Re: Seeking computer-programming job (Sunnyvale, CA)

[Lew]

Robert Maas's original post was cross-posted between a bunch of
groups. However, the discussions in this thread have mostly been Lisp-
oriented -- including many subtextual requests for curing of extreme
Lisp ignorance.

And yet it continues.

 

[Lew]

For the thousandth time, Emacs have a window system.

You should've quit before the tenth time.

 

[Lew]

I'm not interested in getting into an insult-hurling contest, sorry.
Liar.

You'll have to find someone else to participate in that sort of
silliness.

Yet you keep hurling insults, hypocrite.

You keep posting anti-Java rants into comp.lang.java.programmer, you

You keep posting anti-everything rants, you psycho.

can expect to keep seeing anti-Lisp rants in comp.lang.lisp. Not that
I've written any myself; I've questioned your faith, sure, and

And I question your sanity, "Series".

rationally suggested that macros, CLOS, and some other particular
things have their downsides, but I have not "ranted".

You've done nothing but rant, you liar.

 

[Lew]

Then you're not qualified to give practical advice about software
development until you've learned more about these things.

You're not qualified for a job whose hardest task is asking, "Would you like
fries with that?"

 

[Frank GOENNINGER]

Trolls. I recommend not feeding them.

Yes, you're right, I know. Sadly these trolls may do damage that is
beyond our control. Therefore I did post a few replies (as other did,
too).

In order to make even this post really valuable to all readers I want to
once again point everybody to a series of screen casts:

http://lispcast.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Start at Episode 1 and watch them in full screen mode. A real good way
of understanding the power of Common Lisp as a full-fledged languange,
SLIME as being a full-fledged IDE. And have some fun.

Enjoy!

Frank

 

[John B. Matthews]

Warnings are never harmless. If they were harmless, there wouldn't
be any warnings.

I don't consider all warnings as harmless. I was referring to
specific warnings which were mailed by John B. Matthews. When
compiling with gcc (which is also used also under Mac OS X) I use
the following options to get as much warnings as possible: [example warnings]

I've seen major bugs, in C programs and other languages, that were
revealed "only" through warnings.

The attitude that "warnings are harmless" is a major problem in the
software industry and one that needs to be stomped hard. It's
nothing but carelessness. Well, laziness. Negligence, regardless.

I agree. OTOH I am not sure that it is possible to get rid of all
warnings.

The large number of warnings is confounding, although that may be a
limitation of the implicit conversions provided by the implementation
language. A later version of the compiler (4.3.4) finds more than 500
such warnings; it's hard to see a new warning when it arises.

It would be nice to get your help to examine all warnings.

Often, that requires rather close reading of preprocessor directives,
detailed understanding of external libraries, and even trying to infer
the programmer's intent.

I look forward to upcoming releases of seed7.

For reference, the usual practice in Java is to limit the warning to
the narrowest possible scope and (often) to denote why it may be
irrelevant. For example, a widening primitive conversion might be
safely ignored [1]. In contrast, a narrowing primitive conversion must
be given an explicit cast to preclude a compile-time error [1].
Finally, a genuinely harmless warning may be suppressed by the
annotation @SuppressWarnings [2, 3].

[1]<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/conversions.html>
[2]<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/annotations.html>
[3]Chapter 5, item 24:<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/effective/>

[...]

 

[Kenneth Tilton]

The one thing I am still working on is to make up a good picture
explanining the concept of an Outset...

I am not sure why outset is tricky, unless it is the conceptual overlap
with the inset some widgets have. Or maybe it is this: outset has no
meaning other than for (a) containers (b) whose only interest in size is
being just big enough to cover all their kids. And then outset is only
added to the max LR and lb of any kind and subtracted from the min
ll/lt. ie, These containers sizes are determinded by the offset and size
of all their kids, such that they are just big enough (plus an "outset"
margin). Again, you cannot draw the diagram unless you have kids here
and there and then draw a rectangle big enough plus otset to cover them.

kt

 

[Frank GOENNINGER]

I am not sure why outset is tricky,

Not really tricky - just one thing to write a few lines of code versus a
diagram showing the concept and the effects on paper. Just as you say:

unless it is the conceptual
overlap with the inset some widgets have. Or maybe it is this: outset
has no meaning other than for (a) containers (b) whose only interest
in size is being just big enough to cover all their kids.

Which could be done without an "outset" parameter - to my understanding
it's just like the Tcl/Tk's padding parameter: How much space is to be
kept between two widgets as a minimum.

And then
outset is only added to the max LR and lb of any kind and subtracted
from the min ll/lt. ie, These containers sizes are determinded by the
offset and size of all their kids, such that they are just big enough
(plus an "outset" margin). Again, you cannot draw the diagram unless
you have kids here and there and then draw a rectangle big enough plus
otset to cover them.

kt

Yep. So the diagram will have several kids within a parent control and
then there's the outset disctance to be shown where it is to be
applied. As you already said elsewhere the outset could also be taken to
be the same as the inset values. Hence my thinking: Are there use cases
where one might want to have different inset-interpreted-as-outset
values and real outset values. Or is it just a matter of having the
outset as a slot and default the outset rules to be the same as the
inset values. If a (Cello code) user wants to do something different
it's then only a matter of specifying different Cells rules for the
outset slot values.

Cheers
Frank

 

[Lew]

In order to make even this post really valuable to all readers I want to
once again point everybody to a series of screen casts:

http://lispcast.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Start at Episode 1 and watch them in full screen mode. A real good way
of understanding the power of Common Lisp as a full-fledged languange,
SLIME as being a full-fledged IDE. And have some fun.

Enjoy!

Thanks for the link.

 

[Lew]

Not really tricky - just one thing to write a few lines of code versus a
diagram showing the concept and the effects on paper. Just as you say:


Which could be done without an "outset" parameter - to my understanding
it's just like the Tcl/Tk's padding parameter: How much space is to be
kept between two widgets as a minimum.


Yep. So the diagram will have several kids within a parent control and
then there's the outset disctance to be shown where it is to be
applied. As you already said elsewhere the outset could also be taken to
be the same as the inset values. Hence my thinking: Are there use cases
where one might want to have different inset-interpreted-as-outset
values and real outset values. Or is it just a matter of having the
outset as a slot and default the outset rules to be the same as the
inset values. If a (Cello code) user wants to do something different
it's then only a matter of specifying different Cells rules for the
outset slot values.

This is all Lisp stuff, correct?

 

[Series Expansion]

Man, Series, you really are a troll, aren't you?

I am here to discuss the relative merits of computer languages. I have
no interest in your flaming and personal attacks.

Luckily they already provided a link upthread

If they'd provide their credit card number as well, I'd be happy to
follow that link.

I'm really not a fan of your behavior, Series.

My "behavior", as you put it, is not at issue here. The behavior of
Lisp macros is.

 I think the Lisp proponents make a fair point with the
suggestion that you argue from knowledge rather than
ignorance and a nasty attitude.

I do argue from knowledge; not of Lisp particularly but of the
properties all macros have in common. As for a nasty attitude, I'll
leave it to others to decide whose attitude is nasty -- he who argues
rationally based on experience, evidence, and logic, or they whose
arguments consist largely of insults, accusations that their opponents
are "ignorant" or possess "a nasty attitude", and similarly irrelevant
ad-hominem remarks.

 

[Lew]

I am here to discuss the relative merits of computer languages. I have
no interest in your flaming and personal attacks.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, you liar.

If they'd provide their credit card number as well, I'd be happy to
follow that link.

Man, you really are a troll. Why would you want to steal their credit card
number to access a free product? You did notice that it was free, didn't you,
or were you too wrapped up in your own nonsense?

My "behavior", as you put it, is not at issue here. The behavior of
Lisp macros is.

Your behavior is at issue here, you foul-mouthed troll. Nothing you said
about Lisp had any merit, you ignoramus.

I do argue from knowledge; not of Lisp particularly but of the
properties all macros have in common. As for a nasty attitude, I'll
leave it to others to decide whose attitude is nasty --

Yours, you unworthy poltroon.

he who argues rationally based on experience, evidence, and logic, or they whose

That's not you, for sure. Your arguments are irrational, illogical, opposed
to the evidence and devoid of experience. You resort to nasty, nasty little
cusswords when reason fails you, you accuse others of behaviors that are but
pale reflections of yours, you are clearly in this only to boost your own
pathetic little ego.

arguments consist largely of insults, accusations that their opponents
are "ignorant" or possess "a nasty attitude", and similarly irrelevant
ad-hominem remarks.

Awww, is widdoo widdoo "Series Expansion" upset?

You're such a hypocrite. You call people all sorts of foul things, but can't
take it when you are on the receiving end. You can dish it out, but you can't
take it. Coward. Dishonest person. Liar.

Nyaaah, nyaaah!

 

[Series Expansion]

"Series" does not represent the typical Java programmer.

Actually, I am an entirely typical Java programmer.

Now that is a very unfair generalization.  Don't tar Java programmers with the
"Series Expansion" brush.  I'm a Java programmer myself, but that doesn't mean
I agree with or endorse his behavior.

There is nothing wrong with my behavior. A cursory examination of this
thread will reveal that it is the Lisp advocacy side of this debate
that has accused the other side of being amateurs, in one particular
case asserting that Java programmers are incompetent for example. It
is also the Lisp side that has engaged routinely in the ad hominem
variety of debating tactics, widely considered to be an indication
that the side doing so first has lost the argument.

In fact, I don't.  I assess that "Series" is a brat.

Then you would be wrong.

 From time to time even entirely within the comp.lang.java.programmer
newsgroup we get posts from people who profess to be Java programmers but only
use the forum to exercise their nasty little egos.

People like yourself? Certainly I have not been egotistical here. You
on the other hand have recently dumped a rather large slurry of ad
hominem posts, first aimed at the Lispers, then at Seamus from what
had been your own camp, and now at myself. It seems probable that you
now have few friends in either camp. Such behavior will soon condemn
you to walk the battlefield alone, a target for both sides.

 Does that never happen entirely within the comp.lang.lisp group?
 Is everyone who posts their fair and balanced?

Of those that have crossposted into comp.lang.java.programmer, it
would appear that none of them are.

Clearly, "Series Expansion" is not.

On the contrary. My lack of your biases may have convinced you that I
am biased the other way, but this could not be further from the truth.

One thing I am is stubborn. I don't tend to accept arguments that
consist of "this isn't a problem for us, though we have not and
apparently will not furnish arguments or evidence as to why", or of
expressions of faith, or even simply of "no, no, no, no, none of these
problems occur". That is, such arguments don't sway me. Neither do
arguments of the ad hominem variety. Only logic and evidence will sway
me in either direction, and whereas I have provided detailed
explanations of why certain pitfalls are inevitable consequences of
macro use, none have furnished any valid arguments to refute those
explanations.

I have also caught some of the Lispers in contradictions from time to
time, or pointed out absurdities in something they said, but that they
did not apparently examine closely enough before pressing "send".
Perhaps that has not enamored me to them, or to you, but that is not
my aim. These are software engineering newsgroups. Politics should
take a backseat to pragmatism and reason. It is saddening that this
has not apparently occurred.

 

[Adlai]

Actually, I am an entirely typical Java programmer.



There is nothing wrong with my behavior. A cursory examination of this
thread will reveal that it is the Lisp advocacy side of this debate
that has accused the other side of being amateurs, in one particular
case asserting that Java programmers are incompetent for example. It
is also the Lisp side that has engaged routinely in the ad hominem
variety of debating tactics, widely considered to be an indication
that the side doing so first has lost the argument.


Then you would be wrong.


People like yourself? Certainly I have not been egotistical here. You
on the other hand have recently dumped a rather large slurry of ad
hominem posts, first aimed at the Lispers, then at Seamus from what
had been your own camp, and now at myself. It seems probable that you
now have few friends in either camp. Such behavior will soon condemn
you to walk the battlefield alone, a target for both sides.


Of those that have crossposted into comp.lang.java.programmer, it
would appear that none of them are.


On the contrary. My lack of your biases may have convinced you that I
am biased the other way, but this could not be further from the truth.

One thing I am is stubborn. I don't tend to accept arguments that
consist of "this isn't a problem for us, though we have not and
apparently will not furnish arguments or evidence as to why", or of
expressions of faith, or even simply of "no, no, no, no, none of these
problems occur". That is, such arguments don't sway me. Neither do
arguments of the ad hominem variety. Only logic and evidence will sway
me in either direction, and whereas I have provided detailed
explanations of why certain pitfalls are inevitable consequences of
macro use, none have furnished any valid arguments to refute those
explanations.

Hello @ you re: numerous posts where people have patiently explained
- the differences between the Lisp macro system and the C macro
system,
- the power of the Lisp package system
- Emacs
- Why you are a flaming frolicking freelance TROLL

I have also caught some of the Lispers in contradictions from time to
time, or pointed out absurdities in something they said, but that they
did not apparently examine closely enough before pressing "send".
Perhaps that has not enamored me to them, or to you, but that is not
my aim. These are software engineering newsgroups. Politics should
take a backseat to pragmatism and reason. It is saddening that this
has not apparently occurred.

How has politics come out in this thread? I think the only remotely
political comment made RECENTLY (there were some posts about the
politics of the job market, but those were before anti-Lisp flaming
began) was something about going to hell. I think that more political
is the style of the responses you use, where you filibuster away
patient and thought-out explanations with tear-jerking (not!)tales of
your troubles trying to reason (not!) logically (not!) with all the
ignoranuses (not!) on c.l.l and their oft-changing (not!) ill-defined
(not!) opinions.

Good night, and good luck.


- Adlai

 

[Lew]

Actually, I am an entirely typical Java programmer.

Gods, I hope not!

There is nothing wrong with my behavior.

Your behavior sucks, you liar.

Then you would be wrong.
Brat.

Lew:

That nasty worm, who styles himself "Series Expansion":

People like yourself? Certainly I have not been egotistical here. You
Hahaha.

on the other hand have recently dumped a rather large slurry of ad
hominem posts, first aimed at the Lispers, then at Seamus from what

Not at "Lispers", as you call them, but certainly at "Seamus" and you, you
unworthy.

had been your own camp, and now at myself. It seems probable that you

Neither you nor "Seamus" are in my camp. How arrogant of you to place
yourself with me. I spurn you. You are beneath contempt.

now have few friends in either camp. Such behavior will soon condemn
you to walk the battlefield alone, a target for both sides.

I can take it. Can you?

....


On the contrary. My lack of your biases may have convinced you that I
am biased the other way, but this could not be further from the truth.

Your bias is to self-aggrandisement and nastiness, and certainly as far from
the truth as one can get.

One thing I am is stubborn.

Clearly. Not in a good way, either.

... none have furnished any valid arguments to refute those
explanations.

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you in the fundament.

I have also caught some of the Lispers in contradictions from time to
time, or pointed out absurdities in something they said, but that they

You're a fine one to talk about "absurdities in something they said", whose
every utterance is as absurd as it is unwarranted and hostile.

You have engaged with me, which is all that I required. I just could not
understand why you didn't answer me when I have tried so hard to goad you into
responding by calling you out for what you are, you craven fool. Now my ego
is fulfilled, and I hope I haven't spoiled it for everyone else. Now that I
have your attention, "Series Expansion", I shall plonk you. Rest assured,
"Series", that I am flipping you the bird as I do so.

To the rest of the world, and especially to the Lisp adherents whom "Series"
has abused, and to the Java programmers (myself excluded, of course, since I'm
every bit as trollish in this thread) whom "Series" has so egregiously
misrepresented, I sincerely apologize for stooping to his level.

But, man, it sure was fun for me!

 

[Series Expansion]

Man, your text editor must be a dinosaur!  How can you program in Java with
that obsolete piece of crap?

As I have already indicated, my IDE is NetBeans, which is hardly an
"obsolete piece of crap". The sentence quoted above was in reference
to the tools used by some of the Lispers, as described in their own
admissions earlier in this thread. Therefore they are the ones using
what you so eloquently describe as an "obsolete piece of crap".

No surprise there.  You didn't comply with requests that were phrased
politely, either.

I am under no obligation to comply with any requests posted to usenet
newsgroups by random, mostly pseudonymous users who lack any plausible
claim of authority over me.

However, it is certainly the case that the less work a request
involves, and the more politely it is phrased, the more likely I am to
choose to comply with it. The requests I have explicitly refused here
have largely had at least one of the following traits:
* Request was phrased rudely, for instance as a demand;
* Request was to install large pieces of software, sometimes even
software whose requirements would entail my altering or
replacing my machine's operating system;
* Request was to read a lengthy document, or otherwise perform a
task that would take hours or even days;
* Request was to obtain a document probably unavailable to me
without payment, and therefore for me to part with some money.
It is rather unlikely that I will part with money or replace my
operating system at the whim of the author of a possibly-fraudulent
message transmitted over a notoriously insecure network protocol. It
is even less likely that I will comply with any request phrased as a
demand, particularly one carrying an implied threat (for instance, any
ending with "or else") or accompanied by personal attacks or similarly
hostile verbiage (for instance, "please read this web page, idiot"
followed by a URL).

You do lack those attributes.  You are utterly devoid of integrity or
intellectual honesty.

Your argument is self-refuting, and rather ironic as well. Any idiot
can plainly see that you have not managed to provide one shred of
evidence in furtherance of the claims made regarding Lisp here. As far
as the debate is concerned, what you've just written is null and void.

However, your proffering it here as somehow evidence of Lisp's
superiority is an indication that the statements you made about me,
while erroneous, would be true if applied to yourself. Hence the
irony.

What a potty-mouth response from someone who got up on the high horse of "no
personal attacks".

You'll forgive the outburst. It is ... frustrating ... when someone is
so blatantly either blinkered or outright dishonest. A slightly
cleverer person would have trimmed the portion of the quoted text that
refuted their erroneous statement. A truly intelligent one would not
have made that statement in the first place, knowing that it could
still be readily refuted, for instance using Google's archive.

 The name you called is the thing you are, "Series Expansion".

Here is another dose of irony. Immediately after accusing me of being
a "potty-mouth" you use the very same insult on me that I used on
gugamilare. You have apparently lost control of yourself and allowed
emotion to overrule reason.

I find it perplexing that people can get so worked up over an obscure
technical point regarding programming-language features. It is as
though livelihoods, lives, even whole nations might rise or fall
depending upon the outcome of the debate, though logic suggests that
the outcome will in fact have little or no effect on even the software
industry; tomorrow it will in all likelihood be business as usual,
with roughly the same market shares among Java, Lisp, C, and other
languages as prevailed a week ago.

What a hypocrite thou art.

Certainly no more than you are.

 How dare you call others to account for behaviors you exceed for nastiness
and unworthiness?

Exceed? I find that difficult to believe. Whereas I have had the one
outburst of "dipshit", you have had at least a dozen posts veritably
foaming at the mouth with personal attacks directed at not only myself
but numerous personages. Many of the comp.lang.lispers have also
produced at least two substantial flames during the course of this
thread. Yet you assert that my single, one-word flame exceeds this
rather voluminous outpouring of vitriol?

One should probably refrain from programming computers that has
difficulty grasping the ordering of the real numbers. Or at least
refrain from implementing java.util.Comparator.

 Fie on you, "Series".  Fie!  Thou blackguard, thou poltroon.
Thou infamous blot on the name of humanity, and programmers
in particular.  Fie!

Fascinating. Hyperbole, a clear failure of perspective, and apparently
a confusion of a Lisp vs. Java debate for a Shakespearean stage, all
in one single paragraph. Absolutely fascinating.

You wouldn't know etiquette or polite society if it bit you, "Series
Expansion", and I am certain you've never read Emily Post yourself, you worm.
  You are completely unqualified to speak of civilization, you vomitous slime.
  Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

What a maroon.

Though the errors in the above are numerous, I shall make explicit
note of only one: that the above, in particular, makes your earlier
accusations of hypocrisy, hypocrisy. Your credibility has thus been
lowered inestimably; a grave strategic blunder in these circumstances.
Your errors of fact pale into insignificance compared to that.

 

[Series Expansion]

Actually, your posts are showing up over "here" in comp.lang.java.programmer.


"Series Expansion" is a worthless troll.  Ignore him.  He's not in any way
representative of the universe of Java programmers.  He's just a nasty little man.

I find it far more likely that the term "troll" is applicable to the
two individuals in this little side-debate that are flinging insults
around and making imperious demands, than that it is applicable to the
one who has (with one or two exceptions) remained rational.

 

[Series Expansion]

That is why I should have said "some" Java programmers.

Actually, it is "Lew" that does not represent the typical Java
programmer. The typical Java programmer uses reason rather than a
froth of personal insults when he attempts to persuade others during
an argument about technical matters.

At least, I hope that's true.

It is quite clear that "Lew" indeed does not agree with or endorse the
behavior of actually arguing about a technical matter by making
technical, rather than personal, arguments.

Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize, I know that are people of every
kind and everywhere that can have actual conversations, and I bet that
most people who hang out at comp.lang.java doesn't agree with what
Series Expansion and others are doing (or trying to do) here.

I hope not. If comp.lang.java.programmer is now dominated by a
majority, or even a vocal enough minority, who believe that technical
debates should be resolved by outshouting and flaming the opposition
(using for instance the methods so vividly demonstrated by "Lew")
rather than by using logical arguments about the technical merits of
the alternatives proposed, then comp.lang.java.programmer has, to use
the vernacular, "jumped the shark".

When I said "Javaers" I should have said "attackers of the Lisp
language".

This is most unproductive use of language. If you continue to view
those of us who warn of the dangers of macros and advocate the
benefits of compile-time type checking "attackers of the Lisp
language", and some on our side continue to view those of you who
erroneously believe that Java is still the slow, difficult, and weak
language that was version 1.0 as "attackers of the Java language",
then little can be accomplished here besides futile and unproductive
flamage.

Perhaps it would be more useful to replace the word "attackers" with
"critics". I came to this debate curious about Lisp, rather than
inherently hostile to it, but found myself somewhat alarmed by things
that I realized would inevitably cause serious problems in any
realistic large-scale software-development effort. My criticism in
this area was offered with the hope that it might lead to
improvements, but unfortunately it has only led to flaming, much of it
directed at me. At the same time, if those from
comp.lang.java.programmer angered by the "attackers of the Java
language" could see past their anger, they might respond by correcting
certain outdated or simply erroneous beliefs about Java rather than
flaming those who hold them. This would lead to a much more productive
debate than we have witnessed here thus far.

 

[Series Expansion]

I can see how this is legitimate confusion on your part.

There is no confusion.

Macros only have local effects, within their own bodies.

Of course not; if that were true, macros would be useless. Macros have
effect wherever their names occur in the program text.

 

[Adlai]

I find it far more likely that the term "troll" is applicable to the
two individuals in this little side-debate that are flinging insults
around and making imperious demands, than that it is applicable to the
one who has (with one or two exceptions) remained rational.

It's not called rational when:
- People tell you to spend a few minutes understanding some new
concept, and
- They provide resources, whether by directly explaining, or pointing
you to a free resource (not ONE of the resources recommended herein
wasn't free: PCL, Successful Lisp, and On Lisp are all books available
for free on the internet. Google, or clicking the links provided
earlier, would bring them to you instantly), and
- They redirect you to these efforts after the first few times you
ignore them, but
- You continually ignore these resources, while saying that you only
deal reasonably and requesting us to supply any backing for statements
like "C macros and Lisp macros are two very different beasts."

Open up your eyes, and tell us what you see.


- Adlai