Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniele Futtorovic Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: About java program. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:57:53 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <324f929f-772e-4004-81e1-6b454cdae794@googlegroups.com> <19wnriq53qxel.u9rt8wy6z52g.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b5bf9bd97bf5fe37cc54cc2429c49296"; logging-data="8605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ywfjycIBhfe31nZTKsjmd" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZvAIcXqD1anKWONi3E+MZULmEmk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24522 On 23/06/2013 10:21, lipska the kat allegedly wrote: > On 23/06/13 02:53, Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >> On 22/06/2013 20:41, lipska the kat allegedly wrote: >>> On 22/06/13 18:25, Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >>>> The aforementioned is mitigated in code that is internal to a >>>> component (in the spirit of encapsulation, code ought to be divided >>>> into components such that the density of interrelation of code >>>> within a component is always strictly greater than that of >>>> interrelation of code in different components). >>> >>> You mean it should be cohesive (the code in a component), still, why >>> use one word when fifty will do. >>> >>> as you say. >>> >>> "verbosity is but a pathetic front to mask either their lack of >>> professionalism" [sic] >> >> No, I did not simply say it should be cohesive. If you want to >> substitute "cohesiveness" for "density of interrelation" (which is fair >> enough), I said it should be more cohesive within the component than >> between components, and that this is what characterises something as >> being a component. Not the same thing. > >> But still, assuming it were the same thing for a moment (which, again, >> it is not by a wide stretch), do you really think that completely >> twisting my words, under the guise of quoting me, to proceed to >> advocate, for a natural and hence inexact language, a practice which you >> rebuke me for advocating for a computer and hence exact language is >> going to induce me to take you seriously? > > What is this obsession that people on this group seem to have with being > taken seriously? I couldn't care less if you 'take me seriously' I have > nothing to prove to you or anyone else so please don't waste any more > time on 'taking me seriously'. When you come out with complete bollocks > like ... > > "verbosity is but a pathetic front to mask either their lack of > professionalism" [sic] > > Then expect me to react. It's nothing personal fercrissakes. To conclude this discussion (as I am not inclined to debate with someone I can't take seriously), let me point out once more that that quote is the product of your very imagination; for by omitting the quotes around the word "verbosity" and by omitting the context from what I originally wrote, you have entirely distorted the original meaning of what I wrote, to wit, that to someone who argues they should leave out essential functionality out of their code because that essential functionality would make their code too verbose, "verbose" (that is, the argument of verbosity) is but a front to mask their lack of professionalism, and not what verbosity is actually about. You'd have to read that to which I was responding, viz. Arved's posting, to understand why I was making that distinction. -- DF.