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

[Paul Donnelly]

Bruce C. Baker said:



But those with a *complete* brain realise that it isn't about
winning or losing. It's about correctness.

Those *using* it realize that you can't stop people from being wrong on
the Internet, you've made your point, and you're wasting your time.

 

[luserXtrog]

Do you think there is a substantive difference between:

  size_t f(int n) { int tmp[n]; return sizeof tmp; }

and

  size_t g(int n) { return n * sizeof(int); }

?

Not at all (with obvious optimization performed).

 Both need to access n and do a multiplication at run-time.  I am
not sure the distinction you are making is a good one.

The distinction I was trying to make was more like that between these:

size_t h (int n) { return n * 4; }

size_t i (int n) { int tmp[n];
return n * sizeof(typeof(_identifier("tmp"))); }

I was trying to imagine what erroneous assumptions one would
have to have made in order to expect that something like this
would be unsafe:

size_t j (int *foo) { return sizeof *foo; }

 

[Willem]

It appears that you did not honour the Followup-To header.
No surprise there.

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) No. You fired the first shot;

Nope, you did, as I have already stated.

)> )> I did not actually call you those names.
)> )
)> ) Yes, you did. You implied that I was a liar and an idiot.
)>
)> These two statements contradict each other.
)
) No, they do not.

'actually call you' and 'implied' are opposites.

)> Note: In the rest of your post, you were only replying to yourself
)
) I was not. I was replying to the things you'd publicly implied about me.

There was nothing in the rest of the post that was even written by me.
It was comprised solely of your so-called 'editorial comments'.
(Note: I'm using quotes because there was nothing left to comment on)


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Notice: followups set.
)
) If you don't think this crap belongs in cll or cljp, why post there?

It's standard Usenet practise to post to all groups in a reply to a
crosspost, and set followups to the relevant groups. This is so that
the readers know that they can follow the continued discussion in the
mentioned newsgroup. This is also why you should warn on the setting
of followups. (Which is also standard usenet practise.)


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) You see, you seem to think the way it should end is:
)
) Hapless Guy: says something
) Richard: insults Hapless Guy
) Hapless Guy: meekly slinks off to lick his wounds

No, the way it could end is:

Seamus: says something factually incorrect
Richard: corrects mistake
Seamus: acts indignant at perceived insult, and replies with insults
Richard: explains that it was not an insult
Seamus: accepts explanation that it was not an insult

See ? You don't even have to admit your mistake.
Of course, civilized people do admit when they make mistakes.

) Note that this is not asymmetrical; if it were HG that started by
) insulting Richard out of the blue then Richard would deserve the last
) word -- at least so long as it was a non-insulting one that just stated
) that Richard was an OK guy.

Then why did you start insulting other people ?
And I don't mean implied insults, I mean actual direct insults.

This is how you seemingly want it to end:

Seamus: says something that contains a mistake
Richard: corrects factual mistake
Seamus: takes factual correction as personal insult and replies with
lots more insults.
Richard: meekly slinks off to lick his wounds


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) And all of this happened AFTER:
)
)<[email protected]>
)
) in which, in response to a perfectly civil post by me, Richard was most
) uncourteous:
)
)> Firstly, the preferred idiom is:
)
) and so forth. Talking down to me like I was some D student in his class
) or something. The nerve! I'm probably a decade or more his senior, I'm
) probably smarter than he is, and I certainly seem to know more about how
) to be polite and respect others' dignity in public than he does. Unless
) he simply doesn't care.

I think it is patently obvious that you perceived a perfectly normal
comment as an insult, and replied with a heap of obvious insults.

That is what started all this. As you seem completely incapable
of admitting error, there is no point in discussing this further.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

This is how you seemingly want it to end:

Seamus: says something that contains a mistake
Richard: corrects factual mistake

This is where Richard should leave it, yes. Everyone can see that
Richard is right. The facts are easily researched in two minutes of
googling. The job is done; the misinformation has been adequately addressed.

Seamus: takes factual correction as personal insult and replies with
lots more insults.

At this point, the trolling dipshit is turning it personal, without adding
anything to the topic that was being discussed, or addressing his mistake.
This should be ignored. Everyone can still see that Richard was right.
Any reply to this followup constitutes a participation in the troll's game.
There is no way that it's about correctness any longer after this point.

Richard: meekly slinks off to lick his wounds

Are you serious? What wounds? An insult can only come from someone on your own
level, or higher. Shameful Macro would have to go back and re-live most of his
entire miserable life differently to attain a position from which insulting
Richard would be possible.

 

[stan]

Seamus MacRae wrote:

and so forth. Talking down to me like I was some D student in his class
or something. The nerve! I'm probably a decade or more his senior, I'm
probably smarter than he is, and I certainly seem to know more about how
to be polite and respect others' dignity in public than he does. Unless
he simply doesn't care.

When do the betting windows open???

 

[Mike Schilling]

The only erroneous assumption made here was your assumption that you
could sneak an insult past me undetected.

'Stewth. Paul can see an insult whether it's there or not.

 

[luserXtrog]

The only erroneous assumption made here was your assumption that you
could sneak an insult past me undetected.

Heh.

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> There was nothing in the rest of the post that was even written by me.
)> It was comprised solely of your so-called 'editorial comments'.
)
) Those comments, however, were summing up the things that YOU said.

They were not. They were summing up the things that YOU wanted everybody
to think that I said, so that you could then act all indignant about it.

I hereby state for the record that none of the 'editorial comments' that
Seamus has written was in any way representative of anything I have said.

Having said that, I will now ignore any further reply by yours to any
'editorial comment', given that these are, as I just stated, false.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Seamus: says something that contains a mistake
)
) No. I do not choose to do such things, so you are incorrect in claiming
) that that is any part of how I want anything to end.

You don't *choose* to make mistakes. You simply make them unwittingly.
That's how mistakes work. When this is pointed out, civilized people
realize their mistake and accept the correction thereof.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Raymond Wiker]

The only erroneous assumption made here was your assumption that you
could sneak an insult past me undetected.

It seems to me that you are the sort of person that Dr
Spooner would describe as a "shining wit".

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> You don't *choose* to make mistakes.
)
) Indeed. That's exactly what I just said.
)
)> You simply make them unwittingly.
)
) No, I do not. I do not do anything unwittingly.

Am I correct in understanding that you claim to never make a mistake ?
You've never made a mistake in your life ? Not once ? Ever ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[fortunatus]

To get the effects the Lispers have claimed seems to require seriously
contorting the definitions of all of:
* macro (not operating on text?!)
* parse tree (contains undirected cycles?!)
* source code (not flat ASCII?!)
and possibly more.

YES - the first one - that's the reason Lispers like the Lisp macro,
you got it exactly! Does _not_ operate on text, operates after lex
+parse phase! If you are simply trying to argue that a Lisp macro is
not what is usually called a macro - I agree with that! - then call
them L-macros.

So to get the similar benefit for C (or Pascal or whatever) type of
syntax, you'd add a new feature (maybe "C-macro" ??), not the same as
a macro pre-processor, but something that fits between the lexer
+parser and the code gen. And the C-macro usages that programmers
write would have to pass through the lexer+parser!

Try that with a new control flow structure C-macro, for instance. It
can be done, and I think some research groups are actually doing it.

But it's harder in non-Lisp like languages. In Lisp, the original
parsing system can already read "L-macro" usages.

 

[Series Expansion]

YES - the first one - that's the reason Lispers like the Lisp macro,

because it isn't one? How ridiculous. Redefining things and then
acting all shocked and flamey when people call you on it. Really now.

 

[Alan Bawden]

because it isn't one? How ridiculous. Redefining things and then
acting all shocked and flamey when people call you on it. Really now.

Lisp has been calling them "macros" since they were originally proposed in
1963. In 45 years, nobody has ever objected that Lisp wasn't entitled to
use the word. In fact, the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing's
definition of the word "macro" notes:

"Nowadays the term is most often used in connection with the C
preprocessor, Lisp, or one of several special-purpose languages built
around a macro-expansion facility (such as TeX or Unix's troff suite)."

Another example: the Wikipedia article on the computer science meaning of
the word macro includes a (not very good) section titled "Lisp macros".

Looks to me like Lisp has a pretty good claim on the word at this point.

So when you came in here, people warned you multiple times that: "Lisp
macros aren't like the macros you are used to." But you weren't interested
in learning anything new, you were here to pick a fight and prove what a
bunch of wankers we are. Now that you've lost that argument, here you are
again whining that nobody told you that these weren't the macros you were
used to! Pathetic.

 

[fortunatus]

because it isn't one? How ridiculous. Redefining things and then
acting all shocked and flamey when people call you on it. Really now.

It isn't a text preprocessing macro - yeah, you're right, the
definition is different.

Who cares that Lispers call it "macro"? As long as you can figure out
the meaning of the term in context you can join the discussion! (I
admit, though, that the difference does trip up newbies - me included,
took me a few months. It's something to learn about Lisp.)

By the way - If you could name it, Series Expansion, what would you
call it?

 

[Series Expansion]

because it isn't one? How ridiculous. Redefining things and then
acting all shocked and flamey when people call you on it. Really now.

Lisp has been calling them "macros" since they were originally proposed in
1963. [rest of irrelevant digression deleted]

But you weren't interested in learning anything new

Not true.

you were here to pick a fight and prove what a bunch of wankers we
are.

Not true, but several of you *did* do a pretty nice job of proving
what a bunch of wankers they were.

 Now that you've lost that argument

I have not.

here you are again whining

I am not.

... Pathetic.

I am not.

 

[Series Expansion]

If you could name it, Series Expansion, what would you
call it?

A "wackyfuckedupLispthing" perhaps.