On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>>> Get in there, try things and if they don't work then you've learned
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>> Yes ... I'll have learned that they don't work.
>>
>> Dear God, PLEASE tell me that you're kidding, Richard.
>>
>> Please?
>>
> I could say that, but it wouldn't be the case. When you "poke
> around in the
> dark" all that you can report or that you can learn is what you've
> observed.
> If you know how it's SUPPOSED to behave, then you can draw some valid
> conclusions about the things you've observed. Do you see the
> distinction?
Sure I do. However, for example, scientific discovery doesn't
work this way. Claiming that all learning by observation is somehow
invalid is bogus.
Computers don't make mistakes (unless they're told to by people),
but people do. And people are the ones writing software. As I'm
sure you've noticed (especially as a Windows user) software rarely
works as intended. Intent is useless...real-world behavior is ALL
that matters.
As a case in point, I quite literally put food on the table with
this "unusable" compiler for all of 2002 and 2003...while you're
sitting here grumbling about it on a mailing list for the past three
days.
Stop griping and go write some code. Seriously.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
