Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Snit's the victor
58 views
Skip to first unread message
Tattoo Vampire
Jan 28, 2014, 10:19:18 PM1/28/14
to
By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
--
This is my signature file.
to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
--
This is my signature file.
Silver Slimer
Jan 28, 2014, 10:26:36 PM1/28/14
to
debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
of it.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
Snit
Jan 28, 2014, 10:27:30 PM1/28/14
to
On 1/28/14, 8:19 PM, in article XnsA2C3E3108B0...@178.63.61.145,
> Some of you
> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win.
It is not about winning or losing. It is about learning. Heck, there were
place I was just outright wrong, or at best, places where I simply cannot
defend. The stuff about microcontrollers - sure, it was utter nonsense for
people to lie about anyone claiming people compile on them, but I also
cannot back in any way why the case sensitivity of the language would make
one iota of difference. So I was wrong. But I openly admit to that... so am
I the "winner" or the "loser" with that? To me the question is just silly.
With the bigger question, though, it is clear I have shown and supported
disadvantages to case sensitivity in a programming language which so far
have not been refuted nor have benefits been noted that come close to
balancing things. Did I "win"? Well, I learned from the silly debate - so in
that way I did. At the start I had no strong opinion one way or the other,
but the discussion lead to my doing research and learning. To me that is a
win. But no need for others to "lose" for me to win.
I would love for everyone in COLA to be "the victor". No reason we cannot
all be. Just be open to learning and open to admitting when you are wrong.
No losers... only winners.
Below, clearly, you lose. :)
> That was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent.
No, I was the CamelCase in the language. Something like that. :)
> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent.
> Some of you
> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win.
place I was just outright wrong, or at best, places where I simply cannot
defend. The stuff about microcontrollers - sure, it was utter nonsense for
people to lie about anyone claiming people compile on them, but I also
cannot back in any way why the case sensitivity of the language would make
one iota of difference. So I was wrong. But I openly admit to that... so am
I the "winner" or the "loser" with that? To me the question is just silly.
With the bigger question, though, it is clear I have shown and supported
disadvantages to case sensitivity in a programming language which so far
have not been refuted nor have benefits been noted that come close to
balancing things. Did I "win"? Well, I learned from the silly debate - so in
that way I did. At the start I had no strong opinion one way or the other,
but the discussion lead to my doing research and learning. To me that is a
win. But no need for others to "lose" for me to win.
I would love for everyone in COLA to be "the victor". No reason we cannot
all be. Just be open to learning and open to admitting when you are wrong.
No losers... only winners.
Below, clearly, you lose. :)
> That was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
--
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov
Snit
Jan 28, 2014, 10:33:43 PM1/28/14
to
On 1/28/14, 8:26 PM, in article lc9sdc$ef$1...@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
Exactly. It came down to this:
There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
no problem with that. I asked for support.
None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
And not one piece of counter evidence was shown.
In the course of the discussion I did make some comments where I cannot in
any way defend. I was called out on them and openly admitted I clearly
misunderstood what I had been told and did not think it through when I
posted it. A silly mistake on my part - no doubt. Yup, I make mistakes. Yup,
I am not always right. Yup, I cannot defend every claim I make. Of course.
Same is true for all of us. But when I am faced with this I admit to it.
Wish others in COLA would rise to that level.
There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
no problem with that. I asked for support.
None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
And not one piece of counter evidence was shown.
In the course of the discussion I did make some comments where I cannot in
any way defend. I was called out on them and openly admitted I clearly
misunderstood what I had been told and did not think it through when I
posted it. A silly mistake on my part - no doubt. Yup, I make mistakes. Yup,
I am not always right. Yup, I cannot defend every claim I make. Of course.
Same is true for all of us. But when I am faced with this I admit to it.
Wish others in COLA would rise to that level.
Cola Zealot
Jan 29, 2014, 4:41:43 AM1/29/14
to
"Tattoo Vampire" yapped:
Why do you beg for Snit's attention so much, Don?
You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 5:41:44 AM1/29/14
to
outlet...
--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Chris Ahlstrom
Jan 29, 2014, 6:15:49 AM1/29/14
to
Tattoo Vampire wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
A better metaphor would be letting him clog the toilet.
Some victory for Snit: "I am the BIGGEST turd in the toilet. Woo hoo!"
The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
(I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
eyes are bad.)
--
I am convinced that the truest act of courage is to sacrifice ourselves
for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man
is to suffer for others.
-- Cesar Chavez
Some victory for Snit: "I am the BIGGEST turd in the toilet. Woo hoo!"
The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
(I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
eyes are bad.)
--
I am convinced that the truest act of courage is to sacrifice ourselves
for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man
is to suffer for others.
-- Cesar Chavez
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 7:24:01 AM1/29/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> writes:
> Tattoo Vampire wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
>> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
>> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
>> was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
>> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
>> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
>
> A better metaphor would be letting him clog the toilet.
Oh dear. You're such a weenie you're trying to nick the turd analogy
> Tattoo Vampire wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
>> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
>> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
>> was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
>> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
>> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
>
> A better metaphor would be letting him clog the toilet.
now. How sad.
>
> Some victory for Snit: "I am the BIGGEST turd in the toilet. Woo
> hoo!"
>
> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
this the same manager who, when his back was turned, you ignored him and
edited your company's documents in OO despite it being your company's
policy to use MSO?
>
> (I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
> way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
> eyes are bad.)
trying to be 1337. It's embarrassing for all concerned. The *point* is
that keywords are lower case and case sensitive because its a standard
and one enforced by the case sensitivity of the language. Not to mention
the need for a large amount of backward compatibility in the compiler
for ISO C. Which is something else we know you know sweet fuck all about
as was proven when you recommended to that nOOb to use casts to hide the
warnings about his unsafe implicit type conversions. You were very
snit'esque about that .. kept crying and kicking and saying it was fine
etc despite knowing you were wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. We don't
need to mention you "digging in the assembler" to find some way to
support your new master "world class C programmer" Peter "Nasty"
Koehlmann when he messed up too.
You're not a coder Creepy. Don't pretend to be one. You dabble out of
hours and maybe discuss it with real programmers when you "hang out with
the coders".
chrisv
Jan 29, 2014, 7:43:16 AM1/29/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
--
"You can't have it both ways.... you can't argue one day that "Linux
is ready for the desktop" and then the next day completely ignore that
the most popular consumer gadget on the planet (the iPod) doesn't
work on Linux." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
Chris Ahlstrom
Jan 29, 2014, 8:02:51 AM1/29/14
to
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
How about Motorola versus Intel? Motorola processors kicked Intel's ass
years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice Billy
Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
I think we have a few victims in this ng:
--
osteopornosis:
A degenerate disease.
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice Billy
Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
I think we have a few victims in this ng:
--
osteopornosis:
A degenerate disease.
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 8:03:07 AM1/29/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> writes:
> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> How about Motorola versus Intel? Motorola processors kicked Intel's ass
> years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice Billy
> Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
Billy Buttcrust?
> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> How about Motorola versus Intel? Motorola processors kicked Intel's ass
> years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice Billy
> Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
You really are a little wanker Ahlstrom. Your snidy bottom humour might
be funny when you're 7 but not when you're 57.
Thanks to Gates you get to boast about your Windows related salary here.
>
> I think we have a few victims in this ng:
True to form : once a weenie always a weenie.
Onion Knight v3.0
Jan 29, 2014, 8:08:17 AM1/29/14
to
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
Dvorak keyboard kicks the shit out of QWERTY. Jeremy at Walmart told me so.
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
RonB
Jan 29, 2014, 9:23:50 AM1/29/14
to
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
My Dad swears by Dvorak. He keeps telling me it would be easy to learn.
>
>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
--
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
RonB
Jan 29, 2014, 9:24:58 AM1/29/14
to
before the Mac. Unlike the Mac, however, the QL was multitasking.
William Poaster
Jan 29, 2014, 9:38:13 AM1/29/14
to
RonB wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> My Dad swears by Dvorak. He keeps telling me it would be easy to learn.
He plays the New World Symphony on a keyboard? Cool!
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> My Dad swears by Dvorak. He keeps telling me it would be easy to learn.
--
XPN :: http://xpn.altervista.org
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
Silver Slimer
Jan 29, 2014, 10:20:38 AM1/29/14
to
On 28/01/2014 10:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>> of it.
>
> Exactly. It came down to this:
>
> There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
> languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
> brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
> no problem with that. I asked for support.
You're wrong because they said so, whether they have evidence or not.
>> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>> of it.
>
> Exactly. It came down to this:
>
> There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
> languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
> brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
> no problem with that. I asked for support.
> None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
> snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
> as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
> about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
> be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
> be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
them, they must be awesome (GNUtard logic).
> I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
> initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
> links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
> expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
any of what he says. He's an expert in your opinion, but that doesn't
necessarily give value to his competence. I'm a teacher and I'm pretty
good, but there are a lot of people working with me who absolutely suck
at what they do. They aren't anything close to experts despite holding
the job. I understand the GNUtard resentment to these kinds of arguments
from supposed experts.
> And not one piece of counter evidence was shown.
>
> In the course of the discussion I did make some comments where I cannot in
> any way defend. I was called out on them and openly admitted I clearly
> misunderstood what I had been told and did not think it through when I
> posted it. A silly mistake on my part - no doubt. Yup, I make mistakes. Yup,
> I am not always right. Yup, I cannot defend every claim I make. Of course.
> Same is true for all of us. But when I am faced with this I admit to it.
>
> Wish others in COLA would rise to that level.
sbd
Jan 29, 2014, 10:27:55 AM1/29/14
to
On 01/28/2014 11:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
> snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
> as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
> about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
> be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
> be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
>
Yes indeed, Snit is the victor! I agree
>
> None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
> snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
> as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
> about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
> be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
> be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
>
Congratulations! You were the funniest clown in the circus.
A great source of entertainment for all, yes indeed.
**********************************************************
From another thread:
Re: cc never said anything about compiling on microprocessors
On 01/28/2014 10:22 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> Wow... such venom! Attacks against me! Attacks against an actual
expert who
> *undoubtedly* knows more than anyone else in COLA about programming. An
> attack with stupid lies about people's views about Dennis Ritchie. And
> betting others to not even talk to me about the topic because you
know you
> cannot find benefits of case sensitivity in programming languages which
> counter the known down sides:
>
My response:
You are not claiming to be a programming expert now are you Snit. It
sort of hints at that in the first sentence in the quote. Clarification
would be good.
It looks like you have created a big virtual mountain out of a little
mole hill. Real programmers don't give a damn about case sensitivity,
yet you are having a hissy fit over it. Stop being a girly man on
this issue.
As a person who spends 95-99% of my computing time on Gnu/Linux, I
admire the stability and robustness of the system. We all know the
Kernel is written in C, a case sensitive language. I have not heard
Linus bitching about C being case sensitive. That should speak volumes.
In the religion of programming, Linus is God. He himself said so,
I believe him. I close my case.
Lungo
Jan 29, 2014, 10:29:45 AM1/29/14
to
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:20:38 AM UTC-5, Silver Slimer wrote:
> In terms of intelligence, this place is an absolute cesspool.
It has nothing to do with intelligence or the lack of.
> In terms of intelligence, this place is an absolute cesspool.
This place is an absolute cesspool for one reason and one reason only.
And that reason is snit.
For the longest time CSMA was in the same sorry state that COLA is currently in and the cause was snit.
Fortunately the core members of CSMA ran snit out of the group by completely ignoring him and his sock puppets and they reclaimed their group.
The core members of COLA are not smart enough to do the same thing, so maybe in one sense you are correct SS. It is related to intelligence.
And before you defend snit, what do you have to say about all those who have gone on record as despising snit?
Are they all wrong?
It has nothing to do with him being right or wrong in a debate.
Read the comments and you will quickly discover that.
So how do you explain this?
Is everyone else wrong and snit right?
I don't think so.
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
Ezekiel
Jan 29, 2014, 10:32:47 AM1/29/14
to
"sbd" <sbd....@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:lcb6lq$b3o$1...@dont-email.me...
Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
programming languages.
Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
--
"What a deal! Pay 3 times too much and get half of that gouging back."
The Sinister Midget moron - ignorant enough to think that Mac hardware costs
3x as much as PC hardware.
<52e85404$0$29736$862e...@ngroups.net>
news:lcb6lq$b3o$1...@dont-email.me...
no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
programming languages.
Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
--
"What a deal! Pay 3 times too much and get half of that gouging back."
The Sinister Midget moron - ignorant enough to think that Mac hardware costs
3x as much as PC hardware.
<52e85404$0$29736$862e...@ngroups.net>
Lloyd E Parsons
Jan 29, 2014, 10:47:57 AM1/29/14
to
makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
--
Lloyd
dvd buster
Jan 29, 2014, 11:00:00 AM1/29/14
to
It's just not possible.
Steve Carroll
Jan 29, 2014, 11:15:18 AM1/29/14
to
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:20:38 AM UTC-7, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 28/01/2014 10:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
> >> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>
> >> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>
> >> of it.
>
> >
>
> > Exactly. It came down to this:
>
> >
>
> > There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
>
> > languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
>
> > brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
>
> > no problem with that. I asked for support.
>
>
>
> You're wrong because they said so, whether they have evidence or not.
It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of Snit's attitude and his phony pretense - i.e. the fact that he just lied in his paragraph above when he said he had no opinion going in, this is not the first time case sensitivity has been broached by Snit.
> On 28/01/2014 10:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
> >> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>
> >> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>
> >> of it.
>
> >
>
> > Exactly. It came down to this:
>
> >
>
> > There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
>
> > languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
>
> > brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
>
> > no problem with that. I asked for support.
>
>
>
> You're wrong because they said so, whether they have evidence or not.
> > None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
>
> > snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
>
> > as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
>
> > about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
>
> > be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
>
> > be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
>
>
>
> QWERTY keyboards are the best because that's what I use and if I use
>
> them, they must be awesome (GNUtard logic).
>
>
>
> > I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
>
> > initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
>
> > links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
>
> > expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
>
>
>
> To be fair, since we don't know who the actual expert is, we can discard
>
> any of what he says.
> He's an expert in your opinion, but that doesn't
>
> necessarily give value to his competence.
THAT is how stupid Snit *obviously* believes people are and you, apparently, are that stupid for believing no one spots it as you softsoap his idiocy here.
> I'm a teacher and I'm pretty
>
> good, but there are a lot of people working with me who absolutely suck
>
> at what they do. They aren't anything close to experts despite holding
>
> the job. I understand the GNUtard resentment to these kinds of arguments
>
> from supposed experts.
(snip more BS)
Steve Carroll
Jan 29, 2014, 11:16:55 AM1/29/14
to
Silver Slimer
Jan 29, 2014, 11:43:30 AM1/29/14
to
On 29/01/2014 10:47 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
I won't call him a troll but since people here consider him as such, the
> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
statement 'don't feed the troll' applies.
Chris Ahlstrom
Jan 29, 2014, 12:39:02 PM1/29/14
to
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
No. Just a few suckers.
--
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the
party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith
agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part shall be removed
from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed
upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of
the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating
at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of
the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the
second part and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the
parties.
The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be
limited to, the following. The party of the first part shall, with or without
elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other
means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part and rotate the party
of the second part in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being tendered
non-negotiable. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part
becomes fully detached from the receptacle, the party of the first part shall
have the option of disposing of the party of the second part in a manner
consistent with all relevant and applicable local, state and federal statutes.
Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part
shall have the option of beginning installation. Aforesaid installation shall
occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in
step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation
should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.
The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the
first part, by any or all agents authorized by him, the objective being to
produce the most possible revenue for the Partnership.
> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
--
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the
party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith
agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part shall be removed
from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed
upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of
the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating
at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of
the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the
second part and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the
parties.
The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be
limited to, the following. The party of the first part shall, with or without
elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other
means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part and rotate the party
of the second part in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being tendered
non-negotiable. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part
becomes fully detached from the receptacle, the party of the first part shall
have the option of disposing of the party of the second part in a manner
consistent with all relevant and applicable local, state and federal statutes.
Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part
shall have the option of beginning installation. Aforesaid installation shall
occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in
step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation
should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.
The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the
first part, by any or all agents authorized by him, the objective being to
produce the most possible revenue for the Partnership.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 12:49:13 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 5:24 AM, in article 87sis7u...@gmail.com, "Hadron"
even in case insensitive languages... here, an example:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice the keywords are changed to lower case... as well as the "accidental"
case errors being corrected.
Also notice how nothing is enforcing "correct" standards - my NEWVar should
be NewVar, really... but the language does not know the conventions I use
and lets me break them.
I snipped your angry rant. I expect better of you.
...
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The *point* is that keywords are lower case and case sensitive because its a
> standard and one enforced by the case sensitivity of the language.
Enforced by the case sensitivity of the language? No, this is often enforced
> The *point* is that keywords are lower case and case sensitive because its a
> standard and one enforced by the case sensitivity of the language.
even in case insensitive languages... here, an example:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice the keywords are changed to lower case... as well as the "accidental"
case errors being corrected.
Also notice how nothing is enforcing "correct" standards - my NEWVar should
be NewVar, really... but the language does not know the conventions I use
and lets me break them.
I snipped your angry rant. I expect better of you.
...
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 12:52:02 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
Amazing.
<ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
> no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
> programming languages.
>
> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
> no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
> programming languages.
>
> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
Amazing.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 12:57:17 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 9:00 AM, in article
ea6b99f3-c7a4-4953...@googlegroups.com, "dvd buster"
ea6b99f3-c7a4-4953...@googlegroups.com, "dvd buster"
<dvdbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
>>
>> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
>>
>> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
>
> Snit is a parasite and as long as he has a host to attach to and feed off, he
> will never leave. Silver Slimeball will ignore this thread now because he
> realizes there is no way he can possibly keep a straight face while defending
> snit.
> It's just not possible.
I hope you feel better soon.
>>> http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
>>
>> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
>>
>> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
>
> Snit is a parasite and as long as he has a host to attach to and feed off, he
> will never leave. Silver Slimeball will ignore this thread now because he
> realizes there is no way he can possibly keep a straight face while defending
> snit.
> It's just not possible.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 12:58:34 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 10:39 AM, in article lcbdtc$779$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris
is honest, knowledgeable, able to do research, and humble.
It is something outside of their understanding.
Ahlstrom" <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
>> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
>
> No. Just a few suckers.
People in COLA generally do not how to react to someone such as myself who
> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> As long as you guys are willing to respond to every damned post Snit
>> makes, he will continue. He literally owns you all.
>
> No. Just a few suckers.
is honest, knowledgeable, able to do research, and humble.
It is something outside of their understanding.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 1:00:54 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 4:15 AM, in article lcaner$mea$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
reason and logic. Oh, and some errors which I admitted to.
> (I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
> way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
> eyes are bad.)
It would be horrible... and this is the way it is in most languages, even
case insensitive ones:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice the keywords are forced to be lower case. Case sensitivity has
nothing to do with the forced case of keywords. :)
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
>> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
>> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
>> was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
>> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
>> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
>
> A better metaphor would be letting him clog the toilet.
>
> Some victory for Snit: "I am the BIGGEST turd in the toilet. Woo hoo!"
>
> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
And all my fault, right? LOL! I merely posted evidence and support and
> Tattoo Vampire wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> By the time you KF any thread he participates in, it doesn't leave anything
>> to read here. Congrats, guys. He was like the camel in the tent. Some of you
>> chose to keep on debating with him, knowing full well you'd never win. That
>> was all he needed to keep dropping his steaming loads of shit in this
>> newsgroup and ruin what little bit of actual discussion was left. So, you can
>> blame yourselves for letting him flush the remains of COLA down the toilet.
>
> A better metaphor would be letting him clog the toilet.
>
> Some victory for Snit: "I am the BIGGEST turd in the toilet. Woo hoo!"
>
> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
reason and logic. Oh, and some errors which I admitted to.
> (I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
> way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
> eyes are bad.)
case insensitive ones:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice the keywords are forced to be lower case. Case sensitivity has
nothing to do with the forced case of keywords. :)
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 1:07:38 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 4:15 AM, in article lcaner$mea$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> (I like the lower-case case-sensitive keywords of C/C++, by the way. That
> way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
> eyes are bad.)
The enforcing of a case allows for case insensitivity... if you make a
> way no asshole manager can force me to type my code in ALL-CAPS because his
> eyes are bad.)
mistake in case it does not come back to bite you - it is corrected
automatically.
This, of course, does not happen with variables and the like.
Steve Carroll
Jan 29, 2014, 1:22:57 PM1/29/14
to
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:52:02 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
>
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
>
> > no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>
> > programming languages.
>
> >
>
> > Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>
> > After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>
> > compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
>
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
>
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
>
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
It's no good, Snit, Google has you dead to rights:
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
>
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
>
> > no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>
> > programming languages.
>
> >
>
> > Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>
> > After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>
> > compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
>
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
>
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
>
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
"3) In the past it made some sense to have case sensitivity. I noted the reason of speed of compiling (which you focused on and he noted would add such a trivial amount of time as to be insignificant... you can get tools to check for such things and they take seconds to go through millions of lines of code). So other reasons include dealing with backwards compatibility (which I noted) and some reasons I had not considered: there are some microcontroller with just a few K of memory and there maybe advantages there (though such things now generally have far more memory than needed and the tiny amount of difference case sensitivity would increase things is trivial). There are also older languages / compilers which looked at just the first few characters of construct names - in some cases as far as just the first two characters. In these cases you can run out of names! But these are old, bizarre edge cases which should not hold the whole industry back (other than backward compatibility which is a true issue)." - Snit
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/PlTODj7mI3E/WnJTQw5U8tQJ
Again, like I have repeatedly stated, you don't understand the implications of your own arguments. For some reason, I've noticed this is especially true when you're talking about an alleged "expert" you've spoken with. LOL!
> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized.
> When you misunderstand me
Bzzzt! *You* "misunderstand" you, Snit; you do it all the time and this is proof you've done it again. Of course, we both know (as does everyone else) that the only real "misunderstanding" here is based on your silly belief that people are as stupid as you need them to be when you crank up the BS machine.
> you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
>
> Amazing.
>
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 1:46:43 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 8:20 AM, in article lcb687$isk$1...@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
I will say I was absolutely shocked to have Sandman jump in and largely
agree with me. As I have said, I think he has a lot of knowledge and
technical skills, but he also has a massive ego and hates to agree with me
base on things in our history. I truly commend him for doing so and
surprising me as he did.
>> None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
>> snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
>> as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
>> about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
>> be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
>> be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
>
> QWERTY keyboards are the best because that's what I use and if I use
> them, they must be awesome (GNUtard logic).
Exactly! OK, doing as you note and writing a book, but what is the longest
common word you can write using just the top row on a QWERTY keyboard?
>> I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
>> initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
>> links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
>> expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
>
> To be fair, since we don't know who the actual expert is, we can discard
> any of what he says. He's an expert in your opinion, but that doesn't
> necessarily give value to his competence. I'm a teacher and I'm pretty
> good, but there are a lot of people working with me who absolutely suck
> at what they do. They aren't anything close to experts despite holding
> the job. I understand the GNUtard resentment to these kinds of arguments
> from supposed experts.
Agreed... and I have stated this before. Just because I trust him very
highly and have good reason to is not even evidence he exists. So I get
discounting him (and even more so because I mangled some of what he told
me).
But the rest (schools and Google Scholar, tied with *no* counter) is pretty
damned strong. Even then, though, I have repeatedly said I am shocked to
*not* find people disagreeing. I *still* expect to - either from my own
research or someone else sharing it.
And if this happens you know how people in COLA will react: they will insist
this one piece of reputable evidence trumps everything else. :)
>> And not one piece of counter evidence was shown.
>>
>> In the course of the discussion I did make some comments where I cannot in
>> any way defend. I was called out on them and openly admitted I clearly
>> misunderstood what I had been told and did not think it through when I
>> posted it. A silly mistake on my part - no doubt. Yup, I make mistakes. Yup,
>> I am not always right. Yup, I cannot defend every claim I make. Of course.
>> Same is true for all of us. But when I am faced with this I admit to it.
>>
>> Wish others in COLA would rise to that level.
>
> In terms of intelligence, this place is an absolute cesspool.
Intelligence and people dealing with their egos. It is utterly absurd that
admitting when you are wrong is seen as something bad when it is a sign of
strength.
<slvr...@lv.ca> wrote:
> On 28/01/2014 10:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>>> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>>> of it.
>>
>> Exactly. It came down to this:
>>
>> There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
>> languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
>> brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
>> no problem with that. I asked for support.
>
> You're wrong because they said so, whether they have evidence or not.
Exactly... and no matter how much support I showed.
> On 28/01/2014 10:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>> If you guys actually bothered to bring up facts, links and truth to
>>> debate him, you might have actually gotten some decent conversation out
>>> of it.
>>
>> Exactly. It came down to this:
>>
>> There was a discussion about the value of case sensitivity in programming
>> languages. I had no strong opinions going into the discussion... but my
>> brief searches made me lean one way. Others in COLA told me I was wrong. OK,
>> no problem with that. I asked for support.
>
> You're wrong because they said so, whether they have evidence or not.
I will say I was absolutely shocked to have Sandman jump in and largely
agree with me. As I have said, I think he has a lot of knowledge and
technical skills, but he also has a massive ego and hates to agree with me
base on things in our history. I truly commend him for doing so and
surprising me as he did.
>> None was given. Not a shred. The biggest "attempts" made were to show
>> snippets of code where case sensitivity would be required for it to work -
>> as if there was no other way, and (far more absurd) to repeatedly babble
>> about how they are popular so they must be best (as if QWERTY keyboards must
>> be best because they are so popular, or cups and teaspoons and inches must
>> be better in the U.S. than the metric system... just nonsense).
>
> QWERTY keyboards are the best because that's what I use and if I use
> them, they must be awesome (GNUtard logic).
common word you can write using just the top row on a QWERTY keyboard?
>> I did more research and found the evidence to back what I had found
>> initially was very strong. The sources were colleges and universities and
>> links from Google Scholar. All fairly reputable. I also spoke to an actual
>> expert in the field. All signs lead one way. The evidence was strong.
>
> To be fair, since we don't know who the actual expert is, we can discard
> any of what he says. He's an expert in your opinion, but that doesn't
> necessarily give value to his competence. I'm a teacher and I'm pretty
> good, but there are a lot of people working with me who absolutely suck
> at what they do. They aren't anything close to experts despite holding
> the job. I understand the GNUtard resentment to these kinds of arguments
> from supposed experts.
highly and have good reason to is not even evidence he exists. So I get
discounting him (and even more so because I mangled some of what he told
me).
But the rest (schools and Google Scholar, tied with *no* counter) is pretty
damned strong. Even then, though, I have repeatedly said I am shocked to
*not* find people disagreeing. I *still* expect to - either from my own
research or someone else sharing it.
And if this happens you know how people in COLA will react: they will insist
this one piece of reputable evidence trumps everything else. :)
>> And not one piece of counter evidence was shown.
>>
>> In the course of the discussion I did make some comments where I cannot in
>> any way defend. I was called out on them and openly admitted I clearly
>> misunderstood what I had been told and did not think it through when I
>> posted it. A silly mistake on my part - no doubt. Yup, I make mistakes. Yup,
>> I am not always right. Yup, I cannot defend every claim I make. Of course.
>> Same is true for all of us. But when I am faced with this I admit to it.
>>
>> Wish others in COLA would rise to that level.
>
> In terms of intelligence, this place is an absolute cesspool.
admitting when you are wrong is seen as something bad when it is a sign of
strength.
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 2:12:22 PM1/29/14
to
"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
<sarcasm mode on and a Creepy Chris Ahlstrom mask, speaking in a squeeky
> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
Ahlstrom voice and trying to be 1337>
'I dunno. What these wintrolls dont know is that less cases means less
bits and this saves memory and in Linux we dont need as much memory as
Billy Buttcrust boxes and 64 bit apps are faster and use less memory
than 32 bit apps and Hadron is a liar and never, no never, used
Linux.........'
sbd
Jan 29, 2014, 2:16:00 PM1/29/14
to
On 01/29/2014 01:52 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
who documented them, when, why, where?
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>
Sorry, I can't accept this compliment, you are better than I am.
> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
> Amazing.
>
Peter Köhlmann
Jan 29, 2014, 2:26:48 PM1/29/14
to
Snit wrote:
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and
>> pay no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>> programming languages.
>>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
No, imbecile liar Snit Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy, that was you.
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and
>> pay no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>> programming languages.
>>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
*You* came with this totally fabricated story of a programming expert and
his blithering idiocy about compiling on microcontrollers
*You* have brought that up, nobody else.
You try in vain to change that story when you were told that nobody actually
ever compiles on those microcontrollers, making your "expert" look like that
incompetent idiot you really are.
After all, that "expert" does not exist at all
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 3:25:06 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 12:16 PM, in article lcbk1g$79a$1...@dont-email.me, "sbd"
(I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask):
Clark Atlanta University
Dublin City University
Eastern Michigan University
GeorgeTown University
Ithaca College
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Illinois University
University of Hawaii
University of Maine
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Virginia Tech
Western Michigan University
* Every source found through Google Scholar:
Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++
Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader,
and John B. Hanks
<http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF>
The case for Ada at the USAF academy
Abstract available here:
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430>
* Every blogger writing about the topic:
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110>
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114>
<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114>
<http://goo.gl/g8FbNF>
<http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn>
Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than
the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single
counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected
to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else
will.
And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those
who find it convenient to trump all the others. :)
>> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
>> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>>
> come on: everybody knows you are the master fabricator in this group.
> Sorry, I can't accept this compliment, you are better than I am.
I never said anything about "compiling on microcontrollers". I noted there
"maybe" (sic) some benefit to using case sensitive languages for the use of
microcontrollers. When asked what this benefit could be I acknowledged I
could not think of any and rescinded my claim.
>> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
>> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
>> Amazing.
>
> What? when? where? why? Je ne comprends pas!
In the past I incorrectly claimed he had made claims about people
*receiving* a government benefit when he talked about people *applying* for
it. My mistake. When he pointed out my error I apologized.
He, on the other hand, has yet to apologize for his incorrect claim that I
spoke of a compiling on microcontrollers. I did no such thing. He will go to
his grave refused to apologize. So be it. I shall not freak out over his
mistake as he did over mine. I simply do not sink to that level.
<sbd....@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> On 01/29/2014 01:52 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>>
> who documented them, when, why, where?
* Every college and university found to take a stance on the issue
> On 01/29/2014 01:52 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any way.
>>
> who documented them, when, why, where?
(I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask):
Clark Atlanta University
Dublin City University
Eastern Michigan University
GeorgeTown University
Ithaca College
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Illinois University
University of Hawaii
University of Maine
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Virginia Tech
Western Michigan University
* Every source found through Google Scholar:
Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++
Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader,
and John B. Hanks
<http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF>
The case for Ada at the USAF academy
Abstract available here:
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430>
* Every blogger writing about the topic:
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110>
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114>
<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114>
<http://goo.gl/g8FbNF>
<http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn>
Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than
the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single
counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected
to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else
will.
And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those
who find it convenient to trump all the others. :)
>> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
>> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>>
> come on: everybody knows you are the master fabricator in this group.
> Sorry, I can't accept this compliment, you are better than I am.
"maybe" (sic) some benefit to using case sensitive languages for the use of
microcontrollers. When asked what this benefit could be I acknowledged I
could not think of any and rescinded my claim.
>> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
>> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
>> Amazing.
>
> What? when? where? why? Je ne comprends pas!
*receiving* a government benefit when he talked about people *applying* for
it. My mistake. When he pointed out my error I apologized.
He, on the other hand, has yet to apologize for his incorrect claim that I
spoke of a compiling on microcontrollers. I did no such thing. He will go to
his grave refused to apologize. So be it. I shall not freak out over his
mistake as he did over mine. I simply do not sink to that level.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 3:27:57 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 12:26 PM, in article lcbklq$irj$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
Ahlstrom has called you out on. It is all you know how to do when you know
you are wrong. How sad for you.
I never said anything about "compiling on microcontrollers". I noted there
"maybe" (sic) some benefit to using case sensitive languages for the use of
microcontrollers. When asked what this benefit could be I acknowledged I
could not think of any and rescinded my claim.
"maybe" (sic) some benefit to using case sensitive languages for the use of
microcontrollers. When asked what this benefit could be I acknowledged I
could not think of any and rescinded my claim.
In the past I incorrectly claimed he had made claims about people
*receiving* a government benefit when he talked about people *applying* for
it. My mistake. When he pointed out my error I apologized.
He, on the other hand, has yet to apologize for his incorrect claim that I
spoke of a compiling on microcontrollers. I did no such thing. He will go to
his grave refused to apologize. So be it. I shall not freak out over his
mistake as he did over mine. I simply do not sink to that level.
And, you, Peter, simply resort to intimidation and bullying, something even
*receiving* a government benefit when he talked about people *applying* for
it. My mistake. When he pointed out my error I apologized.
He, on the other hand, has yet to apologize for his incorrect claim that I
spoke of a compiling on microcontrollers. I did no such thing. He will go to
his grave refused to apologize. So be it. I shall not freak out over his
mistake as he did over mine. I simply do not sink to that level.
Ahlstrom has called you out on. It is all you know how to do when you know
you are wrong. How sad for you.
Peter Köhlmann
Jan 29, 2014, 3:33:57 PM1/29/14
to
The thread is still present, anybody can read that you did indeed talk about
compiling on microcontrollers. No amount of weasel wording can change that
fact
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 3:53:04 PM1/29/14
to
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
>> no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>> programming languages.
>>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any
> way.
What documented disadvantages? You've shown nothing but ill informed
> On 1/29/14, 8:32 AM, in article lcb6uu$nq3$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
> <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pay no attention to the international standard bodies in the world, and pay
>> no attention to the *experts* who actually developed and wrote the
>> programming languages.
>>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any
> way.
opinion. Nothing of peer note.
>
> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>
> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
> Amazing.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 4:15:20 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 5:43 AM, in article pmthe994oti52r1m0...@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
No debate: the answer is obvious.
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
to use a QWERTY layout? Anyone who disagrees is saying they made a
mistake not going with a Dvorak or something else. Well they had
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
Hey, cc, does the above nonsense look familiar? Do you accept that as a well
reasoned argument in support of QWERTY being the best possible layout for
keyboards? LOL!
Yes, you are a funny one.
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>
> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
No debate: the answer is obvious.
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
to use a QWERTY layout? Anyone who disagrees is saying they made a
mistake not going with a Dvorak or something else. Well they had
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
Hey, cc, does the above nonsense look familiar? Do you accept that as a well
reasoned argument in support of QWERTY being the best possible layout for
keyboards? LOL!
Yes, you are a funny one.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 4:18:37 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 1:53 PM, in article 8738k61...@gmail.com, "Hadron"
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> None of this offers counters to the documented disadvantages in any
>> way.
>
> What documented disadvantages? You've shown nothing but ill informed
> opinion. Nothing of peer note.
The support I have shown:
>> way.
>
> What documented disadvantages? You've shown nothing but ill informed
> opinion. Nothing of peer note.
>> In other words: you have nothing but lies about "compiling on
>> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>>
>> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
>> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
>> Amazing.
>
> Shut up.
And that is the best you can do with your argument. Got it! LOL!
>> microcontrollers", a claim *you* fabricated.
>>
>> Come on: when I misunderstood you I admitted to it and apologized. When you
>> misunderstand me you just keep repeating the lie over and over and over.
>> Amazing.
>
> Shut up.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 4:36:13 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 7:23 AM, in article lcb2tm$sad$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> My Dad swears by Dvorak. He keeps telling me it would be easy to learn.
From another post (and based on cc's nonsense):
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
to use a qwerty layout? Anyone who disagrees is saying they made a
<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
From another post (and based on cc's nonsense):
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
mistake not going with a Dvorak or something else. Well they had
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 4:39:36 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 6:08 AM, in article pan.2014.01...@message.id, "Onion
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
to use a qwerty layout? Anyone who disagrees is saying they made a
mistake not going with a Dvorak or something else. Well they had
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
To understand the context of the above read cc's defense of case
sensitivity. :)
Knight v3.0" <sn...@snit.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
> Dvorak keyboard kicks the shit out of QWERTY. Jeremy at Walmart told me so.
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:43:16 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>
Why would QWERTY keyboards be so popular if it had a lot of
disadvantages? Why would all the insanely smart keyboard designers
of the past few decades choose, and continue to choose, to create
QWERTY keyboard layouts? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not
like the current state of keyboard and designed their own, choose
to use a qwerty layout? Anyone who disagrees is saying they made a
mistake not going with a Dvorak or something else. Well they had
the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they thought
was a better keyboard layout (even if no one else uses it), so why
did they pick a QWERTY layout that some allege has so many
disadvantages?
Anyone who disagrees is just running from these points. Of course
the answer is simple: QWERTY layouts are popular by far because
QWERTY is better than Dvorak or any other option. This isn't music
or movies, this is science and engineering. It's popular for a
reason.
Some don't understand why QWERTY layouts are better. I get that.
Such people are idiots. And if anyone claims they have spoken to
an expert who disagrees than that expert is an idiot, too. They
can keep on thinking that Dvorak or other layout are best and the
world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn, design, and
use QWERTY layouts the vast majority of the time.
sensitivity. :)
Hadron
Jan 29, 2014, 5:09:45 PM1/29/14
to
Are you insane?
I'm beginning to think so too : and I used to support your facts used
against the moronic brigade in COLA.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 5:20:52 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 3:09 PM, in article 87a9eez...@gmail.com, "Hadron"
No, just read cc's words:
-----
Why would they be so popular if it had alot of disadvantages? Why
would all the insanely smart language designers of the past few
decades choose, and continue to choose, to create case sensitivite
languages? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not like the
current state of languages, choose a little used, *case
sensitive*, combination of smalltalk and C? You're saying they
made a mistake not going with a case insensitive language. Well
why did they pick a case sensitive language that you alledge has
so many disadvantages? You keep running from these points. Of
course the answer is simple: Case sensitive languages are popular
by far because case sensitivity is better than case insensitivity.
You don't understand why case sensitive languages are better. We
get that. You're an idiot. You also have an idiot, liar, friend
who thinks compiled microcontroller code is affect by case
sensitivity, lied about .NET guidelines and tools, and who duped
you into thinking he was an expert. So you have that going against
you too. You keep on thinking that case insensitive languages are
-----
Do you think he is right? If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
The fact is both are absolute nonsense.
> Are you insane?
>
> I'm beginning to think so too : and I used to support your facts used
> against the moronic brigade in COLA.
If you think my claims are wrong then *refute* them. Show why they are
wrong. It comes down to this: you understand how well I support my views and
in this case the support I have shown goes against something you disagree
with... in fact something you have very strong feelings about. Fine. You
have strong feelings that are contrary to all the evidence anyone has been
able to show. I am OK with that and am not calling you names or otherwise
belittling you.
But I am quite sure deep down the fact the evidence does not back your view
bothers you... hence your strong emotions on this issue.
-----
Why would they be so popular if it had alot of disadvantages? Why
would all the insanely smart language designers of the past few
decades choose, and continue to choose, to create case sensitivite
languages? Why would Apple and NeXT, which did not like the
current state of languages, choose a little used, *case
sensitive*, combination of smalltalk and C? You're saying they
made a mistake not going with a case insensitive language. Well
they had the resources, and obviously the desire to use what they
thought was a better language (even if no one else uses it), so
why did they pick a case sensitive language that you alledge has
so many disadvantages? You keep running from these points. Of
course the answer is simple: Case sensitive languages are popular
by far because case sensitivity is better than case insensitivity.
This isn't music or movies, this is science and engineering. It's
popular for a reason.
-----
popular for a reason.
You don't understand why case sensitive languages are better. We
get that. You're an idiot. You also have an idiot, liar, friend
who thinks compiled microcontroller code is affect by case
sensitivity, lied about .NET guidelines and tools, and who duped
you into thinking he was an expert. So you have that going against
you too. You keep on thinking that case insensitive languages are
best and the world will continue to ignore you and teach, learn,
design, and use case sensitive languages as a vast majority.
-----
Do you think he is right? If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
The fact is both are absolute nonsense.
> Are you insane?
>
> I'm beginning to think so too : and I used to support your facts used
> against the moronic brigade in COLA.
wrong. It comes down to this: you understand how well I support my views and
in this case the support I have shown goes against something you disagree
with... in fact something you have very strong feelings about. Fine. You
have strong feelings that are contrary to all the evidence anyone has been
able to show. I am OK with that and am not calling you names or otherwise
belittling you.
But I am quite sure deep down the fact the evidence does not back your view
bothers you... hence your strong emotions on this issue.
Tattoo Vampire
Jan 29, 2014, 7:24:45 PM1/29/14
to
Cola Zealot wrote:
> Why do you beg for Snit's attention so much, Don?
> You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
He's been binned for months. Doesn't stop his quoted crap from turning up in
other people's posts. And if you kill anything referencing his message ID,
99% of remaining visible posts vanish. That's how badly he's polluted this
group.
Go tend to your socks, Snotwad.
> Why do you beg for Snit's attention so much, Don?
> You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
He's been binned for months. Doesn't stop his quoted crap from turning up in
other people's posts. And if you kill anything referencing his message ID,
99% of remaining visible posts vanish. That's how badly he's polluted this
group.
Go tend to your socks, Snotwad.
Snit
Jan 29, 2014, 8:09:53 PM1/29/14
to
On 1/29/14, 5:24 PM, in article 1gia4rc6...@sitting.at.this.computer,
I cannot force anyone to read or respond to my posts. Nor would I want to.
The bottom line is I am knowledgeable, do research well, and am humble about
the things I do not know and when I make errors. People in COLA do not know
how to react to that.
Oh, and I often respond to trolling nonsense such as your posts. :)
The bottom line is I am knowledgeable, do research well, and am humble about
the things I do not know and when I make errors. People in COLA do not know
how to react to that.
Oh, and I often respond to trolling nonsense such as your posts. :)
Nobody
Jan 29, 2014, 9:20:25 PM1/29/14
to
On 01/29/2014 08:24 AM, RonB wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:02:51 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice
>> Billy Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
>>
>> I think we have a few victims in this ng:
>
> My Sinclair QL was the first to use a 68000 series CPU. A few months
> before the Mac. Unlike the Mac, however, the QL was multitasking.
Did the QL have great Mac things like manual memory assignment? How
about a one button mouse? Did its processing halt when the menu was
displayed? I'll bet you're green with envy...
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:02:51 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> The volume of drivel in the case-(in)sensitivity "debate" was notable.
>>>
>>> I say we start an argument about the QWERTY keyboard. Obsolete and
>>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>>
>> How about Motorola versus Intel? Motorola processors kicked Intel's ass
>>> counter-productive, or still the best way to do it? 8)
>>
>> years ago functionally, but lost in the long run because of the choice
>> Billy Buttcrust and IBM made. Discuss.
>>
>> I think we have a few victims in this ng:
>
> My Sinclair QL was the first to use a 68000 series CPU. A few months
> before the Mac. Unlike the Mac, however, the QL was multitasking.
Did the QL have great Mac things like manual memory assignment? How
about a one button mouse? Did its processing halt when the menu was
displayed? I'll bet you're green with envy...
Steve Carroll
Jan 29, 2014, 10:33:34 PM1/29/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:09:53 AM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 1/29/14, 5:24 PM, in article 1gia4rc6...@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cola Zealot wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Why do you beg for Snit's attention so much, Don?
>
> >> You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
>
> >
>
> > He's been binned for months. Doesn't stop his quoted crap from turning up in
>
> > other people's posts. And if you kill anything referencing his message ID,
>
> > 99% of remaining visible posts vanish. That's how badly he's polluted this
>
> > group.
>
> >
>
> > Go tend to your socks, Snotwad.
>
>
>
> I cannot force anyone to read or respond to my posts. Nor would I want to.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is I am knowledgeable, do research well, and am humble about
>
> the things I do not know and when I make errors. People in COLA do not know
>
> how to react to that.
>
>
>
> Oh, and I often respond to trolling nonsense such as your posts. :)
>
You claim to be humble in the same post you brag about how great you are. This is why you are called Mr. Hypocrite, gluey.
> On 1/29/14, 5:24 PM, in article 1gia4rc6...@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cola Zealot wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Why do you beg for Snit's attention so much, Don?
>
> >> You never even considered to killfile him, now isn't it?
>
> >
>
> > He's been binned for months. Doesn't stop his quoted crap from turning up in
>
> > other people's posts. And if you kill anything referencing his message ID,
>
> > 99% of remaining visible posts vanish. That's how badly he's polluted this
>
> > group.
>
> >
>
> > Go tend to your socks, Snotwad.
>
>
>
> I cannot force anyone to read or respond to my posts. Nor would I want to.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is I am knowledgeable, do research well, and am humble about
>
> the things I do not know and when I make errors. People in COLA do not know
>
> how to react to that.
>
>
>
> Oh, and I often respond to trolling nonsense such as your posts. :)
>
Cola Zealot
Jan 30, 2014, 4:08:22 PM1/30/14
to
"Hadron" wrote in message news:877g9i1...@gmail.com...
https://plus.google.com/photos/+ChrisAhlstrom/albums/profile
He looks like an absolute moron to me!!
>
>"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
><sarcasm mode on and a Creepy Chris Ahlstrom mask, speaking in a squeeky
>Ahlstrom voice and trying to be 1337>
>
lol ! Hell.............I see what you mean!
>"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense when
>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>
><sarcasm mode on and a Creepy Chris Ahlstrom mask, speaking in a squeeky
>Ahlstrom voice and trying to be 1337>
>
https://plus.google.com/photos/+ChrisAhlstrom/albums/profile
He looks like an absolute moron to me!!
cc
Jan 30, 2014, 7:02:05 PM1/30/14
to
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:20:52 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
>
> If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
>
Because they are not analogous. C++ isn't better than Java because it's more popular, etc., etc., etc.
>
>
> If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
>
If you wanted to use keyboards as an example, then substitute a keyboard without numbers for case insensitivity, and a standard keyboard with numbers for case sensitivity. Sure, sometimes you hit a number when you wanted a letter, and spelling out a number is recommended in certain cases, but a keyboard with numbers is still better (and used by 99.99999999% of people just like case sensitive languages [only slight exaggeration]).
When you're done acting like a cranky baby, there's some very serious problems/holes/lies with your "expert's" statements that you can address. Or you can continue to run and acknowledge that you made up this person.
Snit
Jan 30, 2014, 7:28:02 PM1/30/14
to
On 1/30/14, 5:02 PM, in article
f1c989ee-0d65-492c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
In both case:
* There is no reason to think it is the best solution
* A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
Simple!
> C++ isn't better than Java because it's more popular, etc., etc., etc.
>
> If you wanted to use keyboards as an example, then substitute a keyboard
> without numbers for case insensitivity, and a standard keyboard with numbers
> for case sensitivity. Sure, sometimes you hit a number when you wanted a
> letter, and spelling out a number is recommended in certain cases, but a
> keyboard with numbers is still better (and used by 99.99999999% of people just
> like case sensitive languages [only slight exaggeration]).
>
> When you're done acting like a cranky baby, there's some very serious
> problems/holes/lies with your "expert's" statements that you can address. Or
> you can continue to run and acknowledge that you made up this person.
f1c989ee-0d65-492c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:20:52 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
>>
>
> Because they are not analogous.
Sure they are.
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:20:52 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> If so, how is my QWERTY argument any less right?
>>
>
> Because they are not analogous.
In both case:
* There is no reason to think it is the best solution
* A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
Simple!
> C++ isn't better than Java because it's more popular, etc., etc., etc.
>
> If you wanted to use keyboards as an example, then substitute a keyboard
> without numbers for case insensitivity, and a standard keyboard with numbers
> for case sensitivity. Sure, sometimes you hit a number when you wanted a
> letter, and spelling out a number is recommended in certain cases, but a
> keyboard with numbers is still better (and used by 99.99999999% of people just
> like case sensitive languages [only slight exaggeration]).
>
> When you're done acting like a cranky baby, there's some very serious
> problems/holes/lies with your "expert's" statements that you can address. Or
> you can continue to run and acknowledge that you made up this person.
cc
Jan 30, 2014, 7:53:13 PM1/30/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:28:02 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> * A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
Except some of the first programming languages, and certainly the massively popular early languages like Fortran and Cobol among others, were all case insensitive. So there was 10-15 years before a popular case sensitive language came out (depending on how popular we want to get).
>
> * A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
So once again, the analogy doesn't work as there was a history of case insensitive languages being most used and incredibly popular for many years.
Snit
Jan 30, 2014, 8:06:01 PM1/30/14
to
On 1/30/14, 5:53 PM, in article
f3198305-80f7-422a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> So there was 10-15 years before a popular case sensitive language
> came out (depending on how popular we want to get).
>
> So once again, the analogy doesn't work as there was a history of case
> insensitive languages being most used and incredibly popular for many years.
The analogy has gone completely over your head even though the point is
simple:
Popularity does not prove something is better.
And when you see your own words modified slightly to apply to an areas where
you disagree you just snip them. You have no counter argument.
The design and implementation of a new language takes years and that work
must be (nearly) completed before a user-friendly development environment
and teaching materials can be created. Developers jump-start their projects
by using an existing, popular language.
f3198305-80f7-422a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:28:02 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>> * A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
>
> Except some of the first programming languages, and certainly the massively
> popular early languages like Fortran and Cobol among others, were all case
> insensitive.
And many early keyboard layout were not QWERTY!
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:28:02 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>> * A history of usage behind it explains the popularity
>
> Except some of the first programming languages, and certainly the massively
> popular early languages like Fortran and Cobol among others, were all case
> insensitive.
> So there was 10-15 years before a popular case sensitive language
> came out (depending on how popular we want to get).
>
> So once again, the analogy doesn't work as there was a history of case
> insensitive languages being most used and incredibly popular for many years.
simple:
Popularity does not prove something is better.
And when you see your own words modified slightly to apply to an areas where
you disagree you just snip them. You have no counter argument.
The design and implementation of a new language takes years and that work
must be (nearly) completed before a user-friendly development environment
and teaching materials can be created. Developers jump-start their projects
by using an existing, popular language.
cc
Jan 30, 2014, 8:39:00 PM1/30/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:06:01 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
I have never said otherwise.
>
> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
You don't seem to understand how an analogy works, and how case sensitivity in programming languages is different from keyboards, music, movies, etc, etc.
It's not just languages people are using. It's new languages people are designing. They could even build on top of existing languages that are case insensitive, but they don't! They consistently choose to build case sensitive languages from the ground up, or add on or modify existing case sensitive languages. You run from this. People have designed new keyboards because they didn't like the QWERTY layout. No one is designing new case insensitive languages. That's why your analogy is wrong.
Snit
Jan 30, 2014, 8:47:46 PM1/30/14
to
On 1/30/14, 6:39 PM, in article
a079e361-6378-41e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
is better: it is popular. And then you snip and run.
In other words, you know you have been shown to have made a complete fool of
yourself, again, in pretending to be knowledgeable about topics you are
completely clueless about.
Stop running and you can earn some more responses - but for now I have
accepted your white flag. You have surrendered and admitted your *one*
argument is faulty as you have failed to refute the evidence that goes
against your view:
Here, again - though you will just snip and run because you are merely
pretending to be knowledgably about a topic you are completely ignorant
about:
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
These things are backed by:
And below you just babble and whine about how my analogy blew your nonsense
out of the water. Whatever. You are boring.
> You don't seem to understand how an analogy works, and how case sensitivity in
> programming languages is different from keyboards, music, movies, etc, etc.
>
> It's not just languages people are using. It's new languages people are
> designing. They could even build on top of existing languages that are case
> insensitive, but they don't! They consistently choose to build case sensitive
> languages from the ground up, or add on or modify existing case sensitive
> languages. You run from this. People have designed new keyboards because they
> didn't like the QWERTY layout. No one is designing new case insensitive
> languages. That's why your analogy is wrong.
a079e361-6378-41e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:06:01 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
> I have never said otherwise.
And yet that is your whole argument about why case sensitivity in languages
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:06:01 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
> I have never said otherwise.
is better: it is popular. And then you snip and run.
In other words, you know you have been shown to have made a complete fool of
yourself, again, in pretending to be knowledgeable about topics you are
completely clueless about.
Stop running and you can earn some more responses - but for now I have
accepted your white flag. You have surrendered and admitted your *one*
argument is faulty as you have failed to refute the evidence that goes
against your view:
Here, again - though you will just snip and run because you are merely
pretending to be knowledgably about a topic you are completely ignorant
about:
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
These things are backed by:
out of the water. Whatever. You are boring.
> You don't seem to understand how an analogy works, and how case sensitivity in
> programming languages is different from keyboards, music, movies, etc, etc.
>
> It's not just languages people are using. It's new languages people are
> designing. They could even build on top of existing languages that are case
> insensitive, but they don't! They consistently choose to build case sensitive
> languages from the ground up, or add on or modify existing case sensitive
> languages. You run from this. People have designed new keyboards because they
> didn't like the QWERTY layout. No one is designing new case insensitive
> languages. That's why your analogy is wrong.
Steve Carroll
Jan 30, 2014, 8:52:33 PM1/30/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:47:46 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 1/30/14, 6:39 PM, in article
>
> a079e361-6378-41e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:06:01 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
> >
>
> > I have never said otherwise.
>
>
>
> And yet that is your whole argument about why case sensitivity in languages
>
> is better: it is popular. And then you snip and run.
>
>
>
> In other words, you know you have been shown to have made a complete fool of
>
> yourself, again, in pretending to be knowledgeable about topics you are
>
> completely clueless about.
Said the "web developer" who is "pretending to be knowledgeable about topics" he claims to have a business based on ( and over the subject of "case"... of all things ;)
> On 1/30/14, 6:39 PM, in article
>
> a079e361-6378-41e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:06:01 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Popularity does not prove something is better.
>
> >
>
> > I have never said otherwise.
>
>
>
> And yet that is your whole argument about why case sensitivity in languages
>
> is better: it is popular. And then you snip and run.
>
>
>
> In other words, you know you have been shown to have made a complete fool of
>
> yourself, again, in pretending to be knowledgeable about topics you are
>
> completely clueless about.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/jfmflJUJ2m8/_3VaklRgrmwJ
Can you spot where you're "wrong" AGAIN on this topic in that post? No peeking at the answer I gave you ;)
cc
Jan 30, 2014, 9:01:06 PM1/30/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:47:46 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
>
> And yet that is your whole argument
Incorrect. You've been given many legit reasons why, and you ignore them. Just like you ignore that your "expert" lied and said moronic things. Just like you ignore the facts below.
>
>
> And yet that is your whole argument
> about why case sensitivity in languages
> is better: it is popular.
Snit
Jan 30, 2014, 9:10:55 PM1/30/14
to
On 1/30/14, 7:01 PM, in article
2ae4cfdf-973b-41e1...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Case sensitivity in programming languages is, by all provided evidence, a
solution in search of a problem.
> In fact, no new languages are being created with case insensitivity.
You have already been shown this is wrong: new versions of languages are
kept case insensitive and at least one language with older versions which
were case sensitive has migrated to being a case sensitive language.
You snip. You run. You lie.
Even you know you are merely pretending to be knowledgeable about a topic
you are completely ignorant about.
> And there are plenty of case insensitive languages to build from. So why is
> that? Why did Apple go choose a modified case sensitive language instead of a
> modified case insensitive language if there are so many disadvantages to case
> sensitivity?
And there are plenty of keyboard layout to build from. So why is that? Why
did Apple go choose a modified QWERTY layout instead of a modified Dvorak
layout if there are so many disadvantages to QWERTY?
LOL! Your "logic" is just dumb... popularity does not equal superiority!
2ae4cfdf-973b-41e1...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:47:46 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> And yet that is your whole argument
>
> Incorrect.
Sure it is. Then you ignore that design and implementation of a new computer
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:47:46 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> And yet that is your whole argument
>
> Incorrect.
language takes years and that work must be (nearly) completed before a
user-friendly development environment and teaching materials can be created.
Developers jump-start their projects by using an existing, popular language
with similar features. C++ was not created in a vacuum. Nor Java.
user-friendly development environment and teaching materials can be created.
Developers jump-start their projects by using an existing, popular language
Case sensitivity in programming languages is, by all provided evidence, a
solution in search of a problem.
> In fact, no new languages are being created with case insensitivity.
kept case insensitive and at least one language with older versions which
were case sensitive has migrated to being a case sensitive language.
You snip. You run. You lie.
Even you know you are merely pretending to be knowledgeable about a topic
you are completely ignorant about.
> And there are plenty of case insensitive languages to build from. So why is
> that? Why did Apple go choose a modified case sensitive language instead of a
> modified case insensitive language if there are so many disadvantages to case
> sensitivity?
did Apple go choose a modified QWERTY layout instead of a modified Dvorak
layout if there are so many disadvantages to QWERTY?
LOL! Your "logic" is just dumb... popularity does not equal superiority!
Silver Slimer
Jan 31, 2014, 10:31:52 AM1/31/14
to
On 30/01/2014 4:08 PM, Cola Zealot wrote:
> "Hadron" wrote in message news:877g9i1...@gmail.com...
>>
>> "Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense
>>> when
>>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>>
>> <sarcasm mode on and a Creepy Chris Ahlstrom mask, speaking in a squeeky
>> Ahlstrom voice and trying to be 1337>
>>
> lol ! Hell.............I see what you mean!
> https://plus.google.com/photos/+ChrisAhlstrom/albums/profile
> He looks like an absolute moron to me!!
He looks like he's experience quite a number of wedgies in high school.
> "Hadron" wrote in message news:877g9i1...@gmail.com...
>>
>> "Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Snit and his make believe anonymous "expert" know better than everyone.
>>> After all, they even conceded that case sensitivity might make sense
>>> when
>>> compiling on microcontrollers because they only have a few K of RAM.
>>
>> <sarcasm mode on and a Creepy Chris Ahlstrom mask, speaking in a squeeky
>> Ahlstrom voice and trying to be 1337>
>>
> lol ! Hell.............I see what you mean!
> https://plus.google.com/photos/+ChrisAhlstrom/albums/profile
> He looks like an absolute moron to me!!
He also looks like the type of guy who spends too much time around
elementary schools staring at the children.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
cc
Jan 31, 2014, 12:46:59 PM1/31/14
to
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:10:55 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> You have already been shown this is wrong: new versions of
> languages are kept case insensitive and at least one language
> with older versions which were case sensitive has migrated
> to being a case sensitive language.
There you go lying again. They were not "new" versions of a language. They were new compilers for old standards, and a couple of updated standards. Now why do you think that they keep case insensitivity/sensitivity when updating standards that are already in use. Are you so stupid that you think that should change? Maybe your made up expert thinks so as well?
>
> You have already been shown this is wrong: new versions of
> languages are kept case insensitive and at least one language
> with older versions which were case sensitive has migrated
> to being a case sensitive language.
The one that changed was MySql, which hardly counts as a programming language, and they changed to become more standards compliant as SQL has been around forever and was case insensitive from the start. Which they should.
> Why did Apple go choose a modified QWERTY layout instead of a
> modified Dvorak layout if there are so many disadvantages to QWERTY?
So why did they choose a case sensitive language? It certainly wasn't because that language happened to be popular or entrenched. To this day Apple is one of the few outfits to use Objective C. They chose a case sensitive language because they thought it was BEST. Now here you are saying they were wrong to do so and that case insensitivity is better. Hmmmm. Do I believe a guy who made up an expert, or do I believe the actual experts at Apple?
Snit
Jan 31, 2014, 12:50:57 PM1/31/14
to
On 1/31/14, 10:46 AM, in article
c812c9a1-ce97-43e2...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
If you want a response to the above re-read the post you responded to and
respond without snipping and running. You bore me to tears with your
dishonesty.
c812c9a1-ce97-43e2...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
respond without snipping and running. You bore me to tears with your
dishonesty.
cc
Jan 31, 2014, 1:55:03 PM1/31/14
to
On Friday, January 31, 2014 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> If you want a response to the above re-read the post you responded
> to and respond without snipping and running.
The only part I snipped was your ignorance of language design (and total dodge by you of why they don't base their languages off of case insensitive ones, the original popular languages) and ad hominem attacks. Everything else is there and I responded to it.
>
> If you want a response to the above re-read the post you responded
> to and respond without snipping and running.
> You bore me to tears with your dishonesty.
Snit
Jan 31, 2014, 3:30:26 PM1/31/14
to
On 1/31/14, 11:55 AM, in article
4188b2c2-8126-4c01...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
You have nothing to counter the support shown by *every* college,
university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
C, and was not created in a vacuum.
Then again, when I point to other languages with histories, such as the
newest versions of MySQL, Pascal, VB.Net, and Fortan, you suddenly
contradict yourself completely and remember that, wow, the histories of
these languages and their users matter. And, no, I do not care what your
excuses are for having one set of standards for Objective-C and another
MySQL. All of this is off topic of the *intrinsic* qualities and values to
these languages.
If you want to talk about that I am open to it, but your off topic nonsense
about popularity proves quality is stupid and will be ignored.
So again, looking at the intrinsic qualities of case sensitivity, we find -
with great support (and common sense):
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
You have *no* counter to these disadvantages nor any advantages which
counter-balance these (hence your running to your popular equals better
nonsense). And, of course, the above is backed up by:
4188b2c2-8126-4c01...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
C, and was not created in a vacuum.
Then again, when I point to other languages with histories, such as the
newest versions of MySQL, Pascal, VB.Net, and Fortan, you suddenly
contradict yourself completely and remember that, wow, the histories of
these languages and their users matter. And, no, I do not care what your
excuses are for having one set of standards for Objective-C and another
MySQL. All of this is off topic of the *intrinsic* qualities and values to
these languages.
If you want to talk about that I am open to it, but your off topic nonsense
about popularity proves quality is stupid and will be ignored.
So again, looking at the intrinsic qualities of case sensitivity, we find -
with great support (and common sense):
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
counter-balance these (hence your running to your popular equals better
nonsense). And, of course, the above is backed up by:
dvd
Jan 31, 2014, 3:37:37 PM1/31/14
to
On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:30:26 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
For God's Sake why don't you just shut up snit.
The entire group is sick and tired of your lies.
Everyone in COLA despises you.
Nobody fears you, we laugh at you.
Nobody begs for your attention.
We all wish you would just go away.
But you never will because you are a parasite, Michael Glasser.
For God's Sake why don't you just shut up snit.
The entire group is sick and tired of your lies.
Everyone in COLA despises you.
Nobody fears you, we laugh at you.
Nobody begs for your attention.
We all wish you would just go away.
But you never will because you are a parasite, Michael Glasser.
cc
Jan 31, 2014, 4:01:41 PM1/31/14
to
On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:30:26 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
>
> You have nothing to counter the support shown by *every* college,
> university,
All teach four years of a case sensitive language. Go on.
> university,
> and ignore the fact that even the "new" languages you point to,
> such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!) C,
> and was not created in a vacuum.
> Then again, when I point to other languages with histories,
> such as the newest versions of MySQL, Pascal, VB.Net, and
> Fortan, you suddenly contradict yourself completely and remember
> that, wow, the histories of these languages and their users matter.
You're pushing the lie that these new languages had to be developed based off of case sensitive languages, and that's just not true. The developers (experts) made a decision to add/modify functionality to case sensitive languages instead of case insensitive ones.
Cola Zealot
Jan 31, 2014, 4:16:23 PM1/31/14
to
"Nobody" wrote in message news:lccct9$9g8$1...@news.albasani.net...
lol ! Poor wRonG, always wRonG about anything.
As a failure, he's a tremendous success.
As a failure, he's a tremendous success.
Snit
Jan 31, 2014, 4:30:22 PM1/31/14
to
On 1/31/14, 2:01 PM, in article
a34154c8-8e41-45c6...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What I noted about case sensitive languages:
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
You have *no* counter to these disadvantages nor any advantages which
counter-balance these (hence your running to your popular equals better
nonsense).
And look, below you do it again... babbling about anything but intrinsic
qualities.
I will comment on bit of ignorance you show below: the primary design goals
of Objective-C were to incorporate SmallTalk and be backward compatible with
C... and you cannot figure out why they did not use Fortran or COBOL as a
starting point (other than case sensitivity). LOL!
As I said, even though you run like a scared bunny and repeatedly pretend to
be knowledgeable about topics you are completely ignorant about, it is
generally fun to talk to you because you are one of the most unintentionally
funny people I have ever ran across. Even Peter just spews idiotic nonsense
and then jumps to boring intimidation and bullying when called on it... you
top that with your attempts to actually back your ignorant, off topic
nonsense.
Thanks!
a34154c8-8e41-45c6...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What I noted about case sensitive languages:
Disadvantages:
* Readability: names that look alike are different
- Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Writability:
- Must remember exact spelling
- Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
You have *no* counter to these disadvantages nor any advantages which
counter-balance these (hence your running to your popular equals better
nonsense).
qualities.
I will comment on bit of ignorance you show below: the primary design goals
of Objective-C were to incorporate SmallTalk and be backward compatible with
C... and you cannot figure out why they did not use Fortran or COBOL as a
starting point (other than case sensitivity). LOL!
As I said, even though you run like a scared bunny and repeatedly pretend to
be knowledgeable about topics you are completely ignorant about, it is
generally fun to talk to you because you are one of the most unintentionally
funny people I have ever ran across. Even Peter just spews idiotic nonsense
and then jumps to boring intimidation and bullying when called on it... you
top that with your attempts to actually back your ignorant, off topic
nonsense.
Thanks!
Silver Slimer
Jan 31, 2014, 5:46:26 PM1/31/14
to
On 31/01/2014 3:30 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/31/14, 11:55 AM, in article
> 4188b2c2-8126-4c01...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want a response to the above re-read the post you responded
>>> to and respond without snipping and running.
>>
>> The only part I snipped was your ignorance of language design (and total dodge
>> by you of why they don't base their languages off of case insensitive ones,
>> the original popular languages) and ad hominem attacks. Everything else is
>> there and I responded to it.
>>
>>> You bore me to tears with your dishonesty.
>>
>> You made up an expert and tried to use him as support (laughably so). You're
>> the dishonest one.
>
> You have nothing to counter the support shown by *every* college,
> university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
> about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
> languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
> C, and was not created in a vacuum.
STILL on this topic? I'm starting to long for the good ol' days of my
> On 1/31/14, 11:55 AM, in article
> 4188b2c2-8126-4c01...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want a response to the above re-read the post you responded
>>> to and respond without snipping and running.
>>
>> The only part I snipped was your ignorance of language design (and total dodge
>> by you of why they don't base their languages off of case insensitive ones,
>> the original popular languages) and ad hominem attacks. Everything else is
>> there and I responded to it.
>>
>>> You bore me to tears with your dishonesty.
>>
>> You made up an expert and tried to use him as support (laughably so). You're
>> the dishonest one.
>
> You have nothing to counter the support shown by *every* college,
> university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
> about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
> languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
> C, and was not created in a vacuum.
being called Snit.
Snit
Jan 31, 2014, 7:13:15 PM1/31/14
to
On 1/31/14, 3:46 PM, in article lch942$7i7$2...@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvr...@lv.ca> wrote:
...
about how popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
> I'm starting to long for the good ol' days of my being called Snit.
I admit, I continue to give him attention. He is one of the few who can beat
Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
<slvr...@lv.ca> wrote:
...
>> You have nothing to counter the support shown by *every* college,
>> university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
>> about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
>> languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
>> C, and was not created in a vacuum.
>
> STILL on this topic?
I am but cc left the topic of intrinsic qualities of programs to babble
>> university, and source found through Google Scholar so you push nonsense
>> about how popularity equals quality and ignore the fact that even the "new"
>> languages you point to, such as Objective-C, have a history in (surprise!)
>> C, and was not created in a vacuum.
>
> STILL on this topic?
about how popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
> I'm starting to long for the good ol' days of my being called Snit.
Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
cc
Feb 1, 2014, 8:08:12 AM2/1/14
to
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Silver Slimer wrote:
>
>
> STILL on this topic? I'm starting to long for the good ol' days of my
> being called Snit.
Don't read the thread?
>
>
> STILL on this topic? I'm starting to long for the good ol' days of my
> being called Snit.
As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to call him out on it.
Ezekiel
Feb 1, 2014, 8:10:02 AM2/1/14
to
"cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
cc
Feb 1, 2014, 8:16:13 AM2/1/14
to
On Friday, January 31, 2014 7:13:15 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> I am
No, you're running from questions left and right. You seem to think new languages can only be based on case sensitive languages.
>
> I admit, I continue to give him attention. He is one of the few who can beat
> Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
You made up an expert. An expert who thinks variable names effect compiled code size. An expert who lied about .NET guidelines. An expert who made up a set of tools that are impossible to exist.
Experts at universities (included those you listed) all teach four years of case sensitive languages. They do not teach four years of case insensitive languages. Experts developing new languages continue to come up with new case sensitive languages, sometimes basing them on existing case sensitive languages. They do not develop case insensitive languages or base them off of existing case insensitive languages. A vast majority of experts around the world continue to case sensitive languages, even though there are case insensitive alternatives. Experts at companies continue to choose to use case sensitive languages for development, even though there are case insensitive alternatives.
Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
>
> I am
No, you're running from questions left and right. You seem to think new languages can only be based on case sensitive languages.
>
> I admit, I continue to give him attention. He is one of the few who can beat
> Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
Experts at universities (included those you listed) all teach four years of case sensitive languages. They do not teach four years of case insensitive languages. Experts developing new languages continue to come up with new case sensitive languages, sometimes basing them on existing case sensitive languages. They do not develop case insensitive languages or base them off of existing case insensitive languages. A vast majority of experts around the world continue to case sensitive languages, even though there are case insensitive alternatives. Experts at companies continue to choose to use case sensitive languages for development, even though there are case insensitive alternatives.
Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 11:24:50 AM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 6:16 AM, in article
77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
insisting this is "proof").
77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case
> sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
> understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to
> try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
Excellent! State what they are (without just show code snippets and
> Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case
> sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
> understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to
> try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
insisting this is "proof").
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 11:30:11 AM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 6:16 AM, in article
77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Experts at universities (included those you listed) all teach four years of
> case sensitive languages. They do not teach four years of case insensitive
> languages. Experts developing new languages continue to come up with new case
> sensitive languages, sometimes basing them on existing case sensitive
> languages. They do not develop case insensitive languages or base them off of
> existing case insensitive languages. A vast majority of experts around the
> world continue to case sensitive languages, even though there are case
> insensitive alternatives. Experts at companies continue to choose to use case
> sensitive languages for development, even though there are case insensitive
> alternatives.
And with few if any exceptions all of this is done on equipment is QWERTY
> case sensitive languages. They do not teach four years of case insensitive
> languages. Experts developing new languages continue to come up with new case
> sensitive languages, sometimes basing them on existing case sensitive
> languages. They do not develop case insensitive languages or base them off of
> existing case insensitive languages. A vast majority of experts around the
> world continue to case sensitive languages, even though there are case
> insensitive alternatives. Experts at companies continue to choose to use case
> sensitive languages for development, even though there are case insensitive
> alternatives.
layouts!
Go QWERTY!
LOL!
The funny thing is you really do not see why your popular equals best
argument is utter nonsense.
Steve Carroll
Feb 1, 2014, 12:22:14 PM2/1/14
to
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 2/1/14, 6:16 AM, in article
>
> 77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case
>
> > sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
>
> > understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to
>
> > try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
>
>
>
> Excellent! State what they are
Serious question: Why do you believe you're so special that people should keep posting things over and over... just for you?
> On 2/1/14, 6:16 AM, in article
>
> 77863acf-cfc6-4b03...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case
>
> > sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
>
> > understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an expert to
>
> > try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
>
>
>
> Excellent! State what they are
Obviously, you believe it fair that *your* reading comprehension problem *not* remain *your* problem. This is worse than your libtard idea of having your hand in the pocket of every hard working citizen, now you want to command a piece of their off-time, too.
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 12:34:04 PM2/1/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 1, 2014, 2:48:02 PM2/1/14
to
cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
Got a lot of time on your hands, eh?
--
Brain fried -- Core dumped
--
Brain fried -- Core dumped
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 1, 2014, 2:50:15 PM2/1/14
to
cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 7:13:15 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
>> I am what I yam
>
>
> No, you're running from questions left and right. You seem to think new languages can only be based on case sensitive languages.
>
>>
>> I admit, I continue to give him attention. He is one of the few who can beat
>> Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
>
> You made up an expert. An expert who thinks variable names effect compiled code size. An expert who lied about .NET guidelines. An expert who made up a set of tools that are impossible to exist.
>
> No, you're running from questions left and right. You seem to think new languages can only be based on case sensitive languages.
>
>>
>> I admit, I continue to give him attention. He is one of the few who can beat
>> Köhlmann on being unintentionally funny.
>
> You made up an expert. An expert who thinks variable names effect compiled code size. An expert who lied about .NET guidelines. An expert who made up a set of tools that are impossible to exist.
>
> Hadron, Ezekiel, and I (among others) have all given you reasons why case
> sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
> understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an
> expert to try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
Naw, what's funny is that you continue to give that gibbering crank credence
> sensitive has an advantage over case insensitivity. You either don't
> understand or don't want to understand, and resorted to making up an
> expert to try and convince people otherwise. Now that, is funny.
enough to continue "debating" with him. He's a waste of time.
--
Courtship to marriage, as a very witty prologue to a very dull play.
-- William Congreve
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 5:33:45 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 12:50 PM, in article lcjin7$5bt$3...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
Well, hey, if he tries a long time maybe he can actually find *some* support
for his claim other than his popular = better nonsense. I have been shocked
at how hard it is to find anything to back the idea that case sensitive
languages are better... but so far: nothing. Really very surprised....
for his claim other than his popular = better nonsense. I have been shocked
at how hard it is to find anything to back the idea that case sensitive
languages are better... but so far: nothing. Really very surprised....
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 5:34:12 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 12:48 PM, in article lcjij1$5bt$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
He is going to keep making his idiotic popular = better claims. It is funny
to watch.
to watch.
cc
Feb 1, 2014, 6:25:38 PM2/1/14
to
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:24:50 AM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
> Excellent! State what they are (without just show code snippets and
> insisting this is "proof").
>
Only in your world are code examples demonstrating a concept not proof of that concept being demonstrated. Just because you don't understand the code doesn't mean it doesn't accurately demonstrate the concept. Maybe your idiot, liar, "expert" can explain them to you?
>
>
>
> Excellent! State what they are (without just show code snippets and
> insisting this is "proof").
>
cc
Feb 1, 2014, 6:28:14 PM2/1/14
to
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>
> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to call him
> > out on it.
>
> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
> > out on it.
>
> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 6:34:53 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 4:25 PM, in article
41337afb-b8a0-48a7...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Nobody said you should not show code, but do not "just show code". Got it,
or is that too complex for you? Really: this is simple... you have *nothing*
to back your view. Well, nothing that empty accusations and your idiotic
popularity proves superiority nonsense. Go QWERTY!
41337afb-b8a0-48a7...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
or is that too complex for you? Really: this is simple... you have *nothing*
to back your view. Well, nothing that empty accusations and your idiotic
popularity proves superiority nonsense. Go QWERTY!
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 6:42:55 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 4:28 PM, in article
8a735413-887f-4584...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
And, I bet, 99% of those experts use a QWERTY keyboard. By your logic it
*must* be the best.
But let us keep in mind you have been completely and unable to do what you
said you would show "reasons why case sensitive has an advantage over case
insensitivity."
But if you are ready to say your case is closed, so to speak, we can end
with this:
On one side we have:
* every college we can find
* every university we can find
* every source found through Google Scholar
* and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement
* a whole list of specific affects to back the view
On the other hand we have
* a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C!
* popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
* code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used
8a735413-887f-4584...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
*must* be the best.
But let us keep in mind you have been completely and unable to do what you
said you would show "reasons why case sensitive has an advantage over case
insensitivity."
But if you are ready to say your case is closed, so to speak, we can end
with this:
On one side we have:
* every college we can find
* every university we can find
* every source found through Google Scholar
* and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement
* a whole list of specific affects to back the view
On the other hand we have
* a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C!
* popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
* code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used
DFS
Feb 1, 2014, 7:00:40 PM2/1/14
to
language(s) you develop with?
Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 7:26:09 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 5:00 PM, in article lck1so$1si$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
And if so, how... and *why*? Excellent questions. And also if these
practices are suggested by *any* common naming conventions.
practices are suggested by *any* common naming conventions.
Flatty
Feb 1, 2014, 7:30:34 PM2/1/14
to
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:26:09 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
> On 2/1/14, 5:00 PM, in article lck1so$1si$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
>
> <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>
> >>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>
> >>>> call him out on it.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>
> >>
>
> >> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>
> >> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>
> >> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>
> >
>
> > Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>
> > language(s) you develop with?
>
> >
>
> > Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>
>
>
> And if so, how... and *why*? Excellent questions. And also if these
>
> practices are suggested by *any* common naming conventions.
Snit is trying once again to set up his circus tents. Do not be fooled. Ignore the snit.
> On 2/1/14, 5:00 PM, in article lck1so$1si$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
>
> <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>
> >>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>
> >>>> call him out on it.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>
> >>
>
> >> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>
> >> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>
> >> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>
> >
>
> > Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>
> > language(s) you develop with?
>
> >
>
> > Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>
>
>
> And if so, how... and *why*? Excellent questions. And also if these
>
> practices are suggested by *any* common naming conventions.
Hadron
Feb 1, 2014, 8:29:29 PM2/1/14
to
DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
> On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>>>> call him out on it.
>>>
>>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>>
>> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever language(s) you
> develop with?
Yes. All the time. It's used to frequently to name an instance of a
> On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>>>> call him out on it.
>>>
>>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>>
>> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever language(s) you
> develop with?
certain class.
MyThing myThing = new MyThing();
But more importantly it doesnt allow people to "mix cases" and still
refer to the same classes and objects : that would make the code
unreadable.
e.g
mything=3*myThing;
where mything referred to the same object as myThing.
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>
file_dX01
and
file_DX01
indicating different flag status.
--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Snit
Feb 1, 2014, 9:01:19 PM2/1/14
to
On 2/1/14, 6:29 PM, in article 87eh3m8...@gmail.com, "Hadron"
not found any, but I admit I could have missed this. If you can find and
show one that would be a great counter to what I have been showing.
Can you think of how this could be done in a case insensitive language?
> But more importantly it doesnt allow people to "mix cases" and still
> refer to the same classes and objects : that would make the code
> unreadable.
>
> e.g
>
> mything=3*myThing;
>
> where mything referred to the same object as myThing.
I do not think anyone is suggesting doing away with naming conventions. In
fact, in case insensitive languages you often have compilers which *correct*
for such mistakes:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice I "goofed" and have NEWVar instead of NewVar (in addition to the many
other "mistakes"). No big deal - the tools I use correct for this. And, of
course, I could change NEWVar to NewVar very easily (and without using
search and replace which could also mangle text in strings and the like).
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>>
>
> Personally no, but I can envisage where it could be used e.g
>
> file_dX01
>
> and
>
> file_DX01
>
> indicating different flag status.
Oh, we can come up with all sorts of contrived examples - but in the real
world it is only very rarely used. Sure, there are times when it is... but
case insensitivity was added for a reason - it makes things better in many
cases.
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>>>>> call him out on it.
>>>>
>>>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>>>
>>> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>>> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>>> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever language(s) you
>> develop with?
>
> Yes. All the time. It's used to frequently to name an instance of a
> certain class.
>
> MyThing myThing = new MyThing();
Can you show a style guide which recommends doing this? I have looked and
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/1/2014 6:28 PM, cc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-5, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:16c01679-eb46-49b1...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> As long as he's going to make idiotic statements, I'm going to
>>>>> call him out on it.
>>>>
>>>> Prepare yourself for a long busy life.
>>>
>>> Hah. You're right. I'll stop. I guess I'll get back to work using
>>> case sensitive languages created by experts, taught by experts, and
>>> used by experts (and 99% of them as well).
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever language(s) you
>> develop with?
>
> Yes. All the time. It's used to frequently to name an instance of a
> certain class.
>
> MyThing myThing = new MyThing();
not found any, but I admit I could have missed this. If you can find and
show one that would be a great counter to what I have been showing.
Can you think of how this could be done in a case insensitive language?
> But more importantly it doesnt allow people to "mix cases" and still
> refer to the same classes and objects : that would make the code
> unreadable.
>
> e.g
>
> mything=3*myThing;
>
> where mything referred to the same object as myThing.
fact, in case insensitive languages you often have compilers which *correct*
for such mistakes:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CaseSensitiveLanguage.mp4>
Notice I "goofed" and have NEWVar instead of NewVar (in addition to the many
other "mistakes"). No big deal - the tools I use correct for this. And, of
course, I could change NEWVar to NewVar very easily (and without using
search and replace which could also mangle text in strings and the like).
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>>
>
> Personally no, but I can envisage where it could be used e.g
>
> file_dX01
>
> and
>
> file_DX01
>
> indicating different flag status.
world it is only very rarely used. Sure, there are times when it is... but
case insensitivity was added for a reason - it makes things better in many
cases.
cc
Feb 2, 2014, 7:21:10 AM2/2/14
to
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:00:40 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
> language(s) you develop with?
Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable. So if I type char* m_szFileName and later I use m_szFilename, the compiler complains of an undeclared reference (m_szFilename is undeclared) at line 69 and I go to line 69, and I fix my mistake. Under the right circumstances I would do something like: void changePwd(User user), which in a case insensitive language would have to be changePwd(User oUser), or changePwd(User theUserToChange) or some other nonsense. Additionally if i declare a constant in my header (#define ATTEN_MAX_DB) and others share the same header, since it is common to declare them as all uppercase, the users of my code will not have to worry about my constants stepping on their declarations. So yes, when using case sensitive languages, my code is case sensitive.
>
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
> language(s) you develop with?
Interestingly enough, many editors for case insensitivity languages actually act in a case sensitive manner, asking you meant to declare another variable when you type it in a different case. Of course other editors aren't so kind and will let you stomp on a previous variable (and in a weakly typed language let you stomp on a previous declaration with an entirely different type of data!). And all compilers for case insensitive languages will let you do the same, obviously. Oh those pesky runtime errors.
>
> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 2, 2014, 7:33:48 AM2/2/14
to
cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:00:40 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
It's actually pretty humorous see such an angry, arrogant person make a
continual ass of himself.
--
Vax Vobiscum
RonB
Feb 2, 2014, 9:05:53 AM2/2/14
to
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:33:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
Yeah, but it stands out more clearly with the case sensitive spelling.
> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
Compare dufus or DUFUS with DuFuS.
I rest my case.
--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds
Tattoo Vampire
Feb 2, 2014, 9:08:28 AM2/2/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> It's actually pretty humorous see such an angry, arrogant person make a
> continual ass of himself.
>
Oh, he/she/it is back? I hoped they had dropped dead months ago. No matter, I
> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> It's actually pretty humorous see such an angry, arrogant person make a
> continual ass of himself.
>
binned them as soon as they opened the second asshole under their nose and
began farting in COLA again.
--
This is my signature file.
Sinister Midget
Feb 2, 2014, 11:29:10 AM2/2/14
to
On 2014-02-02, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> claimed:
outside programming lanuages.
--
Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:33:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> Yeah, but it stands out more clearly with the case sensitive spelling.
>
> Compare dufus or DUFUS with DuFuS.
>
> I rest my case.
And a strong case it is. It supports the need for case sensitivty
>
>> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> Yeah, but it stands out more clearly with the case sensitive spelling.
>
> Compare dufus or DUFUS with DuFuS.
>
> I rest my case.
outside programming lanuages.
--
Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.
Snit
Feb 2, 2014, 12:09:32 PM2/2/14
to
On 2/2/14, 5:21 AM, in article
7660892e-df1a-4761...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
QWERTY!
Then, below, you fail to give a single example of where you might actually
make use of a case sensitive quality: the ability to have two construct (or
files) with the same name other than case. You do note where some tools help
you catch errors when you make them. Truly funny.
At least with Hadron he noted examples where he *actually* uses the case
sensitive qualities of languages: he names constructs the same other than
case. Now is this wise? Does this fit *any* common naming guild? Is there an
equally valid way to do what he shows in a case insensitive way? Does the
benefit of him being able to name things in such as way offer more benefits
than naming them in other ways that relate? Does it counter balance the many
disadvantages which have been shown? Is there *any* reputable source which
recommends doing so?
On the last: not that I have found... though there are examples of people
*responding* to questions and, I think, even blog posts with similar code
examples. So *maybe* he has found an actual advantage - I would love for him
to talk more about it and answer some of the questions, above.
But you, LOL, you just show you have *no* answer for where you would
actually use two constructs with the same name other than case. In other
words, your answer is: no.
Love it!
> So if I type char*
> m_szFileName and later I use m_szFilename, the compiler complains of an
> undeclared reference (m_szFilename is undeclared) at line 69 and I go to line
> 69, and I fix my mistake. Under the right circumstances I would do something
> like: void changePwd(User user), which in a case insensitive language would
> have to be changePwd(User oUser), or changePwd(User theUserToChange) or some
> other nonsense. Additionally if i declare a constant in my header (#define
> ATTEN_MAX_DB) and others share the same header, since it is common to declare
> them as all uppercase, the users of my code will not have to worry about my
> constants stepping on their declarations. So yes, when using case sensitive
> languages, my code is case sensitive.
>
> Interestingly enough, many editors for case insensitivity languages actually
> act in a case sensitive manner, asking you meant to declare another variable
> when you type it in a different case. Of course other editors aren't so kind
> and will let you stomp on a previous variable (and in a weakly typed language
> let you stomp on a previous declaration with an entirely different type of
> data!). And all compilers for case insensitive languages will let you do the
> same, obviously. Oh those pesky runtime errors.
>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>
> Since it's a case sensitive file system, by definition I'm using the case
> sensitive features. My filenames are case sensitive, yes. I'm not sure what
> file systems have to do with programming languages though.
7660892e-df1a-4761...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:00:40 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
LOL! Yeah, I have a capslock key so it is unavoidable that I use it. Go
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:00:40 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
QWERTY!
Then, below, you fail to give a single example of where you might actually
make use of a case sensitive quality: the ability to have two construct (or
files) with the same name other than case. You do note where some tools help
you catch errors when you make them. Truly funny.
At least with Hadron he noted examples where he *actually* uses the case
sensitive qualities of languages: he names constructs the same other than
case. Now is this wise? Does this fit *any* common naming guild? Is there an
equally valid way to do what he shows in a case insensitive way? Does the
benefit of him being able to name things in such as way offer more benefits
than naming them in other ways that relate? Does it counter balance the many
disadvantages which have been shown? Is there *any* reputable source which
recommends doing so?
On the last: not that I have found... though there are examples of people
*responding* to questions and, I think, even blog posts with similar code
examples. So *maybe* he has found an actual advantage - I would love for him
to talk more about it and answer some of the questions, above.
But you, LOL, you just show you have *no* answer for where you would
actually use two constructs with the same name other than case. In other
words, your answer is: no.
Love it!
> So if I type char*
> m_szFileName and later I use m_szFilename, the compiler complains of an
> undeclared reference (m_szFilename is undeclared) at line 69 and I go to line
> 69, and I fix my mistake. Under the right circumstances I would do something
> like: void changePwd(User user), which in a case insensitive language would
> have to be changePwd(User oUser), or changePwd(User theUserToChange) or some
> other nonsense. Additionally if i declare a constant in my header (#define
> ATTEN_MAX_DB) and others share the same header, since it is common to declare
> them as all uppercase, the users of my code will not have to worry about my
> constants stepping on their declarations. So yes, when using case sensitive
> languages, my code is case sensitive.
>
> Interestingly enough, many editors for case insensitivity languages actually
> act in a case sensitive manner, asking you meant to declare another variable
> when you type it in a different case. Of course other editors aren't so kind
> and will let you stomp on a previous variable (and in a weakly typed language
> let you stomp on a previous declaration with an entirely different type of
> data!). And all compilers for case insensitive languages will let you do the
> same, obviously. Oh those pesky runtime errors.
>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever OSs you use?
>
> Since it's a case sensitive file system, by definition I'm using the case
> sensitive features. My filenames are case sensitive, yes. I'm not sure what
> file systems have to do with programming languages though.
Snit
Feb 2, 2014, 12:31:42 PM2/2/14
to
On 2/2/14, 5:21 AM, in article
7660892e-df1a-4761...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
7660892e-df1a-4761...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:00:40 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
Ah, and since you have the ability to post as Brad Wiggins and email my
>>
>>
>> Do you actually use the case-sensitivity features of whatever
>> language(s) you develop with?
>
> Since the language is case sensitive, it is unavoidable.
friends, family, coworkers, employer, and others with that name you find it
"unavoidable" that you will do so.
Right?
Snit
Feb 2, 2014, 12:32:50 PM2/2/14
to
On 2/2/14, 5:33 AM, in article lcldgq$uvn$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
Sure, but why bring Peter Köhlmann into the discussion?
DFS
Feb 2, 2014, 3:54:12 PM2/2/14
to
On 2/2/2014 9:05 AM, RonB wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:33:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> Yeah, but it stands out more clearly with the case sensitive spelling.
>
> Compare dufus or DUFUS with DuFuS.
>
> I rest my case.
Let me tell you how ridiculous Linux is:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:33:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Whether DFS, dfs, Dfs, and so on, it all spells "doofus" to me.
>
> Yeah, but it stands out more clearly with the case sensitive spelling.
>
> Compare dufus or DUFUS with DuFuS.
>
> I rest my case.
In the same directory, you can store (2^8) = 256 different versions of a
file named dufus.txt
Say it with me: GuhNoo slash Linux!
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages