Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #32017 > unrolled thread

Re: What I learned today

Started by	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
First post	2016-12-29 04:32 +0100
Last post	2017-01-01 12:36 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 80 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

  Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-29 04:32 +0100
    Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2016-12-29 21:20 +0100
      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-29 21:45 +0100
        Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2017-01-04 03:52 +0100
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:48 +0100
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:45 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:10 +0100
      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 19:12 +1100
        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:30 -0800
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-31 00:39 +0100
            Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 07:35 -0800
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-02 09:34 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 23:41 +0100
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:58 +1100
                  Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:44 +0100
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:15 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:59 +0100
                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 10:29 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 19:50 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 19:32 +0000
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 21:52 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-03 21:07 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 23:42 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-03 22:45 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 00:06 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 17:00 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:41 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:51 -0800
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:13 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-04 18:17 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 00:30 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 01:13 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 13:20 +1100
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 17:57 +0000
                                          Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-05 23:29 +0100
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 23:14 +0000
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 12:01 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 15:22 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-05 09:06 -0800
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 18:10 +0000
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:38 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:37 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-05 23:21 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 00:29 +0100
                                    Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 11:59 +1100
                                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 09:04 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 11:19 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 13:09 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 12:50 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 14:16 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:05 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 16:32 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 16:15 +0000
                                          Re: What I learned today Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 17:47 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-06 18:07 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:38 +0000
                                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-09 10:33 -0800
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-09 19:57 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:53 -0800
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:36 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:53 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:17 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-05 00:57 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 09:49 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-04 16:49 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 18:01 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:19 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:22 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:48 -0800
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 00:17 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 10:33 +0000
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:34 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:15 +1100
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:12 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:07 +0100
                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:58 -0800
        Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-01 10:53 +0000
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-01 12:36 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#32069

From	John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid>
Date	2017-01-03 19:32 +0000
Message-ID	<61vn6c9nh0dsl9k89ab5s17vbvqa5a8l5k@4ax.com>
In reply to	#32068

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

  <snip>
>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and that 
>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>fallacies.

Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
  Person X is bad
then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
there has to be a deduction, e.g 
  Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.

>"Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which 
>an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other 
>attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the 
>argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

If ad hominem really is short for argumentum ad hominem then ad
hominem cannot be used for something that isn't an argumentum (i.e
isn't a deduction).

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32070

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-03 21:52 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F2DE911245Deejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32069

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and 
> that 
>>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>>fallacies.
> 
> Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
>   Person X is bad
> then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
> there has to be a deduction, e.g 
>   Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.

No, I will not.

Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.

THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.

THAT is the conversion of attacking someone's argument to attacking 
someone's person, 

and THAT is what is falacious.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32071

From	Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
Date	2017-01-03 21:07 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6o4ob.2dc.jon+usenet@sable.unequivocal.eu>
In reply to	#32070

On 2017-01-03, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
> knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
>
> THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
>
> THAT is the conversion of attacking someone's argument to attacking 
> someone's person, 
>
> and THAT is what is falacious.

No. The problem is that Thomas is "attacking the person" of other
posters constantly. He is relentless at it, and it very severely
undermines whatever value his posts might otherwise have - to the
point that, in the view of myself and clearly others, they have
negative value and the group is much improved by removing them
using a kill-file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32072

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-03 23:42 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F2F13517972eejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32071

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2017-01-03, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>> knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
>>
>> THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
>>
>> THAT is the conversion of attacking someone's argument to attacking 
>> someone's person, 
>>
>> and THAT is what is falacious.
> 
> No. The problem is that Thomas is "attacking the person" of other
> posters constantly. He is relentless at it, and it very severely
> undermines whatever value his posts might otherwise have - to the
> point that, in the view of myself and clearly others, they have
> negative value and the group is much improved by removing them
> using a kill-file.

Your plonking him is not the problem. [Even while your prompting will not 
"improve the group" as such, only your view of it.] 

I see the constant degrading of his postings by some of you as far more 
irritating and undermining. Why not just plonk him and get over it?

Pronouncing his utterances as less valuable or of no value at all BECAUSE of 
his style, THAT is what is untrue and at hominem.

That it "very severely undermines whatever value his posts might otherwise 
have" is is subjective and no excuse for the falaciously calling his 
postings as without value.

I still think this NG to be a discussion-group, and as such there should be 
a strict division between the evaluation of arguments and of surmized 
conduct, especially to keep away from these lurking falacy-traps.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32073

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2017-01-03 22:45 +0000
Message-ID	<030120172245032818%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#32072

In article <XnsA6F2F13517972eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>I still think this NG to be a discussion-group, and as such there should be 
>a strict division between the evaluation of arguments and of surmized 
>conduct, especially to keep away from these lurking falacy-traps.

Then it would be nice to have discussion of the issues, and not posts
from Pointy-Head dwelling on supposed infractions of some Usenet "code"
that he has invented.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32074

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-04 00:06 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F3124BA9C3eejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32073

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> In article <XnsA6F2F13517972eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>I still think this NG to be a discussion-group, and as such there should
>>be a strict division between the evaluation of arguments and of surmized
>>conduct, especially to keep away from these lurking falacy-traps.
> 
> Then it would be nice to have discussion of the issues, and not posts
> from Pointy-Head dwelling on supposed infractions of some Usenet "code"
> that he has invented.

Methinks this is nonsense.

On Usenet one does not need to post what another thinks is nice, and then be 
prepared to be plonked or even flamed for "infractions" of the Netiquette.

However these at hominem wolf-pack attacks, nice and safe in the semi-
anonimity of the momentary majority, those are degrading this group.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause 
and reflect." [Mark Twain]






-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32077

From	Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
Date	2017-01-03 17:00 -0800
Message-ID	<rvho6c5rph8onno9o4t7ivmsf52ec9lq0i@4ax.com>
In reply to	#32072

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:42:41 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On 2017-01-03, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>>> Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>>> knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
>>>
>>> THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
>>>
>>> THAT is the conversion of attacking someone's argument to attacking 
>>> someone's person, 
>>>
>>> and THAT is what is falacious.
>> 
>> No. The problem is that Thomas is "attacking the person" of other
>> posters constantly. He is relentless at it, and it very severely
>> undermines whatever value his posts might otherwise have - to the
>> point that, in the view of myself and clearly others, they have
>> negative value and the group is much improved by removing them
>> using a kill-file.
>
>Your plonking him is not the problem. [Even while your prompting will not 
>"improve the group" as such, only your view of it.] 
>
>I see the constant degrading of his postings by some of you as far more 
>irritating and undermining. Why not just plonk him and get over it?
>
>Pronouncing his utterances as less valuable or of no value at all BECAUSE of 
>his style, THAT is what is untrue and at hominem.

     Nope.  His style is part of his argument.  It is more difficult
to follow what he writes as a consequence of how he does it.

     Or would you seriously argue that how one presents material has
nothing to do with how valuable the utterance is?

>That it "very severely undermines whatever value his posts might otherwise 
>have" is is subjective and no excuse for the falaciously calling his 
>postings as without value.
>
>I still think this NG to be a discussion-group, and as such there should be 
>a strict division between the evaluation of arguments and of surmized 
>conduct, especially to keep away from these lurking falacy-traps.

     Then why do you keep imputing motives to me?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32083

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-04 10:41 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F36CC7B8A1Ceejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32077

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

>>Pronouncing his utterances as less valuable or of no value at all
>>BECAUSE of his style, THAT is what is untrue and at hominem.
> 
>      Nope.  His style is part of his argument.  It is more difficult
> to follow what he writes as a consequence of how he does it.
> 
>      Or would you seriously argue that how one presents material has
> nothing to do with how valuable the utterance is?

Nonsense. 
Arguments should be valued on their content, you just have to try harder.

So if his language skills for your monoglots would be lacking,
or if he were writing as a dislectic, you would disvalue it the same way?

If you ddon't like his style, please plonk him, but don't degrade yourself 
in this fallacious meanness. I value you more than that.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32091

From	Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
Date	2017-01-04 09:51 -0800
Message-ID	<48dq6ctt3kf3p49slepna386aq8dgl81n3@4ax.com>
In reply to	#32083

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:41:36 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 
>
>>>Pronouncing his utterances as less valuable or of no value at all
>>>BECAUSE of his style, THAT is what is untrue and at hominem.
>> 
>>      Nope.  His style is part of his argument.  It is more difficult
>> to follow what he writes as a consequence of how he does it.
>> 
>>      Or would you seriously argue that how one presents material has
>> nothing to do with how valuable the utterance is?
>
>Nonsense. 
>Arguments should be valued on their content, you just have to try harder.

     Given the choice between two sources of material, both
technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.

     I would not consider that I have to slog through the other.  I
have better things to do with my time.

     Further, someone who writes unclearly and persists in it, despite
it being brought to his attention, has indicated that he is willing to
waste my time.  I take that into consideration for the future.

>So if his language skills for your monoglots would be lacking,
>or if he were writing as a dislectic, you would disvalue it the same way?

     Yes.  As it has less value to me.  If I have to fight to
understand something, it is of less value to me than something clearly
presented.

>If you ddon't like his style, please plonk him, but don't degrade yourself 
>in this fallacious meanness. I value you more than that.

     Oh, I am not degrading myself at all.  I am pointing out that I
have standards.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32095

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-04 19:13 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F3C38A587FEeejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32091

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Nonsense. 
>>Arguments should be valued on their content, you just have to try harder.
> 
>      Given the choice between two sources of material, both
> technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
> other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.

Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of evidence 
and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of display.

An argument is not [just] a source of material, as sources of material are 
not part of a discussion.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32097

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2017-01-04 18:17 +0000
Message-ID	<040120171817245889%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#32095

In article <XnsA6F3C38A587FEeejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>Nonsense. 
>>>Arguments should be valued on their content, you just have to try harder.
>> 
>>      Given the choice between two sources of material, both
>> technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
>> other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.
>
>Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of evidence 
>and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of display.

Rubbish. Bad presentation of an argument hinders comprehension. This is
known as "bad teaching".

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32098

From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date	2017-01-05 00:30 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6F453F0625Ceejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to	#32097

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

>>Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of
>>evidence and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of display.
> 
> Rubbish. Bad presentation of an argument hinders comprehension. This is
> known as "bad teaching".

Discussion is not teaching.

Arguments should be valued on their content.


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32100

From	Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com>
Date	2017-01-05 01:13 +0000
Message-ID	<o4k6j7$ls5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#32095

Evertjan. wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>      Given the choice between two sources of material, both
>> technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
>> other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.
> 
> An argument is not [just] a source of material, as sources of material
> are not part of a discussion.

Again, I have no idea if I need to make allowances for someone who is not 
a native speaker, but the point Mr. Wirchenko is making is simple: he has 
to decide, given his limited time, which of the myriad resources 
available to him he finds worthwhile.  If he does not find Thomas Lahn's 
posts to be worth his time, I see no reason at all for you to complain.

> [... earlier ...]
> Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of
> evidence and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of display.

I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:

01010011
01000111
01000110
01110000
01100100
00110010
01010110
00110110
01011010
01010111
01110100
01101000
01100010
01101101
01101011
01100111
01011010
01101101
00111001
01110100
01100100
01010011
01000010
00110000
01100010
00110010
01011010
01101000
01100100
01011000
01010010
01110000
01001001
01000111
00110101
01101000
01001001
01000111
00110001
01101000
01100100
01010111
01010010
01101111
01100100
01010111
01101011
00111101

HTH,

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32101

From	Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-01-05 13:20 +1100
Message-ID	<W_adnRxFYLD_MPDFnZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@westnet.com.au>
In reply to	#32100

On 5/01/2017 12:13 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote:

> I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>
> 01010011
> 01000111
> 01000110
> 01110000
> 01100100
> 00110010
> 01010110
> 00110110
> 01011010
> 01010111
> 01110100
> 01101000
> 01100010
> 01101101
> 01101011
> 01100111
> 01011010
> 01101101
> 00111001
> 01110100
> 01100100
> 01010011
> 01000010
> 00110000
> 01100010
> 00110010
> 01011010
> 01101000
> 01100100
> 01011000
> 01010010
> 01110000
> 01001001
> 01000111
> 00110101
> 01101000
> 01001001
> 01000111
> 00110001
> 01101000
> 01100100
> 01010111
> 01010010
> 01101111
> 01100100
> 01010111
> 01101011
> 00111101
>
> HTH,

On the contrary. It should be:

01010011
01000111
01000110
01110000
01100100
00110010
01010110
00110110
01011010
01010111
01110100
01101000
01100010
01101101
01101011
01100111
01011010
01101101
00111001
01110100
01100100
01010011
01000010
00110000
01100010
00110010
01011010
01101000
01100100
01011000
01010010
01110000
01001001
01000111
00110101
01101000
01001001
01000111
00110001
01101000
01100100
01010011
01010010
01101111
01100100
01010111
01101011
00111101

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32107

From	Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com>
Date	2017-01-05 17:57 +0000
Message-ID	<o4m1f5$omd$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#32101

Andrew Poulos wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>> I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>>
>> 01010011 01000111 01000110 01110000 01100100 00110010 01010110 00110110
>> 01011010 01010111 01110100 01101000 01100010 01101101 01101011 01100111
>> 01011010 01101101 00111001 01110100 01100100 01010011 01000010 00110000
>> 01100010 00110010 01011010 01101000 01100100 01011000 01010010 01110000
>> 01001001 01000111 00110101 01101000 01001001 01000111 00110001 01101000
>> 01100100 01010111 01010010 01101111 01100100 01010111 01101011 00111101
> 
> On the contrary. It should be:
> 
> 01010011 01000111 01000110 01110000 01100100 00110010 01010110 00110110
> 01011010 01010111 01110100 01101000 01100010 01101101 01101011 01100111
> 01011010 01101101 00111001 01110100 01100100 01010011 01000010 00110000
> 01100010 00110010 01011010 01101000 01100100 01011000 01010010 01110000
> 01001001 01000111 00110101 01101000 01001001 01000111 00110001 01101000
> 01100100 01010011 01010010 01101111 01100100 01010111 01101011 00111101

Oh no, the

01111001
01100001
01101100
01101001
01111001
01101111
01101101
01101111

is essential.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32114 — Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2017-01-05 23:29 +0100
Subject	Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)
Message-ID	<1890337.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#32101

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> On 5/01/2017 12:13 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>>
>> [Swahili for “It is impossible to separate form and content”]
>>
>> HTH,
> 
> On the contrary. It should be:
> 
> [“… mau$hui”]

Serendipitously, your little OT exchange had a tangible benefit:

It led me to find out that, starting with ECMAScript 2016, there is, 
*finally*, a more convenient, Python-like way to write multi-line string 
literals than to suffix each line with “\n\”: template literals.

<http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-template-literal-lexical-components>

Note that the characters produced by the /LineTerminatorSequence/ production 
are allowed to occur *unescaped* in such a literal.

Therefore, the ECMAScript 2016 program (which can be executed conveniently 
in, e.g., the Chrome DevTools console already)

  var argScott = `01010011
01000111
01000110
01110000
01100100
00110010
01010110
00110110
01011010
01010111
01110100
01101000
01100010
01101101
01101011
01100111
01011010
01101101
00111001
01110100
01100100
01010011
01000010
00110000
01100010
00110010
01011010
01101000
01100100
01011000
01010010
01110000
01001001
01000111
00110101
01101000
01001001
01000111
00110001
01101000
01100100
01010111
01010010
01101111
01100100
01010111
01101011
00111101`;

  var argAndrew = `01010011
01000111
01000110
01110000
01100100
00110010
01010110
00110110
01011010
01010111
01110100
01101000
01100010
01101101
01101011
01100111
01011010
01101101
00111001
01110100
01100100
01010011
01000010
00110000
01100010
00110010
01011010
01101000
01100100
01011000
01010010
01110000
01001001
01000111
00110101
01101000
01001001
01000111
00110001
01101000
01100100
01010011
01010010
01101111
01100100
01010111
01101011
00111101`;

  console.log(window.atob(argScott.split("\n").map(
    (i) => String.fromCharCode(parseInt(i, 2))
  ).join("")));

  console.log(window.atob(argAndrew.split("\n").map(
    (i) => String.fromCharCode(parseInt(i, 2))
  ).join("")));

is syntactically valid and functionally equivalent to the Python program
I would have written instead:

#!/usr/bin/env python3

from base64 import b64decode

argScott = """01010011
01000111
…"""

argAndrew = """01010011
01000111
…"""

print(b64decode("".join(
  [chr(int(i, 2)) for i in argScott.split("\n")]
)))

print(b64decode("".join(
  [chr(int(i, 2)) for i in argAndrew.split("\n")]
)))

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, that aside, Andrew, I do not follow your “argument”.  Is there a 
“$” character in Swahili?  Because that appears to be the only difference 
between your “argument” and Scott’s.

BTW: You are welcome, and Happy New Year.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32115 — Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)

From	Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com>
Date	2017-01-05 23:14 +0000
Subject	Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)
Message-ID	<o4mk0d$38r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#32114

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>>> I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>>>
>>> [Swahili for “It is impossible to separate form and content”]
>> 
>> On the contrary. It should be:
>> 
>> [“… mau$hui”]
> 
> Serendipitously, your little OT exchange had a tangible benefit:
> 
> It led me to find out that, starting with ECMAScript 2016, there is,
> *finally*, a more convenient, Python-like way to write multi-line string
> literals than to suffix each line with “\n\”: template literals.
> 
> <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-template-literal-
lexical-components>
> 
> Note that the characters produced by the /LineTerminatorSequence/
> production are allowed to occur *unescaped* in such a literal.

In fact I used such strings to interpret Mr. Poulous's message (although 
my original encrypting was much less elegant.)

I am surprised that this is news to you, as you usually seem to have your 
fingers firmly on the pulse the ES languages and their specification.

This was actually specified earlier, in ES2015:

  <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-template-literals>

Support for them, according to kangax's research is widespread but not 
universal among modern engines:

  <https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/#test-template_literals>

This is not one of the features at the top of my list from ES2015 -- 
arrow functions, destructuring, rest/spread, `let`/`const`, and 
eventually modules all seem more useful to me -- but it is certainly 
worth having.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32120 — Re: Multi-line string literals

From	Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-01-06 12:01 +1100
Subject	Re: Multi-line string literals
Message-ID	<ns-dndifr4PhcfPFnZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au>
In reply to	#32114

On 6/01/2017 9:29 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:

> However, that aside, Andrew, I do not follow your “argument”.  Is there a
> “$” character in Swahili?  Because that appears to be the only difference
> between your “argument” and Scott’s.

I thought it a odd way for Scott to try to make a point so, for those 
that couldn't be bothered decoding the original (like me) I made a 
whimsical response.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32103

From	Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-01-05 15:22 +1100
Message-ID	<VYWdnSeVCv5lVPDFnZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@westnet.com.au>
In reply to	#32100

On 5/01/2017 1:24 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> writes:
>> I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>
>   Vg vf vzcbffvoyr gb frcnengr sbez naq pbagrag

Did you instead mean
   Vg vf vzcbffviyr gb frcnengr sbez neq pbagrag
?

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32106

From	Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
Date	2017-01-05 09:06 -0800
Message-ID	<utus6c5fapmnnhn6j5ht3nb5jo6qsl90bt@4ax.com>
In reply to	#32100

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 01:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Scott Sauyet
<scott@sauyet.com> wrote:

>Evertjan. wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>>      Given the choice between two sources of material, both
>>> technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
>>> other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.
>> 
>> An argument is not [just] a source of material, as sources of material
>> are not part of a discussion.
>
>Again, I have no idea if I need to make allowances for someone who is not 
>a native speaker, but the point Mr. Wirchenko is making is simple: he has 
>to decide, given his limited time, which of the myriad resources 
>available to him he finds worthwhile.  If he does not find Thomas Lahn's 
>posts to be worth his time, I see no reason at all for you to complain.

     No, I am a native speaker of English.  Nonetheless, there are
ways to present information so that it is clear, and there are ways to
obfuscate it horribly (whether intentionally or not).

>> [... earlier ...]
>> Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of
>> evidence and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of display.

     This totally misses that if the argument is sufficiently badly
presented, it might never get seen.

>I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>
>01010011
>01000111
>01000110
>01110000
>01100100
>00110010
>01010110
>00110110
>01011010
>01010111
>01110100
>01101000
>01100010
>01101101
>01101011
>01100111
>01011010
>01101101
>00111001
>01110100
>01100100
>01010011
>01000010
>00110000
>01100010
>00110010
>01011010
>01101000
>01100100
>01011000
>01010010
>01110000
>01001001
>01000111
>00110101
>01101000
>01001001
>01000111
>00110001
>01101000
>01100100
>01010111
>01010010
>01101111
>01100100
>01010111
>01101011
>00111101

     This is unintelligible.  It requires another step in order to be
able to follow it.  That time could be used otherwise.

     I decided to play along with the joke, but the above is not
binary representation of ASCII.  I do not think that it is binary
representation of EBCDIC.  At this point, I would skip.

     Decoded, it might have some very useful information, but I have
no way of knowing, and I have other uses for my time.

     Evertjan, how much time will *you* spend on it?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Re: What I learned today

Contents

#32069

#32070

#32071

#32072

#32073

#32074

#32077

#32083

#32091

#32095

#32097

#32098

#32100

#32101

#32107

#32114 — Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)

#32115 — Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today)

#32120 — Re: Multi-line string literals

#32103

#32106