On 2010-11-25 11:30:12 -0500, Mario S. Mommer said:
In the realm of pure logic, ad hominems are logically invalid,
period.
We don't live in the realm of pure logic (whatever that would mean -
pretty sure no human beings exist in the realm of pure logic, so there
is no homo hominis to make
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes:
I have to say I'm always amazed how ad hominens can generate quite
strong responses to the point of making a lot of new faces (or mail
accounts) suddenly appear... ;)
Actually, I had just noticed that aspect as well. Is it just me, or
does anybody
dekudekup...@yahoo.com (Benjamin L. Russell) writes:
When I was a student at my college, one of the students once told me a
secret about how a computer program ran by a professor for a course in
introduction to systems programming checked to ensure that the students
who were submitting
of bytecodes, and it should be
quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After
some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM:
http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/...
If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress
On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said:
And furthermore, he has cooties.
Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies.
Financial conflict of interest is a prime example of a perfectly valid
ad hominem argument.
People who parse patterns but not semantics are apt to
is converted to
some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be
quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After
some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM:
http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said:
And furthermore, he has cooties.
Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem
fallacies. Financial conflict of interest is a prime example of a
perfectly valid
On 25 nov, 14:30, m_mom...@yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) wrote:
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said:
And furthermore, he has cooties.
Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem
fallacies.
On 2010-11-23 11:34:14 -0500, Keith H Duggar said:
You don't understand the implications of your own words:
having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes
anything that person says an advertisement for his financial
interests, not a fair assessment.
is substantially
On Nov 24, 1:10 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-23 11:34:14 -0500, Keith H Duggar said:
You don't understand the implications of your own words:
having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes
anything that
On Nov 22, 5:12 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered said:
And you don't think that [JH] could write a book about Haskell
if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung
language?
Until he
On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said:
There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem.
You don't understand ad hominem:
The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always
fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct,
On Nov 23, 10:34 am, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said:
On Nov 22, 5:12 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:34:22 -0500
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
wrote:
On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said:
There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem.
You don't understand ad hominem:
Perhaps you don't understand
Keith H Duggar dug...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
It is a common refuge of those who cannot support their position with
fact and logic. On more than one occasion Jon Harrop has all but
crushed Ertugrul in this very forum with /source code/; that is as
objective as it gets.
Since Jon has financial
On Nov 21, 10:38 pm, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message
news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu...
That's nonsense.
Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere
On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said:
All opinions are biased.
All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually
called a conflict of interest. Since JH makes his living selling
tools and training for certain languages, he has a severe conflict of
On 22 Nov 2010 06:26:34 GMT Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:57:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Perhaps we could take this thread to alt.small.minded.bickering now?
Alas, my ISP doesn't carry that newsgroup. Where else can I get my
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:38:53 +0100, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de
wrote:
Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification.
It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple
doesn't mean easy. Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than
other
On Nov 22, 10:57 am, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:38:53 +0100, Ertugrul S ylemez e...@ertes.de
wrote:
Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification.
It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple
doesn't mean easy.
On Nov 22, 9:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said:
All opinions are biased.
All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually
called a conflict of interest. Since
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby
t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young
people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various
paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this
isn't
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:25:34 -0800, scattered wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said:
All opinions are biased.
All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent
On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby
t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young
people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various
paradigms could
On Nov 22, 8:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said:
All opinions are biased.
All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually
called a conflict of interest.
On Nov 22, 12:28 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby
t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young
people with
On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered said:
And you don't think that [JH] could write a book about Haskell
if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung
language?
Until he actually does, he has a financial interest in trash-talking
Haskell. This makes anything he says
Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message
news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu...
That's nonsense.
Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and familiarize
yourself with some of the other languages out there. Haskell is many things
but simple is not
Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message
news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu...
That's nonsense.
Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and
familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out
On 11/21/2010 11:38 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message
news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu...
That's nonsense.
Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:57:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Perhaps we could take this thread to alt.small.minded.bickering now?
Alas, my ISP doesn't carry that newsgroup. Where else can I get my
mindless off-topic bitching if not for cross-posts from comp.lang.scheme
and comp.lang.functional?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '='), which are not
syntactic sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which
it makes sense to be infix. The fact that you sold them as
-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/...
If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress
reports.
--
Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML,
TeX, Python, Mac, Chess
it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written
in far
On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '='), which are not syntactic
sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
to be infix. The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
perlisms proves that you have
language. After
some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM:
http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-ii/
If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress
reports
easy to compile this representation to a target language. After
some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM:
http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-ii/
If there is an interest
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its
very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the
one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends --
CL has a few scary compilers for native code,
On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
What exactly is friggin' huge and complex about Haskell, and what's
this stuff about a very own monolithic gcc? Haskell isn't a lot more
complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more complex. Reduced to
bare metal (i.e. leaving
to
some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be
quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After
some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM:
http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
What exactly is friggin' huge and complex about Haskell, and
what's this stuff about a very own monolithic gcc? Haskell isn't
a lot more complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more
40 matches
Mail list logo
