Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8351

Re: Style Police (a rant)

Show key headers only | View raw

On 26/09/2011 6:13 PM, Retahiv Oopsiscame wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:36 pm, Cthun<cthun_...@qmail.net.au>  wrote:
>> On 16/09/2011 6:26 AM, Retahiv Oopsiscame wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 10:37 am, Cthun<cthun_...@qmail.net.au>  wrote:
>>>> [calls me a liar]
>>
>>> No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
>>> are at all true.
>>
>> What?? Where did I call you a liar?
>
> Two posts ago.

I did not.

>> Lisps tend to accrue fairly standard libraries of third-party macros
>> everyone learns to recognize.
>
> More complexity to learn. And this stuff is supposed to make the
> programmer's job *easier*?

All programming languages and libraries have "complexity to learn".

>> And of course you usually have access to the macro's source.
>
> "Having access to" and "being able to read and understand" can
> sometimes be worlds apart. In my years of working with other peoples'
> code, I've seen shit that will turn you white. Also check out The
> Daily WTF.

Fortunately, standard library macros don't tend to be terrible like that 
-- at least for open source implementations.

>> The ability to define functions or classes already suffices to allow
>> programmers to turn a language into a Tower of Babel,
>
> Call semantics for functions are well defined -- argument evaluation,
> etc. Those for macros are pretty much arbitrary -- whatever the macro
> author intended. (Or didn't, but caused anyway.)

A specious argument. What a function's results are is just as arbitrary, 
but we accept functions.

>> yet nearly all languages allow user-defined functions and/or classes in
>> some form or another, and ones that allow neither are considered archaic
>> and crippled.
>
> A car without an automatic ignition would also be considered archaic
> and crippled; that doesn't mean a car without a satellite radio would
> be.

What about one without fuel injection?

>>> Something familiar in how you write. You remind me of someone I had a
>>> very long argument with here, long ago. Appropriately, his name was
>>> "Bent".
>>
>> [implied insult deleted]
>
> No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> are at all true.

WTF??

>> Quick quiz:
>
> I finished school a while ago. Go fuck yourself.

Okay. I think maybe we're done here.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 23:42 -0400
  Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:54 -0700
    Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 07:18 -0400
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:07 -0400
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 08:15 -0700
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 12:00 -0400
    Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:10 -0400
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:55 -0700
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 10:37 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_9112011@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 22:58 -0400
            Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 00:23 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 03:26 -0700
            Re: Style Police (a rant) un-Bent <dob@dib.dib.null> - 2011-09-16 13:02 +0000
              Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 22:40 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-17 19:36 -0400
              Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 08:58 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 11:56 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 17:05 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 19:13 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 20:45 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-21 18:37 -0400
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:13 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-26 19:34 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 06:49 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 09:21 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 14:17 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-01 20:53 +0200
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 21:12 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:17 -0700

csiph-web