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

[TomSW]

Please stop posting five minutes after I post, in the interests of

please stop posting.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Please stop posting five minutes after I post, in the interests of
letting me get caught up so I can move on to other tasks. I do have
other things to do than defend myself against you and your pals, you
know, and it is disrespectful to keep me jumping like this without any
time to even catch a breather. Furthermore, please try to limit your
posts to a reasonable length.

This is usenet. You can not tell other what to do or not to do.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Please stop posting five minutes after I post. Post, then wait a day or
so. That way maybe I'll actually be able to get caught up.

Your problem. Not our problem.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, you're the liar. You will keep your attitude in check and remain
civil in the future,

Check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
Lars Enderin wrote:
Seamus MacRae wrote:
You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on
its side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll
never give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never give
up your faith. And since there are no important public policy issues
at stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.
It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to make
sense, [numerous insults deleted]
Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?
The point is to expose you as a [insult deleted].
And unless you really are a [insult deleted], you know me through
your other aliases: Twisted, Jerry Gerrone, etc, etc.
No. Seamus is not me and none of the nasty things that you have said
or implied about me are at all true.

I find it difficult to believe that there could exist more than one
person (in Canada) with your particular [insults deleted]. It's a
kind of Occams's Razor reasoning. The alternative, that there are
several [insult deleted] like you, is quite horrible to contemplate.

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Besides, who said Seamus was in Canada? I don't see any claim of this
by anyone except you, nor any evidence to support it.

I can give you a hint.

The email address he has chosen to supply is:
(e-mail address removed)

What do you think .ca is?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

[ Crossposting to sci.math and setting follow-ups for sci.math ]

Back again in an attempt to be nice to sci.math !

I doubt it.


No, it only affected Frege's effort for a foundation. Others
took into account Russell's paradox when writing their attempts
at a foundation but they didn't have to rebuild anything. And of
course foundations is only a small part of mathematics so your
claim about "half of mathematics" is completely false, it's not
even half of foundations.


It didn't affect already established mathematics and there was
a lot of that.


First, axiom of choice has nothing to do with self-
referentiality. Second, the first theorem to make use of the
axiom of choice was Zermelo's well-ordering principle, so no
existing theorems had to be checked for reliance on the axiom of
choice.

He does not know anything about LISP and he does not know anything
about math.

And worse: he is not interested in learning.

Nothing wrong in trying to explain stuff - just realize that the
impact is most likely zero.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

And again someone jumps at an apparent opening in order to attack me
without actually reading carefully first.

Bad luck, Arne.

My remark:


was in response to:


as is evident in the quoted material at the start of this post. And it
is quite true that, since version five, to return a literal int or
double you are not forced to wrap the return type. You can have, say,

boolean fooAvailable;
int foo;

...

public Integer getFoo () {
if (fooAvailable) return foo;
return null;
}

and the compiler will be happy to do the wrapping for you. So you are no
longer forced to wrap anything -- sometimes the compiler does it for you.

You do still need to declare the return type as Integer or Double. But
the type of the expression in the "return" statement may now be int or
double.

In particular, if you want to return a literal, which was the particular
case at issue here, you can.

Pre-Java 5:

public Integer returnOneOrNull () {
if (foo) return Integer.valueOf(1);
return null;
}

Java 5 and later:

public Integer returnOneOrNull () {
if (foo) return 1; // An int literal is returned.
return null;
}

Nice try. Next time you want to pick a fight with someone, read more
carefully and choose your target more carefully, or better yet, think
better of it and just go on about your business.

I think you should read more carefull yourself.

The above just proved that you have not even understood what
is being discussed.

The point is that it needs to be:
Integer returnOneOrNull()
not:
int returnOneOrNull()
to be able to return null.

Before 1.5 and after.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Narrowed it down for ya. The Lisp language I am talking about in this
thread is Common Lisp.

I was not commenting on Lisp dialects at all!

Arne

 

[Paul Foley]

What? That's like writing

foo int;

instead of

int foo;

Why would anyone do it like that, unless they were Hebrew or Arabic
speaking? (And even then -- most language designs seem to have
originated not only in left-to-right writing countries, but
specifically in English-speaking countries, by and large!)

Ye-es...and in English, we usually say "foo is (an) int", not "(an)
int foo is", right? Why would you want to write "int foo;", unless
you were Yoda?

(let ('variable value)). (defun 'name (param1 param2) (body)). Where

That's (let ((variable value)) ...) and (defun name ...)

are the types? There only seem to be the argument names and variable
names in these places.

The types are implicit, unless you make them explicit. The type of
each thing above is implicitly T (read: java.lang.Object). You can write

(let ((variable 42))
(declare (type integer variable))
...)

if you want, and then the variable named variable is an integer.

[The type system is far more flexible than Java's, too! You can
just say "var is an integer", but you can also say "var is a prime
between 7 and 139", if you want...what's the type for that in Java?
(Granted, the compiler's not likely to do much with that)]

Lisp does not have typed variables and parameters. Maybe CLOS does,
but Lisp does not.


Don't be ridiculous.

Well, you keep very forcefully asserting these things about Lisp that
don't gel with what Lispers know about Lisp, so ISTM either of two
possibilities must obtain: (1) we're all idiots: you know Lisp better
than us, or (2) you don't know what you're talking about and are
incapable of being educated, making you the idiot. And you keep
disclaiming the latter, so I assumed the former must be true. No?

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

These pointless jabs and pokes do not advance your case for Lisp.

Wrong again. I am not trying to make a case for Lisp at all.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

When you learn CL, you learn new concepts, not just the details of
language features. The stuff you learn works together with a lot of
synergy. So you aren't likely to actually learn much of anything useful
by engaging in this kind of argument. You would be much better off
spending your time downloading Practical Common Lisp and a CL system, and
spending the time with those that you would have spent arguing here.

Even if you never use CL for real-world work, what you learn from it can
make you a much better programmer.

That applies to most/all programming languages.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

If my goal were to learn CL, rather than to prevail in this debate, then
you would be correct.

You don't think it is rather pointless to debate the merits of a
language that you don't master????

Maybe someday when I have more time I will learn more of it. Right now,
I'm too busy trying to catch up on fucking Usenet. So if you'll excuse
me ...

Too busy discussing Lisp to actually learn Lisp.

I think that speaks for itself.

Is this intended as yet another personal attack? I have made no
assertion of not needing to improve. It's simply not relevant to the
matter at hand.

It is very relevant.

If you don't know Lisp and want to discuss Lisp, then you should learn
about Lisp.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Pillsy wrote:
[...]
Your lucid writing

Thanks

almost makes up for your hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

But no thanks. None of that's true of course.

OK, fine: your crappy writing does nothing to make up for your
hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

I'd find it touching that you find it amusing to see people viciously
attacking each other, if I happened to be a sadistic psychopath reading
this from in a prison library. And then when I got out I might track you
down and do things to you.

How fortunate for you that I'm not, and the only thing I'm likely to do
in response to this sort of silliness is think "the lot of you are a
bunch of stupid assholes" and take nothing you write very seriously ever
again.

Does that include not replying to it??

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, a Lisp text, silly! (How the hell did you make that error? The
preceding text doesn't mention the Internet, and it's fairly obvious
that I DO have internet access. Really, the referent of my "don't have
one" should have been quite obvious. I can't help suspecting you're
being intentionally obtuse.)

I think you are missing the point.

There are Lisp texts available on the internet.

Motzarella.

Known for anonymity of posters.

I guess not. How disappointing. Although I'll have you know my IQ tested
in the 120-130 range in high school.

Should I post the well-known links describing the remarkable
impression you made back then?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Who said anything about not being able to learn to use an editor?

You.

"More thinking about how to prod the editor into doing xyzzy"

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

That's it. I've had enough of being insulted every time I open my mouth.

**** you!

The truly egregious thing here is that I quite clearly know a LOT more
about Java than you do, and you even attack me for my statements about
Java.

I don't think you're here to debate Lisp anymore. You're here to flame
people and be generally boorish in public. The only question is: why?

It does not matter. I deserve to be treated with a modicum of respect.

You have made a fool out of yourself. Don't blame others for that.

People will stop criticizing me and confine their discussions to the
programming languages under discussion here. The subject "Seamus MacRae"
is off-topic. Got it?

This is usenet.

You can not tell people what to do. Well you can, but it does not matter.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, Thomas's argumentation is not "perfectly valid". Argumentum ad
hominem has been recognized as a fallacy for thousands of years.

You must be smoking something illegal.

He is arguing very technical about classes and namespaces in Lisp
and Java.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, I am not.

Well that is what the IP address indicates.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm sure it's been running on X for as long as there've been xterms to
run it in.

Running in an xterm is not considered running on X.

Emacs has been running as a true GUI app for 20 years (give or
take a few).

Fascinating. Arne appears to believe that Unicode is a subset of
ASCII.

Fascinating that someone is so dumb that he can not distinguish between
the strings "UTF-8" and "ASCII" but are still capable of posting to
usenet.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Arne "bravely" did nothing; he launched a personal attack on an
innocent target from behind a veil of online anonymity. Such an act is
ordinarily considered one of cowardice.

I completely agree that anonymous posters are cowards.

The types that uses motzarella and the like to post!

Arne