Re: Great SWT Program

On Dec 17, 2:35 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
Sure. That's why you pollute cljp with 100% off-topic posts

They're not 100% off-topic, you've [insult deleted]

They have nothing to do with Java except for token asides you make
from time to time and none of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.

and never
participate in any meaningful, well-intentioned way.

[nonsense and implied insults deleted]

I don't consider any of the posts I've seen by you to be meaningful or
well-intentioned, though to a brain as insane as yours I have no doubt
that they may appear so.

And, of course, none of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.

That's why you're
attempting to singlehandedly destroy it.

We had to destroy the newsgroup in order to save it :-)

The only threat it needs saving from right now being you and your band
of merry men here. Andreas and Arne, particularly.

Because you don't think it
sucks.

Of course I don't.

Sure, sure, that's why you've decided to take it over and completely
remodel it, rewriting the charter as "emacs vs. the world" or some
such rot and squeezing out Java programming related traffic with emacs
related traffic. Because you don't think it sucks the way it
originally was before you came along to "improve" it. Riiiiight.

Because in Bent-world you don't need to have spaces to have spaces, of
course.

I didn't need them at all.

Then why did you have them? Not just one but two of them, even?

[insults my intelligence]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Have you already forgotten that you were recommending that everyone in
the world who edits text much use your crufty old emacs?

Ah, so now it's "edit text much". My claim is for people who edit text
"a lot".

So you've stopped completely denying it. Same as the backspace thing
it seems -- you say it, then deny it for a while, then start saying it
again. Obviously you're quite mad, oscillating wildly between contrary
positions with a frequency of about once per week or so.

Quibbling over the exact words used, even when they're synonyms, being
one of just three constants, the other two being that emacs can do no
wrong and that I am [various insults omitted]. :P

It doesn't matter what their motivation was - the point is they
/could/ and that disproves your assertion that they could /not/.

I didn't claim that they could not learn a load of programming skills
and then use it, only that nonprogrammers could not use it. Learning
much of the skillset of programming and then using it doesn't disprove
that claim; in fact their learning much of the skillset of programming
first is evidence FOR my claim.

What you think [snip]

STOP twisting everything around to some (usually insipidly insulting)
statement about me and stick to discussing the actual subject under
discussion, please! What you think I think or what your opinion of me
is being completely irrelevant to the issue of emacs.

Note I said a subset of programming skills. Mostly scripting/sysadmin
type skills and generic code/debug/fiddle with technical stuff skills,
rather than applications programming specific skills for instance.
There's more than one sort of "programming", in case you didn't know.

Really? Then why aren't you just conceding this point and moving on?

Because [insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Unfortunately, as long as you keep attacking me I must keep responding
to correct the nasty and false claims that you keep making about me.
I'd rather not leave such misinformation unopposed in this newsgroup
lest innocent lurkers might sustain damage from it, nevermind the
damage to me.

Please go away and leave me alone now.

Then why did you post anything at all?

Why, indeed? I shall leave you to ponder this conondrum.

Well it's obviously not to show off your l33t spelling skills. At
least, I sincerely hope it isn't. For your sake. :P

Sure it was. Why can't you back off from an untenable position in an
honest manner

I am not required to back off from ridiculous positions that you
imagine me to be in.

No, but you should, to be honest, back off from ridiculous positions
that you previously asserted yourself.

One of which you've now reasserted, that everyone who edits text a lot
should use emacs. You said that before, and I demolished that claim so
thoroughly that not only did you stop repeating it, you got so
embarrassed by it that you started to dishonestly deny ever having
even made that claim. I kept rubbing your face in it of course,
repeating it back to you (modulo paraphrasing) every time you seemed
to have forgotten about it, and you kept accusing me of lying, of
having made it up and falsely attributed it to you. Yet here you are
again explicitly making the same claim again yourself right at the top
of this post, the same one you claimed I was falsely attributing to
you. I was attributing it to you, of course. But not falsely.

Of course, all of my previous arguments against your claim still
stand. Everyone I know who edits text a lot would take one look at
emacs if anyone suggested they try it out in place of the tools they
currently use and say "What is this -- some kind of joke?"; if they
tried to actually use it they would quickly decide that it must be a
very sick and perverted sort of joke that isn't even funny and that
whoever suggested it either was insane as evidenced by finding it to
be humorous or was insane as evidenced by having actually seriously
believed it would be useful to them, while not being quite sure which.

And yes, that includes myself, though I've concluded that unless
you're the most sophisticated troll I've ever had the displeasure to
encounter, you are insane as evidenced by actually seriously believing
your claims about emacs.

No, it was YOUR comments that were nutty that I'd snipped, ***,

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Yes it is, modulo the exact wording of the prompt. Quit quibbling over
minor details like the exact text of the prompt; that's immaterial.

Except that you [insult deleted]

I am not religious. I do not have misconceptions. I am not dogmatic.
Quibbling over irrelevant details while missing the whole point of
something I said is not "tiny points that must be repeated over and
over again" it is your massive cerebral hemmorhage still managing
somehow to not kill you, only make you unbelievably stupid and dense.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Stop putting words in my mouth, liar.

[puts more words in my mouth, and threatens to continue harassing me
for a year]

Give up. You are incapable of outlasting me in this. I have resources
at my disposal that I haven't even begun to tap. Every time you attack
me I will defend and neutralize each separate insult you made. None
will stand unopposed for longer than a couple of days or so. You will
leave no lasting mark in that regard. I generate counter-propaganda as
fast as you generate propaganda. May as well just give up and save
yourself the time.

Not really. Anyone who has actually graduated sixth grade and has a
teensy bit of CLI experience knows that in e.g. "rm -rf foo" the "rm"
bit is the entire command but is only part of the full command line,
which consists of the command *and* two arguments.

[quibbling over terminology again]

Stop this silliness. Yes, "command" can refer to both the programs and
shell builtins like "rm" and "ls" AND the command strings for specific
invocations. I used it to refer to the one; so you naturally accuse me
of lying and then use it to refer to the other. It's ridiculous and
dishonest of you to keep deliberately misinterpreting me and using
that to falsely claim I was lying. It is clear from the context which
of the two meanings I meant, and only an imbecile or someone being
intentionally dishonest would interpret what I wrote in any other way.

I suspect that you are actually both of the above -- in other words,
an imbecile being intentionally dishonest. :P

So you agree with me. Just because you don't use spaces when typing in
the command's name, doesn't mean it's not a command line.

Your point is [insult deleted] [repeats something I already refuted previously]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

It is, modulo the "foo", unless of course your earlier use of it as an
example command line was a complete fabrication.

It was not. It is, nevertheless, not an emacs entity.

Hey everyone -- Bent's lying again! He says his earlier example
command line was not a complete fabrication. Then in the very next
sentence he says that it was a complete fabrication, though not in
those exact words. So he is either lying now about having lied then,
or lying now about not having lied then. In which case he's caught in
two lies at once. Oh bloody hell, just trying to keep all of Bent's
lies straight is making my head hurt, as well as trying to keep track
of what he's currently professing when he flip-flops and hems and haws
so damn much instead of getting a consistent story together and then
sticking to his guns. First he says this, then he says that, then he
denies ever having even said either, then he repeats one of them
again ... what's he going to do next? ("Commit suicide" would be nice,
but that's surely just wishful thinking on my part. :P)

It is simply a sequence of keys the user presses to make something happen.

As, of course, is anything else that is done at a computer UI that
doesn't involve the mouse (or microphone or any other recent input
innovation).

Quibbling over implementation details.

A.k.a. implementation essentials.

How essential some detail is to the implementation of something is
irrelevant to the matter of implementation details being irrelevant in
a discussion of user interfaces.

Argument parsing is entirely up
to the command instead of partly done by the shell-analogue that hands
off to the command's code -- big whup.

It doesn't parse arguments.

Of course it does. All input strings that are interpreted in some way
are parsed, pretty much by definition.

Why do you take minor details about the innards and use them to try to
justify completely changing the terminology and then use THAT to try
to argue against something that's not really going to care about all
your sophistry anyway?

Because you are [insult deleted]

Here we go again. Instead of actually answering my question, you
viciously insult me without provocation yet again.

Paraphrasing Bent, "I try these tricks of sophistry because I think
you are stupid enough to fall for them".

I have only one response to that: *** you, ***.

Oh, and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about
me are at all true. I guess that's actually two responses then. So sue
me. :P

Thing is, when push comes to shove and it's
time to separate two tokens with a space, it won't matter to the user
what bit of code where does the parsing, but it will matter to the
user if there's no easy way to get the space after the first token. :P

[babbles on, apparently unconcerned with the spaces in "local-set-key e
set-kfoo" or the issue of how the user is to enter these]

Even more evidence, then, that [I am on crack]

I am so sorry for you.

Sorry for me? Because you are on crack? That's a little strange.

Seek help. There are anonymous rehab clinics that can aid you.

But I can see you already have a strategy. Keep thinking positive
thoughts!

Unfortunately, despite all of my positive thoughts and verbal
encouragement you still don't seem to have checked yourself into a
rehab clinic. But perhaps I can track down your family and refer them
to some google groups URLs for your own posts that might convince them
to do a ... what do they call it? An "intervention"?

Then the command processor is broken and various standards are being
violated. Or something is stealing the focus or something.

Or perhaps it isn't actually a "command processor" at all.

It's something that takes commands entered by the user and interprets
them. I couldn't care less what exact words you prefer to use to refer
to it. It is what it is, regardless, as defined by what it does, not
by what words any particular person uses to describe it.

Not that you'll believe a word of that of course, given your strong
penchant for postmodernist beliefs as evinced earlier in this thread.

[ignores what I've said and starts trying to pry into my sex life]

You're actually getting /sex/ fantasies now?

Bent, you're projecting again. It was YOU who first brought up my
fantasies a couple of posts ago. I politely declined ... and now you
have the nerve to accuse ME of being kinky?

No, apparently it is a bee wax fetish.

Watch it, or I'll develop a watching-Bent-Dalager-die-painfully-from-
acute-net-access-withdrawal fetish. :P

It can't be; there's no pauses and no "other side of the
conversation".

Of course there is.

You wrote something amounting to "local-set-key e set-kfoo", modulo
"foo", that is entirely composed of user input. A dialog would have a
form like this instead:

User: local-set-key
emacs: something
User: e
emacs: something else
User: set-kfoo

but this is radically different from what you actually wrote in your
example, the example you keep repudiating mind you so I won't be
surprised if you now contradict it and say that the above is exactly
what happens. :P

Interactive, by definition, includes those things. A
long string typed in all in one shot without interruption is a command
line initiating a noninteractive event.

If you're using crappy software that refuses to buffer keypresses

Keypress buffering is irrelevant. User: command Computer: result is an
interactive read-eval-print type of loop but the individual command is
noninteractive since it is typed in, then generates result. See above
for what would be actually interactive.

It occurs in a larger
interactive context but is not itself interactive. By definition.

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
.