Re: Wit-to-whine ratios

On May 10, 6:17 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 9, 3:50 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jacob navia said:
On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:

<snip>

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr Navia modified an existing compiler.
That statement is not intended either to attack or to support him. It
simply describes what happened. He has said as much himself. So why he
continues to deny it is beyond me.

Whoa. This makes no sense:

"He has said as much himself. So why he continues to deny it is beyond
me."

Navia can't "have said as much himself" AND "continually deny" the
same proposition.

well he did "say as much himself" and deny it. It's not sensible
but he did do it.

<snip>

I don't suggest people take meds

I don't think this is a good idea withut cause, but then calling
people
liars without good cause is a bad idea as well.

[...] It is logically impossible and
pragmatically a waste of time to "standardize" C, and I can prove it:

1. One standardizes why? For portability in the main.
2. But because of aliasing, #include and #define, no C program, no
matter how conformant, can be ported to another platform, or used in a
truly modular, plug-in way without a line by line audit

this is just untrue. I have ported programs from one platform
to another with just a compile. Admittedly small "filter" type
applications. I have seen substantial programs (500kloc) ported
between platforms without a "line by line audit".

<snip>

Jacob acquired the rights to the existing code

Precisely. He acquired the rights. He did not write the compiler from
scratch.

Nobody disagrees over this fact, nor its interpretation. You concede
above that his task was more and not less difficult than a from
scratch compiler. I can only conclude that with no case, you continue
your nonsense because you're addicted to bullying people who
accomplish something, and to getting the last word.

I think this sort of "Ladybird Book of Freud" ameteur psychoanalysis
is a mistake.

[Ladybird are a series of childrens books]

and instead of sitting
on his ass here since 2000 attacking better men, like you have, he
made something very, very, useful.

There, there, Edward. Time for meds?

<expetives deleted> Your reference to "meds" is
sickening, because "meds" destroy people, including older programmers
hounded out of the profession (no, not me, ass hole: I leave bad
situations) for insisting that they need to be treated as men and not
boys.

obviously a bit of a sensitive subject...


There was not the slightest hint of plagiarism in his work,

Nobody has suggested there was. In fact, until *you* used the word
"plagiarism", it had not even been mentioned.

<expetives deleted> You think you've
mastered the snide little accusation but we're seeing through your
games. You need to desist and you need to seek psychotherapy (not
"meds").

well why do you start slinging the plagerism about?
Is this your problem. You misread Richard to be accusing
Jacob of plagerism. Go back and re-read the thread...

<snip spinoza'isms>


Bullies think that their conduct is unnoticed even as another form of
addict, the alcoholic, believes nobody smells his breath. But I spoke
to a team of international lawyers and programmers at DePaul Univ in
1995, who were using a data base to analyze specific instances of
extreme bullying (genocide, in fact) in Bosnia during the 1992..1995
war by thugs who you remind me of, and these people have helped to
nail bigtime operators to the wall. You and the rest of your ilk can
laugh as did the murderer Arkan laughed, but the mill of the gods is
grinding away.

if you can't tell the difference between posting to a technical
news group and taking part in a genocide then you *really* need
to get a sense of perspective!

<snip>

The C99 effort was a fraud using public funds and a precursor of the
*** Halliburton pulled in Iraq, since the industry simply ignored it,

this is just bonkers! How on earth can can you link an
international language standard with the invasion of Iraq!

<snip>

Java and C Sharp have conclusively demonstrated that portability
requires a runtime virtual machine, because post-RISC, computer
architects are really not interested in building language-runtime-
specific architectures, because these destroy pipelining, and as
computers approach the end of Moore's Law, deep parallelism and
pipelining are absolutely essential...along with trustable code.

yes you can write portable programs in C. You recompile for
different archictures. The smarts are in the compilers (including
lcc-win). You just take a word salad of technical gibberish
and wrap it around your ill-formed opinions.

C has no place in this world.

name a modern architecture that doesn't have a C compiler.

<snip>

and then I just got bored.


--
Nick Keighley

.