Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #285840 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-24 13:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-03-24 14:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 13:12 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-24 18:29 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 12:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 16:25 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 13:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 04:27 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 08:01 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 11:08 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 11:22 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 14:49 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 13:14 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:24 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 14:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:50 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 14:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:04 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-28 01:04 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 15:54 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 15:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:45 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 18:53 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:25 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 23:11 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 18:15 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 07:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-26 10:36 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 11:04 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-27 03:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:10 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 09:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 10:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 13:27 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 14:01 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 14:53 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:21 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 21:42 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 11:45 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 12:40 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 15:24 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 17:48 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 18:00 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 23:10 +0100
Silly subject redacted Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Silly subject redacted Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:46 -0400
Re: Silly subject redacted GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:13 -0600
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:44 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:13 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:08 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 15:09 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 12:16 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 13:17 -0700
PDP-11 Unix and c began in 1972. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-03-26 19:00 -0700
Re: PDP-11 Unix and c began in 1972. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:10 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 09:50 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 18:14 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 11:46 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:21 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 21:34 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 13:59 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-27 18:41 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 10:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 11:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:47 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-04 10:16 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:33 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-04 15:56 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-05 12:41 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-05 12:56 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-05 16:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-06 13:15 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-04 08:33 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 20:00 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 19:59 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-05 00:29 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 20:47 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-05 00:59 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:19 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 11:06 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 11:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 13:17 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:41 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 08:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:16 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 13:18 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:54 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 13:23 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:39 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 20:14 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:55 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-24 13:07 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 13:26 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 11:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 16:26 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 13:52 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-24 22:00 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 15:30 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 17:09 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 15:43 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:57 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:42 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 16:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:12 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 22:32 -0500
Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-27 06:10 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:09 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:02 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:06 -0600
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 07:42 -0500
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 09:08 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:26 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:04 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 14:41 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8897458c-2db6-4bfc-80a0-64e3fd3683c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286190 |
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 6:04:40 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > >> Kreep wrote: > >>> > >>> Below is the *partial* post from Snit. His anonymous "very experienced > >>> and respected expert programmer" gave some hilarious reasons why > >>> programming languages shouldn't be case sensitive. > > The "Snit" thing will continue to insist that he's right, though, in > the face of experienced profressionals telling him he's wrong. Not to > mention that these languages were designed by experts, in the first > place. What's with you and the "thing" bit anyway? It's pretty obvious he's just looking for attention... of any kind. It's his insane jealously that I don't get, people that know more about something than he does drives him absolutely crazy. That's really what this continued crap with cc is all about, just as it was with Sandman in CSMA and probably is with DFS on some level over database knowledge. When I asked DFS a DB question recently, Snit did the digital equivalent of grabbing the microphone out of his hand ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hy74.fpa33@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #286223 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 6:04:40 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: >> >> Kreep wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Below is the *partial* post from Snit. His anonymous "very experienced >> >>> and respected expert programmer" gave some hilarious reasons why >> >>> programming languages shouldn't be case sensitive. >> >> The "Snit" thing will continue to insist that he's right, though, in >> the face of experienced profressionals telling him he's wrong. Not to >> mention that these languages were designed by experts, in the first >> place. > > What's with you and the "thing" bit anyway? It's pretty obvious he's just looking for attention... of any kind. It's his insane jealously that I don't get, people that know more about something than he does drives him absolutely crazy. That's really what this continued crap with cc is all about, just as it was with Sandman in CSMA and probably is with DFS on some level over database knowledge. When I asked DFS a DB question recently, Snit did the digital equivalent of grabbing the microphone out of his hand ;) LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1397913.491DF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286190 |
On 3/26/15, 5:04 AM, in article b2t7hadg97o1h2t6q0dd1jp84nlinqkd3k@4ax.com, "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Kreep wrote: >>>> >>>> Below is the *partial* post from Snit. His anonymous "very experienced >>>> and respected expert programmer" gave some hilarious reasons why >>>> programming languages shouldn't be case sensitive. > > The "Snit" thing will continue to insist that he's right, though, in > the face of experienced profressionals telling him he's wrong. Not to > mention that these languages were designed by experts, in the first > place. > > "Snit" knows best! It's just absurd that programmers have the choice > of using a case-sensitive language! > > Hey, Kreep, why did it take you so many years to figure-out how > ridiculous and relentlessly dishonest the thing is? > > You must be very stupid. In support of case insensitivity: * every college we can find * every university we can find * every source found through Google Scholar * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement * a whole list of specific affects to back the view In support of case sensitivity: * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. Remember, I had and have no dog in this race... just noted the support offered by the "experts" in COLA was weak. And when talking to an actual expert he did not agree... but that is not proof. I am sure other REAL experts would. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 15:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <D9udnZiKKPEvs47InZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #285965 |
Snit wrote: > On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" > <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > >>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to >>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I >>>> am not a programmer. >>> >>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it >>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. >> >> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his >> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why >> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were >> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. > > Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some > things he said. It was *hilarious*. > > Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity > (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. > cc's attempts truly were funny. > > It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a24cb52-a399-4ba2-8ed2-855c79c3c603@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286009 |
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-6, GreyCloud wrote: > Snit wrote: > > > On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" > > <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to > >>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I > >>>> am not a programmer. > >>> > >>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it > >>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. > >> > >> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his > >> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why > >> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were > >> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. > > > > Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some > > things he said. It was *hilarious*. > > > > Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity > > (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. > > cc's attempts truly were funny. > > > > > It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to > case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was > punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used > upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were > also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then > were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the > late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate > upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case > characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped > identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as > well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the > same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of > learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New > Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower > case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers > didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings > and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix > if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all upper case is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his "expert" are overlooking one simple fact (among other things), computers languages exist for humans, not compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 19:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vZudnTSy-MlQ-Y7InZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286013 |
On 03/25/15 16:02, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-6, GreyCloud wrote: >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" >>> <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to >>>>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I >>>>>> am not a programmer. >>>>> >>>>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it >>>>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. >>>> >>>> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his >>>> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why >>>> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were >>>> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. >>> >>> Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some >>> things he said. It was *hilarious*. >>> >>> Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity >>> (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. >>> cc's attempts truly were funny. >>> >>> >> It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to >> case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was >> punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used >> upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were >> also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then >> were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the >> late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate >> upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case >> characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped >> identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as >> well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the >> same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of >> learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New >> Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower >> case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers >> didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings >> and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix >> if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. > > And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all upper case is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his "expert" are overlooking one simple fact (among other things), computers languages exist for humans, not compilers. Of course. Compilers don't care. If a variable name, as he keeps alluding to, is misspelled, the compiler will catch it if it isn't defined and let you know about it and where. Not hard at all, as I've been thru that stuff for a long time. But I've forgotten how much a Teletype cost back then, but it sure wasn't cheap to get one fixed either and required a lot of oiling during service. The mechanical devices used in the early day IT centers were always breaking down. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D138B4A8.49128%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286083 |
On 3/25/15, 6:45 PM, in article vZudnTSy-MlQ-Y7InZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>> It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to >>> case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was >>> punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used >>> upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were >>> also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then >>> were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the >>> late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate >>> upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case >>> characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped >>> identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as >>> well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the >>> same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of >>> learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New >>> Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower >>> case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers >>> didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings >>> and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix >>> if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. >> >> And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all upper case >> is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his "expert" are >> overlooking one simple fact (among other things), computers languages exist >> for humans, not compilers. > > Of course. Carroll is confusing case sensitivity with case preserving. I do not think anyone is saying that we should use languages which accept only upper case letters! > Compilers don't care. If a variable name, as he keeps > alluding to, is misspelled, the compiler will catch it if it isn't > defined and let you know about it and where. Not hard at all, as I've > been thru that stuff for a long time. > > But I've forgotten how much a Teletype cost back then, but it sure > wasn't cheap to get one fixed either and required a lot of oiling during > service. The mechanical devices used in the early day IT centers were > always breaking down. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <111fc4c3-6a69-4336-807b-a05534ad2185@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286086 |
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:53:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 3/25/15, 6:45 PM, in article > vZudnTSy-MlQ-Y7InZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > > >>> It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to > >>> case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was > >>> punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used > >>> upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were > >>> also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then > >>> were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the > >>> late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate > >>> upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case > >>> characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped > >>> identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as > >>> well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the > >>> same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of > >>> learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New > >>> Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower > >>> case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers > >>> didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings > >>> and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix > >>> if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. > >> > >> And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all upper case > >> is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his "expert" are > >> overlooking one simple fact (among other things), computers languages exist > >> for humans, not compilers. > > > > Of course. > > Carroll is confusing case sensitivity with case preserving. You're high as a kite today, aren't you ;) > I do not think anyone is saying that we should use languages > which accept only upper case letters! Unlike you, I actually addressed the context of what I responded to: "computing history" and, wait for it... "only used upper case".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 23:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <x8adnVm2e7rJBY7InZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286131 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:53:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 3/25/15, 6:45 PM, in article >> vZudnTSy-MlQ-Y7InZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" >> <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >> >>> It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that >> >>> led to >> >>> case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was >> >>> punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only >> >>> used >> >>> upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and >> >>> these were >> >>> also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back >> >>> then >> >>> were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in >> >>> the late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could >> >>> accomodate >> >>> upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in >> >>> lower-case characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants >> >>> that helped >> >>> identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal >> >>> as >> >>> well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around >> >>> the same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the >> >>> purpose of learning the Fortran language and was developed at >> >>> Dartmouth College, New >> >>> Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or >> >>> lower case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the >> >>> compilers >> >>> didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost >> >>> savings and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very >> >>> expensive to fix >> >>> if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. >> >> >> >> And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all >> >> upper case is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his >> >> "expert" are overlooking one simple fact (among other things), >> >> computers languages exist for humans, not compilers. >> > >> > Of course. >> >> Carroll is confusing case sensitivity with case preserving. > > You're high as a kite today, aren't you ;) > >> I do not think anyone is saying that we should use languages >> which accept only upper case letters! > > Unlike you, I actually addressed the context of what I responded to: > > "computing history" and, wait for it... "only used upper case". And back in those days, there was only one font and one size. It took a while for IBMs printwheel printer technology to offer a way to change out the print wheel to another font type. So back then on teletype paper, upper case was a lot easier to read... character size wasn't that big.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 23:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D138F11B.4918A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286166 |
On 3/25/15, 10:25 PM, in article
x8adnVm2e7rJBY7InZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com>
wrote:
...
> And back in those days, there was only one font and one size. It took a
> while for IBMs printwheel printer technology to offer a way to change out
> the print wheel to another font type.
>
> So back then on teletype paper, upper case was a lot easier to read...
> character size wasn't that big.
Steve Carroll:
-----
Snit, and his "expert" are overlooking one simple fact (among other
things), computers languages exist for humans, not compilers.
-----
DFS and cc are so desperate to catch me in a lie yet they somehow missed
this absolutely absurd claim from Carroll. How does that happen if they are
not just trolling me? LOL!
No, I did not "miss" this fact - it is the fact I have been noting. The list
I keep referencing:
In support of NOT having such names be allowed:
* every college we can find
* every university we can find
* every source found through Google Scholar
* and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement
* a whole list of specific affects to back the view
In support of having such names be allowed:
* a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C!
* popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
* code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used
Multiple items in that first list speak of why having case sensitivity is
NOT better for humans.
Carroll out and out lied. Oh, or maybe he just made a mistake - I am sure he
will admit to that, right?
LOL!
Nope. And cc and DFS will just let his lie go. Carroll is good at
manipulating people and they have fallen into his BS. They are his clapping
monkeys.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <323c435c-2e6b-4372-86d8-089f5c298c23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286083 |
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:45:53 PM UTC-6, GreyCloud wrote: > On 03/25/15 16:02, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-6, GreyCloud wrote: > >> Snit wrote: > >> > >>> On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" > >>> <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to > >>>>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I > >>>>>> am not a programmer. > >>>>> > >>>>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it > >>>>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. > >>>> > >>>> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his > >>>> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why > >>>> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were > >>>> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. > >>> > >>> Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some > >>> things he said. It was *hilarious*. > >>> > >>> Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity > >>> (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. > >>> cc's attempts truly were funny. > >>> > >>> > >> It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to > >> case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was > >> punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used > >> upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were > >> also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then > >> were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the > >> late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate > >> upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case > >> characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped > >> identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as > >> well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the > >> same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of > >> learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New > >> Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower > >> case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers > >> didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings > >> and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix > >> if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. > > > > And once the cost came down the ease of reading in mixed case (all upper case is nasty!) was the natural progression. Snit, and his "expert" are overlooking one simple fact (among other things), computers languages exist for humans, not compilers. > > Of course. Compilers don't care. If a variable name, as he keeps > alluding to, is misspelled, the compiler will catch it if it isn't > defined and let you know about it and where. Not hard at all, as I've > been thru that stuff for a long time. NO, you must be wrong! Snit said so! LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D138ABC5.4911B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286009 |
On 3/25/15, 2:54 PM, in article D9udnZiKKPEvs47InZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" >> <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to >>>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I >>>>> am not a programmer. >>>> >>>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it >>>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. >>> >>> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his >>> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why >>> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were >>> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. >> >> Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some >> things he said. It was *hilarious*. >> >> Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity >> (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. >> cc's attempts truly were funny. >> > It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to > case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was > punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used > upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were > also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then > were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the > late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate > upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case > characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped > identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as > well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the > same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of > learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New > Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower > case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers > didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings > and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix > if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. Cannot find it off hand, but there is a quote from Dennis Ritchie where he speaks about how when he was developing C he just took it as a given and gave it no real thought. He also spoke about how his development favored "simplicity over perfection" and it is more simple to NOT add extra code to have case insensitivity. I was not done because he or anyone else was saying it was better. It was based on the technology of the time. Now it has become habit, much like the QWERTY keyboard. Even as keyboards change we keep the same basic QWERTY layout. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14a7f4dd-6a56-4276-8901-d67234f8f240@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286078 |
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:15:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 3/25/15, 2:54 PM, in article > D9udnZiKKPEvs47InZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> > wrote: > > > Snit wrote: > > > >> On 3/25/15, 5:01 AM, in article meu819$7qs$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel" > >> <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> Ah, found it. Yeah, it was when cc and some others were begging me to > >>>>> explain the basics of Objective-C and Swift and the like even though I > >>>>> am not a programmer. > >>>> > >>>> Horseshit. No one asked you to explain anything. We were explaining it > >>>> to you. You're really racking up the lies lately. > >>> > >>> There was some thread a couple/few years back where Snit talked to his > >>> well respected, very senior expert programmer friend about why > >>> programming languages are case sensitive. Some of the answers were > >>> /classic/ - it compiles faster and some other nonsense like that. > >> > >> Yes, I talked to him about that and other things and likely misstated some > >> things he said. It was *hilarious*. > >> > >> Anyway, still waiting for someone to defend the value of case sensitivity > >> (and not just case preserving) in computer languages and file systems. > >> cc's attempts truly were funny. > >> > > It isn't hard at all. First you have to know computing history that led to > > case sensitivity. In the early days of computing, all there were was > > punched cards for fortran. These were very expensive units and only used > > upper case to keep the cost down. There were also Teletypes and these were > > also very expensive and used only upper case. So the languages back then > > were all in upper-case. The only one that wasn't upper-case was C in the > > late 60's to early 70's... and used CRT terminals that could accomodate > > upper and lower case characters. It was easier to just type in lower-case > > characters and reserved upper-case for defined constants that helped > > identify the constants for the program. This carried over to pascal as > > well, since this language came about after C. Basic was also around the > > same time of Fortran, so it too was all upper-case for the purpose of > > learning the Fortran language and was developed at Dartmouth College, New > > Hampshire. On later Fortran releases, one could use either upper or lower > > case characters but it didn't matter for Fortran code as the compilers > > didn't distinguish case. The whole thing was mostly done for cost savings > > and simplification of hardware, and that hardware was very expensive to fix > > if it broke. The fewer moving parts the better in those days. > > Cannot find it off hand, but there is a quote from Dennis Ritchie where he > speaks about how when he was developing C he just took it as a given and > gave it no real thought. He also spoke about how his development favored > "simplicity over perfection" and it is more simple to NOT add extra code to > have case insensitivity. > > I was not done because he or anyone else was saying it was better. It was > based on the technology of the time. Technological limitations that have been removed. > Now it has become habit, much like the QWERTY keyboard. Even as keyboards > change we keep the same basic QWERTY layout. How many of them are widely used that don't have lower case? Written languages that we speak are case sensitive. You wouldn't specifically and properly write the following: It's true, frank prefers a ball park Frank as opposed to a Ball Park frank, lightly grilled and served with a little mustard. or Many people enjoy Reading in reading when the weather is Nice, which shouldn't be confused with the weather in nice. Along with the removal of the technological limitations, case sensitivity started being used because computers languages are written for humans, not compilers. Not that I consider him a God-like authority, but if your Dennis Ritchie quote is the one I've seen, it was something along the lines of ...it didn't occur to him to *not* go with case sensitivity. I submit that if you're regularly having case issues with variables or issues with compilers as based on case, your base knowledge is probably lacking. My take: Good programming has things in common with good music (music performed by musicians); they're both about precision and the ability to be more expressive plays a huge part in it. If I can't fully understand a program I wrote last month, even with the comments, I failed in that expressiveness. In programming, as in music, the goal of attaining a higher level of precision is aided when conventions are established and followed. Conventions are particularly important when there are multiple programmers or musicians involved. Things like case sensitivity tend to foster the use of such conventions, they can act as a reminder to the programmer about the level of precision required to communicate with a machine in the most efficient manner possible (the machine aspect is where it differs from music). Striving for a high level of efficiency is something that's easy to overlook, especially when you're first learning. IMO the importance of a solid foundation can't be overstated when efficiency is the goal. I appreciate the additional space that case sensitivity provides for identifiers. Of course, my experience with a compiled language is limited so my opinion will differ from someone else's. This brings up the real point here, at the end of the day, that's all these are, opinions. If it were cut and dried, like you seem to want it, there would never have been that 2nd case sensitive language. Aren't the schools you mentioned as "evidence" being hypocritical when they teach case sensitive languages (which are among the most widely used languages out there)? Would it make sense to you that they would be hypocritical in this manner if this was any kind of pressing issue? That case sensitive languages continue to be created is evidence of more than it merely being 'the way we've done it in the past', it's evidence that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If this molehill is the mountain you're tying to make it, why are there *any* case sensitive languages still in use? The first one should have provided ample evidence to make a concrete argument against creating a second and the first one would have died out long ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf17hi$mjg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286222 |
On 3/26/2015 10:48 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > I appreciate the additional space that case sensitivity provides for > identifiers. Fact is, it's incredibly ridiculous to allow two variables (or words, or file names, or folder names) to be spelled the same but mean something different or store something different because of the case of one letter. recSet RecSet completely different cursor variables! SLE-12-Desktop-DVD-x86_64-GM-DVD1.iso SLE-12-desktop-DVD-x86_64-GM-DVD1.iso completely different files! trash Trash Completely different folders! Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like Windows and VB does it). (Quiz: how many case-variations of the spelling of 'trash' are allowed when creating folders in Linux? In Windows? No fair referring to wikipedia or any other reference)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7db94ea-0e9b-497b-a479-ff5b0060dca9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286226 |
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:11:36 AM UTC-6, DFS wrote: > On 3/26/2015 10:48 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > I appreciate the additional space that case sensitivity provides for > > identifiers. > > Fact is, it's incredibly ridiculous to allow two variables (or words, or > file names, or folder names) to be spelled the same but mean something > different or store something different because of the case of one letter. I couldn't disagree more... it's not ridiculous at all if you value the highest degree of expressiveness you can obtain, an idea that is central to creating a language. You're free to hold whatever opinion you'd like but, that I've seen, only people who don't value the advantages offered will be the ones complaining the most (for an example in COLA, I haven't seen anyone complain about this as much as Snit has), for the rest it's not an issue. That's true for pretty much everything, really, no reason why it'd be different for case sensitivity in programming that I can see. > recSet > RecSet > completely different cursor variables! I understand but I'm not likely to change my opinion on this. I prefer using a language that's similar to the one I write in my spoken language. Why? Because I'm *already* thinking case sensitive, I grew up with it. Why would I want to toss something so base to my knowledge when I'm trying to learn a new language that is fairly complex, especially when I can see and utilize the advantages of adhering to one of the aspects I grew up with? That doesn't make sense to me. YMMV... you eat pineapple and mayo, fer crissakes... it probably varies a lot ;) > SLE-12-Desktop-DVD-x86_64-GM-DVD1.iso > SLE-12-desktop-DVD-x86_64-GM-DVD1.iso > completely different files! *It makes a little more sense for a filing system, not for a language. > trash > Trash > Completely different folders! > > > Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like Windows and VB > does it). Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? You agree with Snit's suggestion that 'it's the way we've done it'? Do you *really* believe that the only reason? I highly doubt that. > (Quiz: how many case-variations of the spelling of 'trash' are allowed > when creating folders in Linux? In Windows? No fair referring to > wikipedia or any other reference) *See above
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ca2dfd3-3864-4346-b968-f18dc20089b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286245 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > DFS wrote: > > [...] > > Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like > > Windows and VB does it). > > Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? IMO, probably because it less technically challenging to accomplish in comparison to 'case-insensitive while being case-preserving'. Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one is merely the observation that programmers are lazy when they can get away with it. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <513afcf0-2528-405d-b373-1b6e4f84c538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286256 |
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > DFS wrote: > > > [...] > > > Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like > > > Windows and VB does it). > > > > Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? > > IMO, probably because it less technically challenging > to accomplish in comparison to 'case-insensitive while > being case-preserving'. > > Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one > is merely the observation that programmers are lazy when > they can get away with it. I see that as an oversimplification. Language is about expression, while it's fun to toss around the age old idea that a programmer is inherently lazy, the ones who write computer languages and complex programs clearly aren't. It takes a lot of work to get really good with this stuff and, once you are, I suspect the idea of limiting your expression probably holds little appeal if you're sitting down to create a computer language you'd like people to adopt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-27 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d7982c3-d571-437f-9b70-5e25bfce700e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286258 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > DFS wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like > > > > Windows and VB does it). > > > > > > Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? > > > > IMO, probably because it less technically challenging > > to accomplish in comparison to 'case-insensitive while > > being case-preserving'. > > > > Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one > > is merely the observation that programmers are lazy when > > they can get away with it. > > I see that as an oversimplification. Oh, but of course it is. My point is that most things evolve from the simple to the complex and in this regards, projects start out in Alpha form in the category of "written by lab rats, for lab rats": the resources to make something 'pretty' come along later. > Language is about expression, while it's fun to toss around the > age old idea that a programmer is inherently lazy, ... Lazy is also another way of saying 'efficient'. When in the early days of computing and systems didn't even have upper & lower case, there was simply no need to create the additional complexity to bake that in to a UI - - assuming of course that the hardware was even capable of it. When it comes to input massaging, we're still not there yet, as can be seen today with recurring bug patching for even what's supposedly well known and basic such as sanitizing user inputs to prevent corruption from buffer overruns. My point here was that doing a 1:1 mapping of a system's character set into a compiler's variable names is straightforward and easy, but doing something other than a straight 1:1 takes more work, time and thought on specifically what's needed and why. As such, there must be some basis of need to justify incurring that extra expense...especially when the programmers are being driven more by business interests than "because its neat!". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-27 08:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf3hb3$srm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286258 |
On 3/26/2015 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> Steve Carroll wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>>> [...] Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like >>>> Windows and VB does it). >>> >>> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? >> >> IMO, probably because it less technically challenging to accomplish >> in comparison to 'case-insensitive while being case-preserving'. >> >> Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one is merely the >> observation that programmers are lazy when they can get away with >> it. > > I see that as an oversimplification. Language is about expression, > while it's fun to toss around the age old idea that a programmer is > inherently lazy, the ones who write computer languages and complex > programs clearly aren't. It takes a lot of work to get really good > with this stuff and, once you are, I suspect the idea of limiting > your expression probably holds little appeal if you're sitting down > to create a computer language you'd like people to adopt. 'limits your expression'? BWA!!! Show me some examples. I think it's much more work to remember the distinction and usage of two variables or files or folders which are spelled the same but have a different case than it is to create a 2nd variable or file or folder with a different name. I wonder how often programmers avail themselves of case-sensitivity by utilizing the same spelling with a different case. I'd guess very rarely if at all. In that case, the case for case-sensitivity is a cold-case...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21f9a671-b8cc-41ad-8762-3077d889fc98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286341 |
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:11:05 AM UTC-4, DFS wrote: > On 3/26/2015 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> DFS wrote: > >>>> [...] Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like > >>>> Windows and VB does it). > >>> > >>> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? > >> > >> IMO, probably because it less technically challenging to accomplish > >> in comparison to 'case-insensitive while being case-preserving'. > >> > >> Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one is merely the > >> observation that programmers are lazy when they can get away with > >> it. > > > > I see that as an oversimplification. Language is about expression, > > while it's fun to toss around the age old idea that a programmer is > > inherently lazy, the ones who write computer languages and complex > > programs clearly aren't. It takes a lot of work to get really good > > with this stuff and, once you are, I suspect the idea of limiting > > your expression probably holds little appeal if you're sitting down > > to create a computer language you'd like people to adopt. > > > 'limits your expression'? BWA!!! Show me some examples. > > I think it's much more work to remember the distinction and usage of two > variables or files or folders which are spelled the same but have a > different case than it is to create a 2nd variable or file or folder > with a different name. > > I wonder how often programmers avail themselves of case-sensitivity by > utilizing the same spelling with a different case. I'd guess very > rarely if at all. In that case, the case for case-sensitivity is a > cold-case... Why stop there then? If I was reading myVar and myVra I would assume you just had a typo, so why not let compilers do the same? Or make it dictionary based. szMyReceipt and szMyReciept obviously refer to the same thing, so why should that be flagged as an error regardless of case? Case sensitivity, to me, is the same as having an eol marker for the code like a semicolon. It's about precision. Good programmers are going to have a good design and well written code regardless of case sensitivity. And if you're working alone, who cares (the Relf approach). But in a team setting you're going to have experienced people and fresh college kids who think they know everything. That's why I think it's important for a strict interpretation of the code. Any typos will be flagged. A line of code doesn't end until you declare it to have ended. To me, engineering requires strictness. The cases brought up (including Snit's so called "expert") are so outrageous that they are virtually impossible. It would require declarations in the same scope by multiple programmers of variables with only case differing, and absolutely no design or review ever until the work is "done." Or working for months or years without ever compiling code and then failing to have a find and replace. I've never even heard of problems like that in a professional setting, although I'm sure some amateurs have screwed themselves before, but that will happen anyway. Science has many aspects that are case sensitive. A physicist will see kg and kG as two very different things. Sure, you could say that kg means k multiplied by the gravitational constant and then people will understand you. But I can also say "Dem peanut butter and 'mato sandwiches taste real good" and be understood. Understanding doesn't mean it's correct. Case sensitivity dictates a precision and strictness that good engineering requires. Using a file system is not engineering so that's a different beast and I'm not sure why it gets lumped in together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web