Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: "Daniel Parker" <danielaparker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 May 2005 13:11:14 -0700
andrew queisser wrote:
> > 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.
>
Sorry, I should have said countable, but I did mean infinite - just
when you think you've seen the last of them...
-- Daniel
.
- 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
- From: andrew queisser
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Prev by Date: Pattern for data conversion between versions
- Next by Date: Re: XMI
- Previous by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Next by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|