2011/6/15 Ilias L. [email protected]
(I’m unemployed, …
Too easy, simply too easy…
John
On 16 , 03:45, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM, John W Higgins [email protected] wrote:
Too easy, simply too easy…
John
Well, Ilias’ grasp of the English language isn’t the best, so he
probably meant “I’m not employed by a company, but am self-employed”.
You are right, I was to lazy to write.
Self-employed, but as I currently look for a contract, I’m kind of un-
(self-)employed, or self-unemployed or whatever.
The effect of “unemployed” and “self-unemployed” is essentially the
same (e.g. empty freezer), possibly with the difference (in my case)
that I am focused on personal projects, as long as I’m un-
(self)employed.
And now I have to shower…
Good idea!
.
On 11 , 20:35, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
Which name would you select and for what reasons?
Requirements
must:
- one word
optional:
- ideally a 7 letter word
#existent load functionality
load ‘alibrary.rb’
require ‘alibrary’
locally ‘lib/alter’ # locally located file
include ‘lib/alter’ # the commonly known “include” (“collision” with
the “include” used for mixins)
uniload ‘lib/alter’ # universal load
#one more suggestion
request ‘lib/alter’ # like require, but uses the path relative to the
current file
.
There’s only one joke:
The processes which guide the evolution of the ruby language.
One could say: “Which processes, there are none.”
Exactly, there are none.
And this is the joke.
Noone stops you from making your own language Ilias.
Ruby is matz’ creation and that’s more than enough design process
required.
If you don’t want to learn and don’t want to use ruby, it is time for
you to stop spamming on the mailing list Ilias.
Your suggestion about changing load etc… is making it more complicated
than before.
uniload ‘lib/alter’
Are you kidding? You must be.
Stop it.
On 16 Ιούν, 14:18, Adam P. [email protected] wrote:
I can only assume that these two pairs of lines being next to each
other is a joke.
There’s only one joke:
The processes which guide the evolution of the ruby language.
One could say: “Which processes, there are none.”
Exactly, there are none.
And this is the joke.
.
On 16/06/2011 13:40, Ilias L. wrote:
2011/6/16 Matt H. [email protected]:
Ilias, resident Abstract Programmer
request ‘lib/alter’ # like require, but uses the path relative to the
current fileYou mean like “require_relative” which actually makes more sense than your
suggestions?
Especially since “request” sounds to me like “would be nice to have,
but not really important to my core functionality”. Syntactic sugar
for rescuing a non-critical LoadError, in other words.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On 16 , 17:43, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
Especially since “request” sounds to me like “would be nice to have,
but not really important to my core functionality”.
[…]
I agree.
Additionally, “request” brings up the http request stuff.
So it looks “request” is invalid, too.
.
On 16 , 17:29, Matt H. [email protected] wrote:
Some project manager complains about “require_relative”, and asks you
request ‘lib/alter’ # like require, but uses the path relative to the
current fileYou mean like “require_relative”
Yes of cousre, “require_relative”
which actually makes more sense than your suggestions?
“require_relative(_to_this_file)” in a single word, ideally with 7
chars
This is the topic.
Is it really so difficult for you people to solve a given problem,
even if you personally don’t agree that it is a problem?
locally ‘lib/alter’ # locally located file
include ‘lib/alter’ # the commonly known “include”
uniload ‘lib/alter’ # universal load
request ‘lib/alter’ # like require_relative, but uses the path
relative to the current file
one more
relative ‘lib/alter’ #
.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Ilias L. wrote:
suggestions?
Especially since “request” sounds to me like “would be nice to have,
but not really important to my core functionality”.
[…]I agree.
Additionally, “request” brings up the http request stuff.
So it looks “request” is invalid, too.
Ilias -
I’ll admit, I haven’t read everything you’ve written. However, all
I’ve
seen is one complaint after another about how ruby isn’t the ideal for
which you’re looking.
“require_relative” makes perfect sense to me. It says exactly what to
do.
You presented a straw-man project manager who doesn’t like a method to
be
longer than seven characters. First off, what is a project manager
doing
looking at the code? Second, since 90+% of the cost of a project has
historically been in maintenance, having something which clearly states
what it’s doing is often more important than succicntness. Someone
presented the idea of using an alias for require_relative, yet that
wasn’t
good enough for you. I think you’re looking for arguments for the sake
of
arguing.
Since you only have complaints, perhaps you might conclude that ruby is
not the language for you? There are many, many, many people who love
ruby
and find that it meets their needs and the way in which they think.
Perhaps you need to write your own language which meets your way of
thinking as well as your own needs?
Please realize that I’m speaking only as myself. I love ruby - it’s by
far my favorite general purpose language and I’ve used/worked with
around
30 languages all told over the past 30+ years. I find that its idioms
fit
well my way of thinking and it’s pleasant to write.
YMMV,
Matt
On 16/06/2011 16:10, Ilias L. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Matt H. wrote:
As said before, this isn’t going to change. If you don’t like it, or your
“project manager” doesn’t like it, then alias it and be done.If this really was the requirement of a project manager, I’d hope he realised
he’s wasted the resources in having you argue this non-issue.
He’s admitted that the “project manager” is a hypothetical one. In other
words, it’s a strawman argument. (or more aptly a sock puppet?)
2011/6/16 Matt H. [email protected]:
You don’t seem to understand that you are arguing against the descriptive
nature of the “require_relevant” method name, yet in your own words above
you use those two words to describe it. This in itself proves that the
method name works, is sensible and suitably descriptive.
On Ilias:
“[Ilias] soon started posting long tirades where he proved' that the CL standard requires various behaviour, while completely ignoring the detailed rebuttals of his proofs’. An example is the long series of
articles where he `proves’ that merely copying the syntax of #( and
#) to, say #[ and #] should cause [ … ] to be legal syntax,
despite multiple explanations by four or more people of why this
cannot work. He has also a number of other strange ideas, mostly
syntactic in nature - for instance he doesn’t like the . in
dotted-list syntax, and doesn’t understand how the , unquoteing syntax
works, and has argued, again, that the standard implies things that
mean that no implementation is conforming.”
And:
“He is obsessed by the minutiae of syntax and apparently uninterested
in actually writing programs - he needs to invent some `perfect’
language before he can do anything, and he’s starting with the syntax.
It seems quite likely that he’s just trying to avoid doing anything at
all by endlessly fiddling with syntax.”
Now that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
From: http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html
To cut a long story short: Ilias can’t program, won’t program, and is
a liability to everyone, particularly his “clients”. Until proven
otherwise, Ilias claimed experience in coding is n x 1 year of actual
experience, if that.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On 16 Ιούν, 18:49, Matt H. [email protected] wrote:
require_relative ‘lib/alter’
uniload ‘lib/alter’ # universal load
which actually makes more sense than your suggestions?“require_relative(_to_this_file)” in a single word, ideally with 7
charsYou don’t seem to understand
[…] - (off-context babbing)
REQUOTE:
"“require_relative(_to_this_file)” in a single word, ideally with 7
chars
This is the topic.
Is it really so difficult for you people to solve a given problem,
even if you personally don’t agree that it is a problem?
"
It seems that it’s just to difficult.
.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Matthew K. Williams [email protected]
wrote:
He’s admitted that the “project manager” is a hypothetical one. In other
words, it’s a strawman argument. (or more aptly a sock puppet?)
Naw, a sock puppet would require Ilias to be clever enough to create a
persona that posts this requirement and/or supports his harebrained
schemes.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On 16 , 19:45, “Matthew K. Williams” [email protected] wrote:
This is the topic.
Is it really so difficult for you people to solve a given problem,
even if you personally don’t agree that it is a problem?
"It seems that it’s just to difficult.
You know, this was solved days ago via an alias, but that wasn’t good
enough for you.
alias abcdefg require_relative
This does not solve it, I need the concise word.
Moreover, you’re rude to people.
Of course. I’m rude, and the freak-show that
a) has hijacked the thread at the beginning
b) continues with off-topic comments and start again to become
personal.
those are not rude, but civilized.
Enough. Killfile time.
At least you know how to use filters.
Matt
.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Ilias L. wrote:
[…] - (off-context babbing)
This is rude. You don’t have to quote it if you don’t want, but calling
it babbling? Rude.
It seems that it’s just to difficult.
You know, this was solved days ago via an alias, but that wasn’t good
enough for you. Moreover, you’re rude to people.
Enough. Killfile time.
Matt
On 16/06/2011 17:55, Ilias L. wrote:
Ilias L. wrote in post #1005640:
Self-employed, but as I currently look for a contract, I’m kind of un-
(self-)employed, or self-unemployed or whatever.The effect of “unemployed” and “self-unemployed” is essentially the
same (e.g. empty freezer).
I’m begining to warm to you, Ilias.
Normally one thinks of a language as an agreed ‘wavelength of
communication’. You tune in and your message is understood. You then use
the language as is or bend it to the point that other ‘receivers’ can
still understand what you are getting at.
Your position seems to be that there is some abstract standard that a
language should conform to or else be criticised.
English is a very quirky language but is widely accepted because it
facilitates communication. I don’t think people have attempted to clean
it up for a couple of hundred years.
Similarly people seem to like Ruby’s ability to express ideas. Why do
you feel a need to change it, at a rather nit-picking level?
On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ilias L. wrote:
.
If you want professionalism, you have to be professional yourself,
something that you very rarely show. This huge thread has given you
more than what you “need”. Come up with something yourself instead of
trying to waste anyone else’s time here.
Jason