[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
http://www.szonye.com/bradd