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

[Series Expansion]

You fed the troll.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and gugamilare.

(Reposted after original was silently redirected to hide my response
from comp.lang.java.programmer. "Lew", your perfidy knows no bounds.)

 

[Series Expansion]

Potty mouth.  Potty mouth.  Even if you are describing yourself.

I am not.

Your tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments in
favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and Pascal.

You are, too, a liar.  Liar, liar, pants on fire, "Series".

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew". However, they have inspired me
to revise downward my estimated upper bound of the lowest age present
in this thread from "below legal drinking age" to "kindergarten".

You don't just appear to be one, you genuinely are one. And a hypocrite and a
liar, too, Series.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew".

Hah, good one.  Every word out of your keyboard has been genuinely rude, you liar.

You're a liar, Series Expansion.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew".

(Reposted after original was silently redirected to hide my response
from comp.lang.java.programmer. "Lew", your perfidy knows no bounds.)

 

[Series Expansion]

Ahh, he's a troll and a maroon.  He also doesn't know the meaning of the word
"law"; he confused scientific law with legislative.

Incorrect.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and Adlai.

 

[Series Expansion]

Portuguese is a better language than English.

This racist non-sequitur does not constitute a rational argument in
favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew".

 

[Series Expansion]

You are not the one to say whether they'd be obsolete or not, only
their users.

And corporations may have something else to do, and something else to
finance, than to pay java [sic] programmers to follow the fashion of the day
in GUI for their mission critical software.

Spelling counts.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and Pascal.

 

[Series Expansion]

They have not.

Although you neglected to quote it, the preceding post had contained
an implied claim that Java was incapable of other than modulo-2^32
arithmetic. In fact, it is natively capable of true integer arithmetic
and integer arithmetic modulo 2^64, 2^32, 2^16, and 2^8, and with the
explicit use of the % operator and BigInteger.mod() it's not difficult
to use pretty much any other modulus.

Furthermore, Java also has BigDecimal, float, and double, and the
ability to "roll one's own" numerical types.

(The attempt to misdirect this particular post away from
comp.lang.java.programmer is especially odd since it is clearly
primarily about Java, "Lew".)

 

[Series Expansion]

Says someone who evidently has never heard of junit [sic].

Spelling counts.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew".

(The attempt to misdirect this particular post away from
comp.lang.java.programmer is especially odd, seeing as it's primarily
about Java.)

 

[Series Expansion]

Sure is!

But it did, more or less. The only types in the language are cons
cells, integers, maybe a few other numeric types, strings, symbols,
and nil, and variables lack types. Lisp doesn't even have a true
boolean type, using the nil value "nil" and the symbol "t" instead. A
result of this is that if a variable can hold a boolean, it can hold a
heterogeneous variety of objects; certainly it could also hold the
symbol "foobar" (or else not be able to hold "t"). Yuck!

 

[Series Expansion]

It should be apparent that a JUnit test could be written that tests
the Java code that loads the XML and reports errors. Such a test will
catch errors in the XML as well as in the particular Java code that
interprets it.

My language is better!

No, *my* language is better!

Is not!

Is, too!

Nyaah, nyaah!

Perhaps you should shut off the computer and duck. I think that's a
teacher coming down the hall towards the computer room, and he's
probably looking for you. If you are captured, you will probably face
detention or worse at the hands of the principal.

 

[Series Expansion]

But it does, as I have already explained.

So both Lisp and Java are superior to C!

Java certainly is, except for programming low-level kernel-mode code
for which raw access to the hardware is required, or bridges between
Java and operating system APIs.

(The attempt to misdirect this particular post away from
comp.lang.java.programmer is especially odd, since it is explicitly
partly about Java.)

 

[Adlai]

But it does, as I have already explained.



Java certainly is, except for programming low-level kernel-mode code
for which raw access to the hardware is required, or bridges between
Java and operating system APIs.

(The attempt to misdirect this particular post away from
comp.lang.java.programmer is especially odd, since it is explicitly
partly about Java.)

Series, did you see my post explaining gensyms? It's here
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/675547670bee692b?hl=en

Please read it. I really do think it'll help you understand how what
truly is impossible in C-style macros, is possible in Lisp macros.

By the way, Series, I'm under legal drinking age. SO?

If I can make a clear explanation, does my age matter?

Or, for that matter, if I just rant and rave and ignore what people
say -- does my age matter?

Those are rhetorical questions. Just please read the post about using
GENSYM in Lisp macros.

 

[gugamilare]

Series, did you see my post explaining gensyms?

Clearly he didn't. He is still reading posts from 2 days ago now, and
you have just written yours. The last post he replied is from 1pm two
days ago, and he is replying all of them in order, even the flammatory
pointless one-liners. It will take him at least a week until he
finally reaches your post. And even when he reads it, I believe he
will give you more excuses like always (What about non-moderate users,
will they know how to do this? What about Lisp data types? Namespace?
Classpaths? Bla bla bla bla...).

He will drive you nuts, he will make you explain to him every single
detail about Common Lisp and Emacs while still refusing to learn, each
explanation more than three times for each detail (by now he has
already read at least 5 posts talking about each of the subjects:
gensyms, Emacs windowing, generic functions and packages; and he
clearly didn't understand any single of those yet). If he wanted to
learn, he would read the book Practical Common Lisp which free links
we provided him more than once (about 5 times as well?), and PCL is
much shorter and easier to understand than this thread enormous
thread, isn't it?

Whenever he sees that he is wrong about something he just invents an
excuse on something else he clearly don't have a clue about, and he
won't accept a simple "Didn't you realize you don't have enough
knowledge in Lisp to criticize Lisp?" - he will say that you are
making "personal attacks". Not to mention the possibility that he
already knows about the language and that he is wasting our time on
purpose (as Lew suggested). It is just pointless.

I'm sorry if I am insisting on this subject, but just let it go. It
doesn't matter anyway. If he doesn't like Lisp it's his problem.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm sorry if I am insisting on this subject, but just let it go. It
doesn't matter anyway. If he doesn't like Lisp it's his problem.

And Java's problem since we are stuck with him.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Says someone who evidently has never heard of junit [sic].

Spelling counts.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew".

Stating that spelling count is not a personal attack.

Maybe you should read what you reply to.

(The attempt to misdirect this particular post away from
comp.lang.java.programmer is especially odd, seeing as it's primarily
about Java.)

I am sure a lot of cljp'ers would have been happy not to see it !

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Your comment is off-topic for a any newsgroup.

Lew, you did better before...

It is not universal agreed on whether comments about something
being on or off topic is itself on or off topic.

I do not see a problem Lew stating so.

ONCE !

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

D'yer believe them? More to the point, would it do anything useful at an
acceptable speed?

Most likely not.

Win 95 runs just fine on a K6/266 with 128 MB RAM, but even it gets very
slow if you put an 8 mPixel image into PaintShop Pro on it. Whole image
operations such as resizing or changing contrast and brightness would
take 2-3 minutes to complete.

Win95 should run fine on 32 MB.

It would never occur to me to put XP onto that box - its acceptable but
not what you'd call blindingly fast on a normal 1GHz / 1GB office machine.

I used XP on 512 MB for quite some time. Works fine.

Arne

 

[Series Expansion]

A) Your English is fine.
B) It's not that he thinks you're stupid because of your English, it's that
Series Expansion is a troll and a liar.
C) He doesn't have a point.
D) Neither does this thread.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and gugamilare.

I was not considering gugamilare's grammatical errors in isolation,
but as part of a larger pattern.

 

[Series Expansion]

We'd prefer that neither of you do that.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and Paul.

 

[Series Expansion]

Hey, Guga, Series's sentence,
 >>> I have just spent quite a while demonstrated otherwise.
was grammatically incorrect.  He's in no position to judge you.

These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, "Lew" and gugamilare.

Furthermore, I said I had spent quite a while demonstrat*ing*
otherwise. Misquoting me does not prove me an idiot; rather, it proves
you a liar.

 

[Series Expansion]

Incorrect. Both sorts of macro are evaluated in some way and the
result substituted, as code, for the invocation; both sorts also have
the actual arguments, as code, substituted for placeholders of some
sort in the macro body.

And my arguments are based entirely upon these common features.

And neither has anything in common with Java.

That much is true, but the larger context is a debate about which is
better, Lisp or Java. The problematical consequences of macros are
part of a refutation of an assertion fronted earlier to the effect
that Lisp was superior. The probable truth is that neither is strictly
superior to the other.