Raffy's Karma [was Re: [ANN] Filtered functions]
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: NY Times
Next: complex symmetric matrices
From: Ron Garret on 13 Dec 2009 01:47 In article <4b246ef0$0$31271$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ron Garret wrote: > your > >>>>> claim that dataflow supports CODE re-use (I emphasize CODE because you > >>>>> keep transmogrifying that into OO reuse -- you would be much more > >>>>> credible if you stopped putting up straw men) > > The original (you lying f*ck): > > > >>> Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the > > >>> promise of reuse. > > Transmogrify that, Bozo. Is all the invective really necessary? I took "the promise of reuse" to mean "the promise of code reuse". That is the only kind of reuse that I know of that has been promised but not delivered, so it's a defensible extrapolation. (And, by the way, you leave people with little choice but to extrapolate when you write things like "Dataflow's a blast." What does that mean? Surely not that dataflow makes things explode.) But fine, let me just ask then: what exactly is "the promise of reuse" that dataflow delivers on? What does dataflow allow you to re-use if it isn't code? rg
From: Kenneth Tilton on 13 Dec 2009 05:22 Ron Garret wrote: > In article <4b246ef0$0$31271$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ron Garret wrote: >> your >>>>>>> claim that dataflow supports CODE re-use (I emphasize CODE because you >>>>>>> keep transmogrifying that into OO reuse -- you would be much more >>>>>>> credible if you stopped putting up straw men) >> The original (you lying f*ck): >> >> > >>> Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the >> > >>> promise of reuse. >> >> Transmogrify that, Bozo. > > Is all the invective really necessary? I took "the promise of reuse" to > mean "the promise of code reuse". That is the only kind of reuse that I > know of that has been promised but not delivered, so it's a defensible > extrapolation. Priceless. kt
From: Ron Garret on 13 Dec 2009 09:54 In article <4b24c061$0$22512$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ron Garret wrote: > > In article <4b246ef0$0$31271$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Ron Garret wrote: > >> your > >>>>>>> claim that dataflow supports CODE re-use (I emphasize CODE because > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>> keep transmogrifying that into OO reuse -- you would be much more > >>>>>>> credible if you stopped putting up straw men) > >> The original (you lying f*ck): > >> > >> > >>> Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the > >> > >>> promise of reuse. > >> > >> Transmogrify that, Bozo. > > > > Is all the invective really necessary? I took "the promise of reuse" to > > mean "the promise of code reuse". That is the only kind of reuse that I > > know of that has been promised but not delivered, so it's a defensible > > extrapolation. > > Priceless. So you really do have nothing worthwhile to say then. rg
From: Kenneth Tilton on 13 Dec 2009 10:04 Ron Garret wrote: > In article <4b24c061$0$22512$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ron Garret wrote: >>> In article <4b246ef0$0$31271$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, >>> Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ron Garret wrote: >>>> your >>>>>>>>> claim that dataflow supports CODE re-use (I emphasize CODE because >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> keep transmogrifying that into OO reuse -- you would be much more >>>>>>>>> credible if you stopped putting up straw men) >>>> The original (you lying f*ck): >>>> >>>> > >>> Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the >>>> > >>> promise of reuse. >>>> >>>> Transmogrify that, Bozo. >>> Is all the invective really necessary? I took "the promise of reuse" to >>> mean "the promise of code reuse". That is the only kind of reuse that I >>> know of that has been promised but not delivered, so it's a defensible >>> extrapolation. >> Priceless. > > So you really do have nothing worthwhile to say then. > > rg I am educating Madhu. I would educate you, but... damn, I need an allegory involving two experts, some tea, and a cup. kt ps. Madhu, the trick is to see his needling for what it is, at which point his needles turn into nice, soft, sour grapes. k -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Ron Garret on 13 Dec 2009 11:01
In article <4b25027e$0$22529$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ron Garret wrote: > > In article <4b24c061$0$22512$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Ron Garret wrote: > >>> In article <4b246ef0$0$31271$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > >>> Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ron Garret wrote: > >>>> your > >>>>>>>>> claim that dataflow supports CODE re-use (I emphasize CODE because > >>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> keep transmogrifying that into OO reuse -- you would be much more > >>>>>>>>> credible if you stopped putting up straw men) > >>>> The original (you lying f*ck): > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the > >>>> > >>> promise of reuse. > >>>> > >>>> Transmogrify that, Bozo. > >>> Is all the invective really necessary? I took "the promise of reuse" to > >>> mean "the promise of code reuse". That is the only kind of reuse that I > >>> know of that has been promised but not delivered, so it's a defensible > >>> extrapolation. > >> Priceless. > > > > So you really do have nothing worthwhile to say then. > > > > rg > > I am educating Madhu. Poor Madhu. What has he ever done to you? >I would educate you, but... But what? Are you afraid that engaging me in an actual technical discussion will prove once and for all that you have NOTHING WORTHWHILE TO SAY? What kinds of knots will you twist yourself into to avoid answering this very simple question: what is the "promise of reuse" that dataflow delivers if it isn't code reuse? rg |