Re: Great SWT Program

In article <e23b7f26-f022-49de-8656-ae9cadab7c9b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

Even so, those token asides would take the number down from 100%.

I don't consider any of the posts I've seen by you to be meaningful or
well-intentioned

Of course you don't - you can't, because doing so would jeopardize the
mental image of me that you have built up so carefully.

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.

If this thread is squeezing out the others, it's only because you
haven't learned to use your killfile yet.

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?

Because I chose to put them in there.

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.

I never said emacs was for everyone so how I could /stop/ doing so
remains a mystery.

Same as the backspace thing
it seems -- you say it, then deny it for a while, then start saying it
again.

The only thing I deny are your misconceptions about the backspace key.
They generally have very little correlation with the real world.

Obviously you're quite mad, oscillating wildly between contrary
positions with a frequency of about once per week or so.

The frequency corresponds nicely with the rate at which you make wild
guesses as to what my opinions are, of course.

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.

CLI skills are hardly "much of the skillset of programming" - but I
have no doubt that you think so. It explains why you think you can
call yourself a programmer.

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.

On the contrary, what this thread is about is /exactly/ you and your
Twisted view of the world. Hadn't it been for those, the thread would
never have existed in the first place.

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.

And using a CLI is not one of them.

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.

So why don't you start already?

Please go away and leave me alone now.

Nah.

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

I wouldn't think that it was, no. Why this irrelevant tangent?

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.

I would, of course, if I had done so.

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.

You are mistaken again. What I denied having said was that everyone
who uses a computer should use emacs. My claim is that people who edit
text a lot in a professional setting would benefit from learning
emacs. That you cannot understand this and instead substitute it with
a claim of your own design, while amusing, isn't really my problem.

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.

You appear to have conflated two entirely different claims: one that I
made, and one that you made up. Then you go on to slam the former
based upon the weaknesses of the latter. No points for guessing what
and who you are actually slamming when you do that.

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 would not benefit from learning emacs, then they hardly spend
a lot of time editing text.

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.

Ah, you've asked them?

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.

Your ideas about UI elements are written in stone to the extent of
rivaling some of the most dogmatic religions in history. That doesn't
mean that your standpoint is a religious one, however, and it most
likely isn't. It's just plain old wrong.

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.

Ooh, I'm frightened now. If we keep this up maybe you'll even whip up
/touch typing/. No wait, that's right, you're incapable of that.

Every time you attack
me I will defend and neutralize each separate insult you made.

At what time will this start happening?

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.

I consider this time well-spent in the first place, so I would want to
"save" it is anyone's guess.

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.

Except, of course, (as anyone who is capable of following the debate
for more than two consecutive postings would realize) the very core of
this sub-debate is /exactly/ what a "command" is and so its specific
meaning is of the greatest importance. The sloppiness you show in this
regard above can only be damaging to such a debate.

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.

No, I'm saying it's not an emacs entity. It /is/, of course, something
you can input to emacs.

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.

Your head would hurt a lot less if you stopped pretending you can
imagine what the world is like rather than go out there and actually
/find out/.

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).

Do you have a point or are you reduced to spouting trivialities now?

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.

You cannot have a meaningful discussion of user interfaces without
taking the details into account. When it comes to UI, the details make
or break the design.

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.

Of course not. If you give it a filename, it's not going to parse that
filename at all - it will just pass it on to the file system.

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

Their main use, of course, is to showcase your general weirdness.

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.

Given that the text above was yours, written by you, and in the first
person singular - well, I really /am/ sorry for you.

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"?

From all experience, it has become clear that you couldn't furnish a
Google Groups URL if your reputation depended upon it.

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.

It does not, of course. It just executes 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.

Exactly, and what it does is not to parse the commands at all. There
is no need, since the command string in itself shows exactly what is
to be done. Most likely, the command name is simply used to look up a
hash map and then the function that falls out is invoked.

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

There is generally little need to believe in your wildly inaccurate
guesses about how emacs operates.

[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?

Ah, so all fantasies are sex fantasies to you. Another intriguing
insight into your mental state.

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

Before that happens, of course, you will develop an old-age problem
that eventually prevents you from developing the above fetish.

But kudos for trying, anyway.

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

This is, of course, what happens.

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

My example contained only the user input, it said nothing about the
application responses. But it is good to see that this all is at last
starting to dawn upon you. I'm not sufficiently anal to actually count
how many posts this has taken you, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
was at least in the high 3 digits.

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 can be used in both ways, of course. (User choice - you know, the
thing that you hate.) If you are used to the command, you'll just type
away and don't waste any time looking at the prompts (they'll still be
there of course, you just won't care about them). If you are not used
to the command, you will wait for the prompts and only then decide
what to type next.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@xxxxxxx - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... And, of course, none of the nasty things that you have said or implied ... such rot and squeezing out Java programming related traffic with emacs ... I didn't claim that they could not learn a load of programming skills ... bit is the entire command but is only part of the full command line, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... mostly solve the blind-typing problem that I definitely recall emacs ... Except of course that you need to know some arcane command language ... Hitting tab should insert a tab ... one-line "window" in which the rest of what I type appears, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... There was much discussion of relative market share of browsers at that ... Moving the goal posts now? ... mode emacs from which descends all the variants under discussion here. ... The sort that has been standard since the days of the first command ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... have no idea what "Microsoft Windows" is in the first place. ... "emacs" has no menus; ... this was actually an explicit design goal by its author way back when. ... your DOS command sequence would get me a text-mode editor whileas ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... There is no "market" share for an item that has no cost. ... emacs misbehaviors I'd criticized. ... of a search query versus when editing documents in buffers or even ... finishing the command and thereby submitting it. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)