Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: "andrew queisser" <andrew.queisser at hp com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:54:34 -0700
> Interesting reasoning, but I think it's flawed. Supposing a debate on
> the subject were to occur, then we would likely get an uncountable
> number of posts P1, P2, P3... Static analysis, however, informs us
> that the sequence is non-convergent, and that this debate will not lead
> to a conclusion, thus demonstrating the superiority of static analysis.
>
Don't forget Godwin's law. The hypothetical debate will have a countable
finite amount of posts with no conclusion.
Andrew
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: Daniel Parker
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- References:
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: Daniel Parker
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Prev by Date: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Next by Date: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Previous by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Next by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|