Hello, Seems like this might be a good time to say thanks to Laurent for all the work he's done on CCW. FWIW, I've been using it for a while, and never had any issues installing it (at least not from a clean Eclipse), nor any of the other described issues.
So thanks Laurent, and keep up the good work! MBL On Jan 20, 8:45 am, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Luc Prefontaine > > <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote: > > Not reading wiki pages available, not investigating available links > > about ccw are more a sign of mental laziness than anything else or > > some form of disdain. > > Or, they can be a sign of not having been pointed to the links by the > install process, and none of them looking particularly promising when > returned as Google hits. > > > If these mundane activities are not important to you then maybe you > > should balance your post contents a bit and change the ranting/facts > > ratio. You cannot hold others responsible for your lack of knowledge > > in some areas. > > True. But I can certainly hold others responsible for a) not setting > up conditions where a majority of the people in some group G will > naturally encounter certain information I, but then b) expressing an > expectation that the people in group G will know I anyway, and c) > being condescending towards anyone you encounter from G that does not > know I. > > > I see the same pattern with your ranting against the numeric > > optimizations in 1.3. All of these discussions are available in the > > google group mailing list but it seems you did not read them to fully > > understand the pros and cons of each approach that where evaluated. > > Because it was a long, rambling discussion thread full of all manner > of tangents, plus stuff that was in flux and later changed, plus ... > etc. > > I asked if someone could point me to a summary or precis of the key, > still-relevant facts and arguments, something that could get me up to > speed with, you know, *actual speed* instead of taking days. The > closest I got was a four-page-or-so summary of two proposed versions > of the changes, and I did read that. > > > You have been asked kindly to change your tone. > > Are you implying a threat? > > The next part of your post seemed to descend into name-calling, more > threats, and other unconstructive material, so I did not bother to > read further. > > Have a good day. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
