[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: problems with rationale & design

Bradd wrote:
>> I see you hammering on only one point again and again, and it all comes
>> down to "less typing" in the end.

felix wrote:
> Not at all. Please read more carefully.

You keep complaining of extra typing, extra parens, extra files, etc.
Where is the benefit that /doesn't/ boil down to "less typing"?

>>> I probably understand [SRFI-7] more than you do. I have in fact
>>> implemented it once. So please beware of false assumptions.

>> Now you're just making baseless insults. I've implemented it too.

> I'm insulting you?

Yes. You made an arrogant remark about your "probably" superior
knowledge and experience, followed by an ironic comment about making
false assumptions. Hint: Your remark was arrogant and ironic because
/you/ based your conclusion on a false assumption.

> I guess you don't think your remarks to me are insulting, right?

I don't particularly care. I'm not the one trying to convince users that
his proposal is worthwhile. Here's another hint for you: Users don't
like it when you talk down to them, pretend that your tastes are
superior to theirs, call them ignorant, etc.

>> That's not what I asked for. Produce this "majority of Scheme users,"
>> because I'm not going to take your word for it. It doesn't matter
>> whether you're convinced; convince us.

> No, I don't have to convince anybody ....

>> Yes, it's technically inferior.

> Well, that of course totally convinces me!

Physician, heal thyself! Yet another SRFI author insists that /his/
ideas need no support or explanation, but mocks critics unless they
provide detailed documentation for every complaint.

You might want to read up on something called "egoless programming."
Bradd W. Szonye