Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if Xah were being trollish, why didn't they jump on my response
> and call me names?
Xah never replies to the threads he starts. At least, I've never known him
to do so.
> I still think that analysis of the original post is a useful exercise
> to learn Java.
Lew wrote:
> But if Xah were being trollish, why didn't they jump on my response and
> call me names?
I'm not sure he's a proper troll. Unfortunately, he seems to be the kind
of person who thinks that reading "Java for Dummies" makes one a
self-sufficient expert on Java and philosopher of progr
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Jim Burton wrote:
>>> Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
>> Does not apply. The OP was not being trollish
>
> You obviously don't know Xah. He's been doing this for years, cross-
> posting to various language groups trying to start an
Lew wrote:
> Jim Burton wrote:
>> Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
>
> People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if
> incorrect
> exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
a) Xah's posting history.
b) the cross-posting
c) the advoc
"jim burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 22 Mar, 12:45, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Burton wrote:
>> > Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
>>
>> People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if
>> incorrect
>> exposition of Jav
On 22 Mar, 12:45, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Burton wrote:
> > Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
>
> People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if incorrect
> exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
>
> I have absolutely no re
Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Burton wrote:
>> Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
>
> Does not apply. The OP was not being trollish
You obviously don't know Xah. He's been doing this for years, cross-
posting to various language groups trying to start an argument between
them. He even
Jim Burton wrote:
> Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if incorrect
exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
I have absolutely no reason to rate the OP as a troll or their post as trollish.
-
Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
>
> Are you sure you know what a "functional language" is?
>
>> parameter specs. For example:
>> f(3)
>> f(3, [9,2])
>> f("some string")
>
> This is not really "typical" synta
On 21 Mar, 19:11, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dr. Who wrote:
> > Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
>
> But, but - you fed me!?
>
[blah]
>
> We could put up a contest - whoever finds and corrects the most errors in the
> post wins. Ties broken by the quality of the correct explanations. Incorrect
> exp
Dr. Who wrote:
> Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
But, but - you fed me!?
Oh, wait, I'm only a half-troll, on my father's side.
Thanks for the attention.
Kidding aside, a post like the OP's is useful as an exercise in finding the
errors, grammatical and factual. It's like a math book I had in my firs
Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Xah Lee wrote:
> In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
Are you sure you know what a "functional language" is?
> parameter specs. For example:
> f(3)
> f(3, [9,2])
> f("some string")
This is not really "typical" syntax for a functional language. LISP, for
example,
No.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Java's Interface
Xah Lee, 20050223
In Java the language, there's this a keyword “interface”.
In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
parameter specs. For example:
f(3)
f(3, [9,2])
f("some string")
are usage examples of 3 functions all having the same name, but h
15 matches
Mail list logo
