes) he *did* claim programing experience in his original post. I also note your change from your original "no programming experience" to "no meaningful programming experience". > As for your defence[1] of the ad hominem "Clearly Julie is mistaken, > she's just a girl, what would she know about programming?", [...] That part was poorly written and was not intended to be a defense of the Julie ad hominen. My intent was to acknowledge that it was an ad hominem, show a reason why it was an ad hominem and show that that same reason also applied to your ad hominem attack against Skybuck. Unfortunately in a late- night last-minute edit I screwed it up pretty badly. I started off, >> Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly >> Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about >> programming?" depends on the non-validity of the logical >> implication. When what I meant was more like, >> Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly >> Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about >> programming?", that it is an ad hominen depends on the non-validity >> of the logical implication. I then tried to show you that whether someone accepts an argument as an ad hominem or not depends on whether one accepts the validity of the implication or not by using, as an example, people that I thought you would know exist, if not know personally. >> Yet I'm sure you are aware that are some people who >> would find that a valid implication and if you could not defend it, >> then you would not be able to claim ad hominem. That of course makes no sense, since for you to claim it is an ad hominem, you (being the one who presented it as an ad hominem) need to show the implication is *invalid*, not defend it. You would defend the claim that the whole statement is an ad hominem. Which is what I intended to say. Finally >> Of course it *is* >> easily defendable which is why you used it as an example. Again I was thinking of the entire statement as defendable as an ad hominem, not the logical implication within, but that is sadly not how it came out and I can see how the whole thing reads the the opposite of what I intended. I will note though that had you read with a more open mind you might have noticed something was amiss since I would hardly be saying you would have used that as an example if it obviously wasn't an ad hominem. While I screwed up that explanation, the conclusion remains the same: that an argument is an ad hominem depends on the invalidity of the embedded implication. Your accusation of no "programming experience" toward Skybuck is an ad hominem despite your denial because (in addition to the personal aspect) the implicit implication is "his claim, 'putting the loop condition at the top is wrong' is wrong" -> "he has no programming experience." and that is an invalid implication, especially given the existence of his explicit statement that he *did* have programming experience. I hope that explanation is a little clearer. >[...snip uninteresting discourse on Aristotle and elk knees...] > And so we come back to Skybuck, who > apparently believes that the use of GOTO instead of loops makes > code more reliable and easier to maintain. First he never said anything about reliability or maintenance. He said explicitly wanted goto's for error handling and to the extent I understood him, I gather he wanted access to low-level asm-like features from HLLs, which would be consistent with his cross-posting to alt.lang.asm. Also, advocating availability of goto's does not imply no programming experience. Someone who's used goto's in Visual Basic for error exits might want them elsewhere (not saying it's a good idea, just that it doesn't show "no programming experience"). Further, I have seen credible posts in this very group that pointed out that goto might be useful in Python in some circumstances. I myself wouldn't mind its availability for one use: the implementation of efficient FSMs. So even if you add his advocacy for goto to the basis for your conclusion he has no programming experience, it's still not a valid conclusion and just your opinion. To be clear: I am not defending his arguments, I am saying that your claim that he has no programming experience is not supported by what he wrote and added nothing to your perfectly fine criticism of his proposition; you could (and should) have left out those spurious claims. ---- [*1] Obviously I can't read your mind and can only speculate whether or not you are truly as offended as you say or why. I thought that accusing you of faux indignation for rhetorical effect is more complementary (at least you do so skillfully) then leaving the implication that you unjustifiably go off the emotional wagon so easily. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
