Re: spinoza programming language status report (or, disruptive technology is always late)

spinoza1111 said:

On May 15, 11:42 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111said:

<...irrelevant nonsense snipped - searching for relevant nonsense...>

You are doing a public service if and only if people cannot be the
judge of the material presented by the potential cad-bounder-fraud for
themselves, and need be told by insiders such as Clive Feather that
the man's a fraud.

Nobody, least of all Clive Feather, has claimed that Schildt is a fraud.
To point out mistakes in a book is not the same thing as to accuse its
author of fraud.

To do so repeatedly is to make that claim.

No, it isn't.

I refer you to my "Dan Appleman" argument.

I refer you in turn to common sense, logic, and the English Language.

Dan Appleman, my dev editor at Apress, is a well-known and prolific
author of computer books who with Gary Cornell founded Apress. He is
unlike me or you well-respected and well-liked by a large number of
people, because he is by nature friendly, honest, open and helpful,
and also has contributed very much to his community as a church member

Ah, I see - a cultist, right?

and family man; there's a "Dan Appleman appreciation society" on
Facebook.

Although he's mentioned in the wikipedia article on Apress, *** there
is no Dan Appleman *** page,

If you think that's a big deal, *write* one. Oh, but wait - you can't, can
you? Because you're banned for being a moron. I nearly forgot. Well, ask
someone else to write one for you.

nor is there for most hard-working tech authors.

This is as it should be. To add random unknowns whose only "claim to
fame" is that they work hard and get their names on books with narrow
appeal is innately POV unless Wikipedia becomes A Fanfare for the
Common Man, with an entry for practically *** everybody ***.

That's inevitably the way it will head - an *incorrect* entry for
practically everybody.

This is what has happened in the case of Schildt. Some clown like
Clive Feather deliberately and with legally significant malicious
intent wrote the article about Schildt *** merely *** to nail the guy

You don't suppose, then, that it might have been done in an attempt to
provide accurate information to a Wikipedia article? I've looked at the
original article (before the vandals got their hands on it), and it seems
accurate enough. I certainly see (almost) nothing that can reasonably be
criticised because of factual inaccuracy. As for the NPOV tone, well,
everyone knows that's a joke. Wikipedia articles express the POV of their
most recent editor.

<lotsa nonsense snipped>

This means that your blather about a C independent of use is nonsense.
The fact is that computers are used as part of media to create the
illusion of justice and control: to Manufacture Consent, in Chomsky's
words. Schildt and his editors found that his examples worked on
Microsoft platforms, and most of the customers need to use C on
Microsoft, so they seem to have tested only on Microsoft *to save
time*.

You don't know what you're talking about. Schildt's errors are not confined
to portability failures.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.

Relevant Pages