Re: PHP = Perl Improved
Roedy Green said something like: > On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted > or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i >> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it >> is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. > > that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars > belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy. I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the same. -- If I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature that ends with the word "blarphoogy". -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing
Lars Rune Nøstdal said something like: > hi, > everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go > fugkght yourselfes > > peasse out .. yo! Idiot. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?
Paul McGuire coughed up:
> Is this supposed to be some sort of wake-up call or call-to-arms to
> all the CS lemmings who have been hoodwinked by Sun into the realm of
> jargon over substance?
...[rip]...
> You certainly seem to have a lot of energy and enthusiasm for these
> topics. It would be nice if you could find a way to illuminate and
> educate, without falling prey to the urge to pontificate. If you
> really have some points to make, put away the breathless and profane
> debate style - it just gets in the way of anything you're trying to
> say. Really, we are *mostly* adults here, and can make up our own
> minds on most things.
Of the many things that bother me about his post is his tendency to voice
his conclusions as if they would be universally arrived at given his data.
{shrug} Paying attention to this guy's post has proven to be a complete
WOT.
--
I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:
Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.
Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
error and tries to cover it up by thinking
fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
only succeeds in looking worse.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?
John W. Kennedy coughed up: > alex goldman wrote: >> John W. Kennedy wrote: >> >> >>> Strong >>> typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since >>> the late 1950's. >> >> >> Is Fortran a strongly typed language? I don't think so. Strong >> typing has been invented in the 70's, if I'm not mistaken, when ML >> was invented, but strong typing has never been mainstream. > > I begin to believe that I have been reading naughty references, and > that I should rather have said "statically typed". > > I am not familiar with modern Fortran. Surely it at least has argument > prototyping by now? There are some fortran advocates that pop into here now and again. Frankly, I'm spooked by how far fortran seems to have come. There is even OO support now. OI. I preferred the old days of thinking that fortran sucked "just 'cause". :) -- Enough is enough. It is /not/ a requirement that someone must google relentlessly for an answer before posting in usenet. Newsgroups are for discussions. Discussions do /not/ necessitate prior research. If you are bothered by someone asking a question without taking time to look something up, simply do not respond. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] coughed up: > Thomas G. Marshall wrote: > *Missattributed* --Thomas G. Marshall (I) did /not/ write the following: >>> I am not familiar with modern Fortran. Surely it at least has >>> argument prototyping by now? > > Since the 1990 standard, if Fortran subroutines and functions are > placed in MODULEs, or if INTERFACEs are provided, the compiler checks > that procedures are called with the right types (int or float, scalar > or array, etc.) of arguments. > >> There are some fortran advocates that pop into here now and again. >> Frankly, I'm spooked by how far fortran seems to have come. There >> is even OO support now. OI. > > Some Fortranners think the language has gotten too big and > complicated, sounding a bit like C programmers complaining about C++ > (I don't mean that pejoratively). There are old-poops in every discipline. :) -- Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2". Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?
Xah Lee coughed up: > The Rise of "Static" versus "Instance" variables You are clearly unable to form a proper argument, *AND* you have irritated nearly everyone frequently. Ahthe blessed silence -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
