OMG. this argument is still alive...
IS THERE A PUNCH LINE ANYWAY NEAR?
"Quirk" <quirk_at_syntac.net> wrote in message
news:4e20d3f.0405240218.6eedf26e_at_posting.google.com...
> Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:<40af7768$0$3038$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
> > > on discussing these things in this thread, it's pretty clear to me we
> > > are dealing with zealots and those looking for genuine answers have
>
> > It's a pity that you have considered my reply as that of a zealot.
> > I did concede a few points and debated yours in a civilized fashion.
>
> Sorry if you thought I was refering to you specificly, rather I was
> lamenting about the general quality of the responses in this thread,
> like those of Volker, moronic zealot extraordinaire, a man so stupid,
> that when I suggested he didn't know what a fallacy was, he thought I
> was critisising his _english_ instead of his knowledge of logic and
> the standards of debate.
>
> However, there is clear zealotry in your post, for example:
>
> You said: "It's with freeware that you need a STACK of wrappers to
> protect you from sudden underlying code changes! Not with commercial
> software!"
>
> See: no other reasoning is given why underlying code may suddenly
> change other than in one case it is _free_, in the other case it is
> _commercial_. This is not a reasoned argument, but rather the faith of
> a zealot.
>
> Since neither freeness nor commercialness has a direct impact on code
> stability, but rather the release management practices of the
> development group has.
>
> There are badly managed free software projects, and badly managed
> nonfree ones, your argument is therefore a fallacy, although your
> english, like Volker's is great!
>
> > However, thanks for giving me the opportunity of stating this in a less
> > civilized language (remember: YOU started the language, not I):
>
> Please, use any language you like, you are quite welcome if my post
> has given you a greater since of liberty.
>
> > none of
> > your points is by definition a "world truth".
>
> When I say things like "the readers can make up their own minds, as
> they should in any case" and "these are suggestions" (both present in
> the post you are responding too) what makes you think I am defining
> "world truths?"
>
> > You don't provide a single
> > supporting argument that does not involve your interpretation of what
> > software makers would do rather than what they in fact do.
>
> Oh please, I have provided many clear aruments throughout this thread,
> in my last message I even posted pseudocode, how much clearer do you
> want?
>
> > Your stupid deduction that somehow only your view of the world is worthy
> > the title of "developer" defines you as the idiotic and moronic type of
> > geek that thinks the world was invented yesterday by your kind and all
that
> > came before is just amateur effort. In character, I might say.
>
> You know nothing about my character or world view. Amateur effort is
> amateur effort, on it's own it is neither old nor new. None of the
> ideas I have suggested are particularily new. The existince of a large
> body of free software is fairly new, however the practice of acquiring
> source licences for critical dependencies is not, and serves more or
> less the same function. Abstraction is not new, good archiving
> techniques are not new. A developer who did not understand these
> techniques was an amateur in 1976, just as much as today.
>
> > You and your little group can go and drop dead as this thread ends
> > here for me: I don't have time to argue ANYTHING with "kewl" people.
>
> I'm sorry the barbs you endured in your primary school still hurt you
> so much, perhaps therapy can help.
>
> > Not worth the effort: the worst disasters in IT development I've ever
seen
> > in 30 years of career have been prompted by your kind and I don't like
> > my name associated with that sort of unprofessional reputation. It
> > never pays in the long run.
>
> Let's see, I am suggestion abstracting dependencies, getting source
> code when you can and keeping your archives human readable.
>
> What sort of disasters can come of this? The worst that can be said is
> that, if implemented poorly, these suggestions may cause performance
> degradation, hardly Godzilla crushing Tokyo.
>
> However, It is quite easy to imagine disasters as a consequence of not
> following these suggestions; customers lost by not being able to
> support their database platform, production applications obsoleted by
> obsoleted debendencies, unusable archives and lost permenant records.
>
> > Goodbye and keep developing for a non-existent market.
> > It has a brilliant future.
>
> Which market is that? The market for good applications? I agree that
> is too small and that too many firms are screwed by bad developers and
> protectionist suppliers, however I assure you the marker for
> developers who understand good, well designed, open systems is doing
> quite well, and growing.
>
> > And yes, I DO have a future and nothing you can
> > possibly do will stop it.
>
> Hey, I only want to improve your future with my advise! Here, I'll
> give you another tip:
>
> A "binding" is a term used to describe a native function (or method)
> that provides access to an external dependency.
>
> For instance, 'MySQL', the database server, is a dependency, in PHP,
> the function mysql_query is called a binding. 'libcurl', the URL
> handling library, is a dependency, the PHP function 'curl_exec', is a
> binding.
>
> An 'API' ("application programming interface") is the interface
> provided by the dependency itself for external access, frequently for
> C, the 'binding' is your platform's _native_ function or method that
> provides access to this API, not the API itself.
>
> Each of these terms, 'Dependency', 'Binding' and 'API' have distinct
> meanings, and now, after a 30 year career, you can finaly understand
> them!
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
> Dmytri.
Received on Mon May 24 2004 - 12:47:31 CDT
