Boolean

[Gene Wirchenko]

JLP wrote:
Lew a écrit :
JLP wrote:
Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
Not "must", "should".

[snip]

This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.

In an RFC, they are.

"Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.

Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are they?

If they have a precise definition for use in the field, then they
are.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Lars Enderin]

2013-03-07 18:58, Gene Wirchenko skrev:

On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
JLP wrote:
Lew a écrit :
JLP wrote:
Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
Not "must", "should".
[snip]

This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.

In an RFC, they are.

They are usually written in upper case: MUST, SHOULD.
Lew's correction of JLP's "must" to "should" was helpful.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

JLP wrote:
Lew a écrit :
JLP wrote:
Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
Not "must", "should".

[snip]

This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical
terms.

Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.

"Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.

Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are
they?

These terms have a much more precise definition in IT specifications
than they have in plain English.

And of course you NEVER use these words incorrectly do you.

Confusing must and should?

Probably not today.

But that is not really the point.

The point is that at some point in time we got it right because
somebody told us or pointed us to a good source of information.

Those that learn when they are told something gain knowledge - those
that gets offended does not.

Why do you people consistently rubbish posters who's first language is
not English.

This is not really about English. The words was spelled correctly
and used grammatically correct (as far as I can tell).

But the way they were used to describe how to write a specific
programming language (Java) was not correct.

It would have been pretty bad if nobody had explained
what was correct and what was not.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

And of course you NEVER use these words incorrectly do you.

Why do you people consistently rubbish posters who's first language is
not English. Does it make you feel good? are your sad little lives so
empty that you need to project your misery onto others? Really, it is
simply not acceptable in this day and age.

And given that:
- I never criticize someone for not writing correct English
- You do
then the above is just so hypocritical ...

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

must and should are not keywords in the Java programming language.

No.

But correct terminology for Java is not limited to Java keywords,
so that means nothing.

Well quite

So stop whining about it!

Arne

 

[Lars Enderin]

2013-03-07 19:52, Arne Vajhøj skrev:

And given that:
- I never criticize someone for not writing correct English
- You do
then the above is just so hypocritical ...

He seems to be on some sort of crusade against you and Lew, especially,
and he includes me because I dare speak up on your behalf. I mentioned
your apparent problems with verbs and adverbs, but he ignored that in
his condescending and insulting reply. He thinks he has the right to
insult us, from some imagined moral high ground. I think he is just a jerk.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

2013-03-07 19:52, Arne Vajhøj skrev:

He seems to be on some sort of crusade against you and Lew, especially,
and he includes me because I dare speak up on your behalf. I mentioned
your apparent problems with verbs and adverbs, but he ignored that in
his condescending and insulting reply. He thinks he has the right to
insult us, from some imagined moral high ground. I think he is just a jerk.

He is not the first of that type here. And he will not be the last either.

Arne

 

[Lars Enderin]

2013-03-08 09:16, lipska the kat skrev:

2013-03-07 19:52, Arne Vajhøj skrev:

On 3/7/2013 3:50 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

[snip]

He seems to be on some sort of crusade against you and Lew, especially,
and he includes me because I dare speak up on your behalf. I mentioned
your apparent problems with verbs and adverbs, but he ignored that in
his condescending and insulting reply. He thinks he has the right to
insult us, from some imagined moral high ground. I think he is just a
jerk.

You don't like the taste of your own medicine do you, your sort never do.

BS. I never prescribed or dispensed any "medicine". And you have no
business labelling me with "your sort". You have no idea what I am like.

 

[Lars Enderin]

2013-03-09 09:40, lipska the kat skrev:

2013-03-08 16:00, lipska the kat skrev:

On 08/03/13 09:30, Lars Enderin wrote:
2013-03-08 09:16, lipska the kat skrev:

[snip]

BS.

Now now Lars ... don't use 'foul abbreviations'

That was a classic BTW, and very very funny, we still laugh about that
one you simpleton.

You obviously have no real argument, since you resort to name-calling.
You are a moron.

Lars, Lars, just listen to yourself.

"... since you resort to name-calling. You are a moron"

You are resorting to name calling Lars.
What does that make you ... think about it.

Logical deduction should lead you to only one conclusion.
Have you figured it out yet?

There was nothing concrete in your reply, so I called you on it. You
behave like a troll or moron, so you probably are one. You are a
troublemaker. You have called me names and given me condescending,
slighting, and insulting replies avoiding the actual issues, for no
reason. I deeply resent that.

 

[Lars Enderin]

2013-03-09 10:08, lipska the kat skrev:

2013-03-09 09:40, lipska the kat skrev:

On 09/03/13 00:37, Lars Enderin wrote:
2013-03-08 16:00, lipska the kat skrev:
On 08/03/13 09:30, Lars Enderin wrote:
2013-03-08 09:16, lipska the kat skrev:

[snip]

There was nothing concrete in your reply, so I called you on it. You
behave like a troll or moron, so you probably are one. You are a
troublemaker. You have called me names and given me condescending,
slighting, and insulting replies avoiding the actual issues, for no
reason. I deeply resent that.

I'll tell you what Lars, I'll stop 'insulting' you when you stop
defending the indefensible e.g the appalling behavior of certain members
of this community. If you mind your own business I will have no reason
to 'insult' you. Lew and Arne and the others are more than capable of
defending themselves, I'm not sure why you so frequently feel the need
to add your voice to the din.

Oh BTW, I have nothing against Arne and Lew and a few others, I don't
know them so how could I. what I object to is their behavior towards new
posters.

I've explained this multiple times now, I'm not sure what it is you
don't understand.

I don't understand why you think you have a right to insult me because I
don't accept your views on what Arne, Lew and others are doing. Why
shouldn't I speak up? Your views are heavily biased. You are becoming
more and more like a certain copious and opiniated poster in another
newsgroup. Anyway, Lew has you binned, I think.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

Must and should are *not* technical terms, really, they are common
words. Granted the OP used them in a way that was technically incorrect

They are both.

but that doesn't make them technical terms does it?

Actually, it does make them technical terms. Many words have
specialised technical meanings. In an RFC, "must" and "should" are
technical terms. Using anything other than the technical meaning is
wrong.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[markspace]

Whether something is a technical term or not depends on context.

Yes, context is something that seems to be lost or ignored here quite often.

 

[Lew]

Yes, context is something that seems to be lost or ignored here quite often.

This subthread started because of an assertion that class names in Java must start
with a capital letter. This statement was not correct, by the normal understanding
of the English word "must". Furthermore, it was a technical assertion about the rules
of the Java language. As such it needed to be correct or corrected.

It is not relevant really what the word "must" means as a technical term, but it's helpful
that the meaning is identical whether taken as "ordinary" English or precise terminology.

It is not a requirement of the Java language that class names begin with a capital letter.

However, as a matter of best practice, they should.