[New and improved Not-Quite-a-Flame, now with ObCircle!]
"Mark A. Heilpern" wrote:
> I don't need to go read a FAQ on MUDs to learn about LPC; in my
> humble opinion if you come into this mailing list claiming something
> not currently in use in CircleMUD is better than what is available,
No-one said LPC was better than DG Scripts. Go back and read for
yourself. Is there some type of literary irony in you calling your
own opinion "humble" whilst you are trying to cram it down others'
throats?
> you have a responsibility to defend that claim without assuming
> everyone knows what you're talking about.
Which is all well and fine -- had anyone said LPC was better this
would actually matter. However, the quotation was, "The difference
between LPC and DG Scripts is like night and day."
> On the other hand, if you want to say that XXX system is better
> than YYY system, when YYY is in use and you're trying to convince
> people to adapt XXX, and you don't offer any reasons, you're just
> wasting bandwidth.
Actually, I think it's called "propoganda." But since no-one would
nor has suggested Circle adopt LPC, your example is an absurd
non-sequitur on the order of a noncoplanar tangent.
(Momentary, friendly, not-intending-to-be-a-grammar-Nazi aside: a lot
of people mix-up "adopt" and "adapt". I invite you to be one of the
few, the proud, that know you cannot "adapt" something.)
> If you proclaim yourself "right" more than once without offering
> any reasoning, then you ARE close to saying "I'm right because I
> know what I'm talking about....." --- you know you're right
> (otherwise you would have nothing to say) and you offer nothing
> of substance to back it up.
Wouldn't this be twice that you stated this opinion of yours as
fact sans evidence? Hmm...I would have probably emphasized "close"
rather than "ARE". Unless I was you, peddling a proposition while
subconsciously aware of its idiocy.
> Thank you for this information. I never said they were anything
> alike, I asked where the differences were.
Fortunately, I never said you uttered such a thing.
> As for "no functionality to add" that could make them alike,
Uh, no, it wouldn't. You see, you have two vehicles: a car and an
airplane. There's very little crossover between functionality, of
course no-one would say they're alike. Beyond the fact that they're
both vehicles, that is.
> I've been writing C for 14 years and in that time I've become very
> good at it.
How does one with your amount of skill mask it behind such a
convincingly humble visage?
> I've got a good imagination on how code can be adapted to do things
> and am competent enough to be published,
Do you even read books? Have you seen some of the sh!t that gets
published? Please note that not even the plebians, such as myself,
among you, the Gods and Gurus, are so inexperienced as to read,
"competent enough to be published," as, "competent."
> having written a book on an operating system (OS-9) that is
> centered around programming.
Television programming, perhaps. You've written a book about an
operating system used in the CD-i, Tandys, and other commercial
flops. How terribly impressive.
> Now, before you get condescending, consider thinking about things
> before sending mail out to a public forum.
And what plane of consciousness would I be in that would allow me to
think, "Hey, he's been a programmer for 14 years, and has written a
book about a little known OS that has wormed its way covertly into
commercial applications thanks to co-developer Motorola's heavy-
handed tactics," without knowing such information in advance? Are
all C programmers of such longevity telepathic? I don't think I have
telepathy, but, then, I wasn't programming in C 14 years ago...I was,
like the rest of pseudo-humanity, programming in languages that were
actually used. Like assembly and--shamefully enough--BASIC.
> If you lack the maturity to see that, I'm sorry, but you
> misunderstood my intentions.
I'm sorry, I missed where it became mature to implicitly call someone
immature when all they have done is say, "I disagree with you," and,
"Stop with the condescending hyperbole." But then, what does the
reality of the situation matter?
> I'm pretty certain that of the 500 or so readers of this list,
> most were ill-informed on the subject.
And if they wanted information on a subject unrelated to CircleMUD,
they would go read the appropriate FAQ, rather than persisting in a
display of their own ignorance and egotism by backing up the claim
that people should post whatever you don't know about with a bunch
of unrelated conditionals replete with pointless Algebraic notation
and replying to my statement that didn't know what LPC was (a fact)
with, "I've been writing C for 14 years...I wrote a book on OS-9."
And if we were talking about either of those things -- a big "if"
considering the fact that I couldn't give a sh!t about OS-9, DAVID,
or even OS-9000 (let alone your personal programming experience) --
I just might drop my apathetic attitude. I wouldn't, however,
suggest holding your breath.
BTW, if we are going to assume that the majority of people on this
list are even paying attention (doubtful), I would highly doubt that
they are all as uninformed -- not ill/mis-informed -- as you. These
people don't suffer from the belief that everyone else is responsible
for telling zher what zhe wants to know...
---
ObCircle: (as lame as it is)
On the subject of scripting languages, if Circle was going to
incorperate one in the future, might I suggest we write our own
rather than use DG Scripts? Since it is just NiM's scripting
language (derived from MOB Programs) "Circlified"...
I'm sure most platforms have some form of lex/yacc (e.g., flex
and bison).
-dak
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST