[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
^
Is this some sport of yours to constantly create new gmail accounts and
spam Usenet?
> So you assert, but "man" bears a much closer resemblance to "manus"
> than it does to "mens".
This is irrelevant. Consult an etymological dictionary.
F'up-to: c
In comp.lang.lisp Bikal KC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used usenet years ago then stopped for couple of years. I remember
> seeing him/her on c.l.perl I believe doing the same thing he/she is
> doing atm. I'd say the ultimate usenet superstar. Wow!
I think it's some (probably mild) form of aut
Twisted wrote:
> I, for one, have a strong preference for interfaces that let me see
> what the hell I'm doing and make it easy to find commands, navigate
> the interface, navigate the help, and so forth, while making me resort
> to reaching for that help as infrequently as reasonably achievable.
Bjorn Borud wrote:
> I was told by a lot of people I consider to be intelligent that this
> book would change how I think about writing software. it didn't. I
> didn't really know what to expect, but after reading it I did feel
> that its importance was greatly exaggerated.
I think it's basical
Twisted wrote:
[...]
Hey dude,
get back to selling used cars and leave us computer geeks alone, will ya?
Thanks.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Tim Roberts wrote:
> Editors are like underwear. We each have our own favorite brand, and
> nothing you say will convince me to change mine.
You really should have stopped here :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Twisted wrote:
> I find these anecdotes liberally sprinkled into this thread frankly
> unbelievable.
If you'd spent as much time learning the software as you're ranting
about it, you could actually use it _and_ would get the additional
benefit of having avoided making a fool of yourself on Usenet
Kaldrenon wrote:
> I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current)
> graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest
> as a text-based editor.
Actually, I think the argument can be made:
``We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Inter
Twisted wrote:
> Emacs does have documentation. The problem is you have to already know
> a load of emacs navigation oddities^Wkeyboard commands to get to and
> use it.
Yes, like hitting the F1 key.
> Yeah, and I abhor the elitist systems that are designed with the
> philosophy that anyone who h
Twisted wrote:
> That's a joke, right? I tried it a time or two. Every time it was
> rapidly apparent that doing anything non-trivial would require
> consulting a cheat sheet. The printed-out kind, since navigating to
> the help and back without already having the help displayed and open
> to the
David Kastrup wrote:
> My favorite killing offence is /* vi:set ts=4: */.
This is apparently the default setting in many of the so-called "IDE"s
today.. I think it's another unwelcome poison gift from the ignorant
M$FT world (I suspect some primitive Windoze IDE which couldn't
differentiate betwe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc Xah Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
>> which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
>> & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:20:34 -0700, raptor wrote:
>
>> I think u are wrong.. I think perl is much more exrpressive in
>> semantics than Python..
>
>Well, with such great command of natural language as you are displaying,
>how could anyone argue with you
Andrea Griffini wrote:
>>Of course it is a language, just not a standardized one (if you include
>>Borland's extensions that make it practical).
>
> The history of "runtime error 200" and its handling from
> borland is a clear example of what I mean with a product.
Hmm, I had to google this up..
Xah Lee wrote:
> to be continued tomorrow.
Please don't...
mkb.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Andrea Griffini wrote:
>>With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful
>>language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of
>>the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies
>>/ start of the 90ies.
>
> It was not a language.
Anno Siegel wrote:
> I've been through Pascal, Modula2 and Oberon, and I agree.
> In the short run they succeeded. For a number of years, languages of
> that family were widely used, primarily in educational programming
> but also in implementing large real-life systems.
With a few relaxations a
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> You get terminology totally wrong here. As already said, Lisp is
> stronger typed than C, but C is statically typed, whereas Lisp is
> dynamically typed. In Lisp (or Scheme), all variables have types:
>
> (define foo #(1 2 3))
> (vector? foo) => #t
> (boolean? foo) => #t
18 matches
Mail list logo
