AutCode 1.0
Foucaultian
inspired by Autistic Spectrum Code 1.0.
http://autcode.neurelitism.com/
Mark Foster
Gareeth
Gareeth
Foucaultian
> Why?
Honestly, because it was something I had never done before. It is now
version 1.1 (some errors corrected).
Mark Foster
Gareeth
>
> Honestly, because it was something I had never done before. It is now
> version 1.1 (some errors corrected).
>
just don't understand since it is a bit like reinventing the wheel.
Gareeth
Foucaultian
> But there is already a code that has been in use for a long time here. I
> just don't understand since it is a bit like reinventing the wheel.
Oh. Well, I only saw one person using it. After I read about it, I
thought of some areas in which I would like to change it. The markup
language I wrote is also significantly more detailed than ASC 1.0.
Joel Smith, who wrote ASC 1.0, says that he planned to revise it, but
I visited his website, and there is no mention of the code on it.
Presumably, he has moved onto other things. However, it is a nice
website:
Mark Foster
Gareeth
>
> Joel Smith, who wrote ASC 1.0, says that he planned to revise it, but
> I visited his website, and there is no mention of the code on it.
> Presumably, he has moved onto other things. However, it is a nice
> website:
>
code has been in use off and on for a long time and people understand it.
Although you only see one person using it at present it was used a lot. It
was also a bit more collabarative than it seems as there was some fine
tuning over time.
Gareeth
Terry Jones
<drfosternotf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 12:10 am, "Gareeth" <gareethn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But there is already a code that has been in use for a long time here. I
>> just don't understand since it is a bit like reinventing the wheel.
>
>Oh. Well, I only saw one person using it. After I read about it, I
>thought of some areas in which I would like to change it. The markup
>language I wrote is also significantly more detailed than ASC 1.0.
>
>Joel Smith, who wrote ASC 1.0, says that he planned to revise it, but
>I visited his website, and there is no mention of the code on it.
>Presumably, he has moved onto other things.
If it was just for your own interest, then that's fine.
And for general use it's good to have code that's being maintained.
But when making changes (other than "under the hood") it's usually a
good idea to ask for user input first.
--
Terry
Andrew Floyd
How about making it an interactive page that helps generate the code
based on responses? Then it comes up with the text people can copy and
paste.
"Read this very carefully, I shall type this only once nyo!"
"There would be little point in typing it twice nyo!!" - 'Allo 'Allo nyo
"They make crayONs; do they make crayOFFs?"
Foucaultian
> Joel was a long time poster here. I guess I don't see the point. The other
> code has been in use off and on for a long time and people understand it.
> Although you only see one person using it at present it was used a lot. It
> was also a bit more collabarative than it seems as there was some fine
> tuning over time.
There are a lot of online forums for autistics, and ASC 1.0 only
appears to be used here. For instance, no one appears to have heard of
it on Wrong Planet. I posted a link to ASC there (including the
decoder). Later, after working on AutCode, I posted a link to it, too.
People can use whichever code they find preferable.
I also adopted the convention from Geek Code of representing it as a
block:
-----Begin AutCode 1.1 Block-----
PCa! GDm SDi(s) HTs WTa AG6 SI2(4)@ MTd FR+>++++@ PN+>++++ OCf POs EDd
SV+ HOa RRn SOs NTa IN++>+++@ CV+ MA++ LO+ MU++(+++)@
-----End AutCode 1.1 Block-----
As long as people do it that way, it will not be confused with other
markup languages.
Mark Foster
Foucaultian
> How about making it an interactive page that helps generate the code
> based on responses? Then it comes up with the text people can copy and
> paste.
I thought of that. Unfortunately, I don't know how to write CGI, PCP,
etc.
Mark Foster
Foucaultian
> If it was just for your own interest, then that's fine.
It is for anyone who wants to use it.
> And for general use it's good to have code that's being maintained.
> But when making changes (other than "under the hood") it's usually a
> good idea to ask for user input first.
Why?
Mark Foster
Gareeth
> How about making it an interactive page that helps generate the code
> based on responses? Then it comes up with the text people can copy and
> paste.
>
now sit back and wait for someone to produce the link I guess.
Gareeth
Terry Jones
<drfosternotf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it was just for your own interest, then that's fine.
>
>It is for anyone who wants to use it.
>
>> And for general use it's good to have code that's being maintained.
>> But when making changes (other than "under the hood") it's usually a
>> good idea to ask for user input first.
>
>Why?
If something is intended for other people to use, then it's more
likely to be used the easier it is for them to use, and the more
closely it fits what they'd want to use it for. (Which you're more
likely to find out by asking a sample of potential users.)
That's why I wondered whether it was more something for your own
interest, and if others wanted to use it then fine, but that wasn't
really the main objective.
I've done that myself, coded something just for my own use / own
interest.
--
Terry
Gareeth
>
> Why?
>
To me you have not changed it substantially enough to make it yours. So it's
basically you mucking around with Joel's work which is not polite.
Gareeth
Foucaultian
> If something is intended for other people to use, then it's more
> likely to be used the easier it is for them to use, and the more
> closely it fits what they'd want to use it for. (Which you're more
> likely to find out by asking a sample of potential users.)
I wanted to put it out there. I can incorporate suggestions into the
next version. There are loads of markup languages on the Internet.
They have been produced for various online subcultures
Mark Foster
Foucaultian
> To me you have not changed it substantially enough to make it yours. So it's
> basically you mucking around with Joel's work which is not polite.
Actually, it is very different from Joel's work. I based it more on
Geek Code than on ASC. The only similarity with Joel's work is that I
have used his categories (sometimes with entirely new names). In any
event, I don't see why it is "impolite." I certainly credited him on
the page.
Mark Foster
Foucaultian
wrote:
> I know of at least two other posters who use it regularly - I rotate
> it with other sigs.
No one is under any obligation to use it.
> What you've done is similar to when micro$haft invented WINS, instead
> of using DNS - all it did was create incompatibilities and piss people
> off.
If such a trifling matter would piss people off, then I would suggest
that other issues are involved besides my AutCode.
Mark Foster
Gareeth
> If such a trifling matter would piss people off, then I would suggest
> that other issues are involved besides my AutCode.
>
something that was always in use and change a few definitions and then call
it a new code. For a lot of reasons. It's been used here for years. The
categories are what makes the code so I don't see how you can consider your
code as anything but another version of Joel's. Change for change sake
would annoy me I suspect even if I wasn't autistic but I don't get how you
can consider this trifling.
I almost never use the code myself although I do have it saved somewhere but
I know there are people who do and having to consult two codes to decide
what people are saying seems counterproductive to communication. Even those
who don't have it in their sigs themselves, if they have been here awhile
are probably familiar with what means what.
Gareeth
Foucaultian
> Did you get the part where we are autistic? It's not trifling to take
> something that was always in use and change a few definitions
> and then call it a new code.
The reason why it is trifling is because it is irrelevant. **You** are
criticizing it because you think it is too **close** to ASC 1.0.
**Phil W. Lee** criticized it because it was too **different**. The
fact that I put together a script does not force anyone to use it.
Honestly, I find this entire discussion to be ridiculous.
Anyway, if you criticize me, then you need to criticize Joel Smith,
too. His code, like mine, is almost exactly the same as Robert
Hayden's The Geek Code 3.12.
There are loads of personal markup languages all over the Internet,
and most of them are based on Robert Hayden's Work. He is the one who
came up with it. (Actually, my AutCode is slightly closer than ASC to
Robert Hayden's Geek Code, since Joel Smith did not use Hayden's $
symbol and the "block" notation.)
> For a lot of reasons. It's been used here for years. The categories are what
> makes the code so I don't see how you can consider your code as anything
> but another version of Joel's. Change for change sake would annoy me I
> suspect even if I wasn't autistic but I don't get how you can consider this trifling.
Because it is not another version of Joel's code. It is another
version of Robert Hayden's code. I used some of Joel's categories, but
I wrote the code based on what Hayden did. If you have ever seen The
Geek Code, you would realize that Joel got ASC almost entirely from
it. In fact, in several cases, he quoted directly from the below:
http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html
> I almost never use the code myself although I do have it saved somewhere but
> I know there are people who do and having to consult two codes to decide
> what people are saying seems counterproductive to communication. Even those
> who don't have it in their sigs themselves, if they have been here awhile
> are probably familiar with what means what.
I wrote my code to be of service. If you find it objectionable, simply
ignore it.
Mark Foster
Gareeth
> .
>
> Anyway, if you criticize me, then you need to criticize Joel Smith,
> too. His code, like mine, is almost exactly the same as Robert
> Hayden's The Geek Code 3.12.
>
here for this purpose.
Gareeth
Foucaultian
> Which Joel acknowledged at the time. It was still the first code to be used
> here for this purpose.
Then it is incorrect to say that I used Joel's code. I did not. I used
Hayden's code.
Foucaultian
wrote:
> So the following copywrite notice applies to you:-
> The Geek Code is copyright (C) 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 by Robert A.
> Hayden. All rights reserved. You are free to distribute this code in
> electronic format provided that the file remains unmodified and this
> copyright notice remains attached. This copyright prohibits HTMLizing
> the code for publication on the web. If you wish to publish abstracts
> or portions of the code, contact the author for permission. If you
> wish to write an article about the Geek Code, please contact the
> author. All creatures not native to Earth are exempt from this
> copyright, however, they must prove that they qualify.
lol. Except it was Joel who copied Hayden's text (often verbatim). I
did not. I simply used it. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only text can
be copyrighted.
Mark Foster
Terry Jones
<drfosternotf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If such a trifling matter would piss people off, then I would suggest
>that other issues are involved besides my AutCode.
It's pretty common amongst autistics to have problems with change. By
societal norms the (apparent) cause may appear "trifling" but societal
norms don't allow for ACs
[Indeed they may attempt to suppress making a fuss where a fuss is
legitimate (UK within my lifetime, Japan still to a considerable
extent [TTBOMK]).]
--
Terry
Foucaultian
> It's pretty common amongst autistics to have problems with change. By
> societal norms the (apparent) cause may appear "trifling" but societal
> norms don't allow for ACs
I have similar problems with disruptions to my routine. However, as I
said (repeatedly), I did not change Joel Smith's code. I wrote a new
code based on Geek Code.
Mark Foster
Poststructuralist
2.18) which is considerably different from the first one.
http://autcode.neurelitism.com/
Mark Foster