Re: copying arrays

[This post is just to clarify some interpersonal confusion. Not a heap
of technical content below. -kmp]

Dan Bensen <randomgeek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Warning: The "rant" below might or might not be relevant to Dan's
> remarks directly. So don't take this as necessarily responding to
> his particular situation.
With all due respect, Kent, that's exactly how I take it.
You directly addressed me and my comments in a highly critical way.

As the disclaimer intended to make clear, I wrote the text, looked it
over, and decided that I was probably making assumptions that might or
might not be valid about you specifically. But I still liked the
general technical remarks I was making because I've had a chance to
make those same observations about others. Since I didn't have the
time or energy to rewrite my post, I added a disclaimer. I suppose
it's your right to not take my words at face value, but that's up to
you. I'm saddened that you felt any personal negativity from me.

However, I stand by the technical content and focus of my post, that
is, that this issue of side-effect is often given undue weight. I
take it from your reply that you disagree. That's ok. I can cope
with a world in which people disagree. I'll be interested to hear
what others have to say. (Though I emphasize that I don't take it as a
vote, so whether they agree with me or you, I think there's no reason
for either of us to chagne our position just based on numbers of voices.)

> But there's a subtext of your remarks that seems to imply you can get
> from there to "copies are good, and it's non-copies that are a danger"

No, there is no such subtext.

People often accuse me (perhaps rightly on many occasions) of being overly
verbose. One particular issue that comes up a lot is that I choose wordy
phrases like "you appear to think x" rather thank "you think x". I find
the extra indirection to better express how I think. Here I failed to be
my usual verbose self and see what it gets me? :) I should have said
"There seems to be a subtext...". I did seem that way to me. But I accept
your statement that you don't think there is. Even so, my overriding point
in the post was to say that I believe some people do carry that banner.

But as long as we're discussing subtext, is it just a coincidence
that this post of yours occurred only days after I made a technical
criticism of the HS? Just wondering.

I had to go back and research what you were even talking about, so the
answer is pretty clearly yes, it is just pure coincidence. While I
did, upon seeing the other post, remember writing it, I hadn't
recalled it was to you. (I'm assuming we're talking about the
discussion of the meaning of the term variable. By the way, I had
assumed that was just a request for clarification, which I thought I
had helpfully provided--I didn't even read it as a criticism.
Cognitive dissonance on my part, I suppose. But for whatever reason, if
I was meant to feel criticized, it sailed right past me.)

In any case, though, I'm quite comfortable with people criticizing the
HyperSpec. There's a great deal I wish I'd had time to do better and
it's got plenty to poke at. But at the same time, I'm also
comfortable that I did a passable job given the complexity of the task
and the limits of budget. So I don't take remarks about it
personally.

I do defend both the HyperSpec and CL itself, but not because I can't
bear to see it criticized. Rather, because I think its goodness or
badness should be judged in the context of its goals and the various
complicated constraints on it. I think debate should be impersonal
and respectful and thoughtful, and I try to set a model for that.
I've made no attempt to be disrespectful to you. I am passionate
about my thoughts on technical issues, and I try to provoke thought
and discussion, but I have no special interest in making someone angry
and I do what I can to avoid it.

I also work hard to make sure the group here is informed, so that
people aren't at a disadvantage in discussing it. I do not believe a
language should be an ivory tower phenomenon that excludes the public,
but neither do I thnk being inclusive means that every comment someone
makes is automatically as serious a concern as every other. I think
some issues are important and some less so, and in that that
discussion I was merely stating my personal belief. I am careful to
try to say I'm just one opinion so that newbies don't read too much
into my words.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Harbhajan - STFU
    ... When, then, may a player write an honest autobiography? ... That the press have seized on his remarks about SRT and Murali is ... autobiogs which have not been half as sensational as some reviewers ... of whom any criticism is automatically ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: DOS recorder
    ... All remarks, criticism, suggestions, etc. are welcome. ... Welcome back, Vlad! ... tinker with it a bit and let you know if I run into anything odd. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.adom)
  • Re: Science v God: the showdown
    ... It was mostly not RCs who raised that ballyhoo about the Pope's ... remarks. ... Muslims, I thought. ... the alleged shortage of criticism of Dawkins within the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Why we should assassinate foriegn leaders...
    ... that you did not chose to clarify until now. ... of the religion they profess. ... I remember George Morris defending all the Muslims speaking out against ... She posts several remarks out of cotext. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: i did it too... :-)
    ... Andrea Raimondi wrote: ... Just to clarify, I didn't mean that to be any criticism at all directed ... to John. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)