Re: Great SWT Program

In article <f897bb09-f386-4d46-9b86-003a07061fd4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 20, 12:59 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
And, of course, calling someone an *** is /not/ rude.

Sure it is, but in your case, it's richly deserved.

So you admit to being rude.

If they'd benefit from a change, then whatever they're currently doing
is suboptimal. If they wouldn't benefit from a change, then whatever
they're currently doing is optimal. It's that simple. It's inarguable.

That depends entirely on the cost of the change.

A one-time cost is irrelevant, of course, since even a small but
recurring benefit will eventually bring the books into the black.

Again, that depends on the accumulated future benefit.

A
rational actor would therefore save up for that cost and then deploy
the change. Economic theory posits that market forces emerge from the
actions of rational actors. It follows from Economics 101 and your own
claims that emacs should have the highest market share of text
editors. Yet it clearly does not. Economics 101 is unlikely to be
wrong; therefore, you are, Bent.

Economics 101 is wrong on a great many points. It posits an ideal
market in an ideal world with ideal flow of information. None of these
are actual.

But as so often, of course, it is mostly the case that you are
wrong. The training cost for complex software also has a running
component of such a nature that you need to be using it every so often
or your skills will start to rust. For emacs, this basically means
that if you do not use it often enough, your skills will deteriorate
and it may not be feasible for everyone to maintain such frequencies
of use.

Your tendency towards intellectual dishonesty is showing, by the way.
In the Great Copyright Debate you argued against preserving copyright
on the nearly identical grounds that the one time cost of creating a
work would always eventually be recouped by its downstream benefits in
one way or another, so works would get created.

Are you now aiming to reawaken that debate as a last-ditch attempt to
"save" your position in this debate by replacing it with another more
controversial one?

Not obscure and especially non-North-American ones, no. Not that that
is relevant to Java, or even to emacs.

And not that is was non-North-American, of course.

Obscure AND ESPECIALLY non-North-American ones, o Bent Still Repeating
the Third Grade Dalager.

It was as North-American as they come, as you would have quickly been
able to figure out for yourself had you only been able to overcome
your Google-phobia for a few seconds and do a search on it.

Instead, you choose to celebrate your ignorance in the Google Groups
archives.

Or hadn't you noticed that the emacs market share is somewhere south
of 0.0001% now?

Most emacs installations do not contribute to any kind of market share
since the software is distributed freely.

Oh, no, not this BS again.

Tell it to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 -- I'm
sure they'll love reading about how all of their Web browser market
share figures must have been pulled out of a hat because there's no
such thing as a market share for software that's distributed freely.

Well, at least browser user base can be measured after a manner. I
hesitate to say more on this complicated topic since you got so
confused last time you brought it up.

The reason the ratio has been falling is largely the explosion in
computer users over the last decade or two, not a decrease in
absolute numbers of emacs users.

And your evidence to support this bald assertion being?

I have already proven it, of course. Indirectly.

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

Quantcast