Post #62,590
11/12/02 9:52:09 PM
|
BR just starts a new line, it does not add spacing
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,591
11/12/02 9:54:32 PM
|
Er... so use two...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #62,693
11/13/02 4:41:29 PM
|
re: use two
One of the "tricks of the trade" in software engineering is to study what people use the most often, and simplify the task of doing these frequent operations. IOW, make the most common things the easiest and breifest. This is why "the" and "a" are *short* words. Paragraphs *are* very common. Thus, they deserve simplicity in HTML. Vulcan Logic 101.
BTW, I think 2 only works right if you have a space between them.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,694
11/13/02 4:47:32 PM
|
No space required - view source of your post
<BR><BR> is substituted for each line break when you have 'Convert Newlines To BR Tags'.
Making things work how people use them is what got Perl into the mire it is in now. I'd rather they didn't do that with HTML.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #62,780
11/14/02 2:31:52 AM
|
Perl bashing, eh?
Making things work how people use them is what got Perl into the mire it is in now. I'd rather they didn't do that with HTML.
Perl fans *like* Perl. Just because Perl does not fit the way you think does not mean that it does not fit the way Perl fans think. Perl is fine-tuned for a certain "kind" of thinker. I don't like Perl either, but that does not mean that it doesn't work well for others. Larry Wall probably weighed things pretty heavily based on *his* perception of what is good and bothersome. I am pretty sure if I ever got full L running, you wouldn't like it even though it would fit my mind like a glove.
After many debates and battles, I realize that my ideal work environment and paradigms may likely not extrapolate to everybody else. Each head is different and is bothered and helped by different things. Hopefully the industry is big enough to allow enough different languages and paradigms so that we can find one that makes each of us reasonably comfortable.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,795
11/14/02 7:18:08 AM
|
Well... Yes.
Hopefully the industry is big enough to allow enough different languages and paradigms so that we can find one that makes each of us reasonably comfortable. Sure. Homogeneity in software means that while you might be able to more easily find caretakers (programmers, etc) and addons (plugins) for your systems , your systems will also be like everyone else's. This may reduce risk, but it also reduces the chance that your software and/or systems might have signifigant advantages over your competitors.
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Post #62,801
11/14/02 8:31:47 AM
|
Er... you should probably know this:
Ben Tilly is the one who pointed that out to me.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #62,867
11/14/02 1:45:44 PM
|
Ben's usage patterns are not going to match Larry's 100%
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,892
11/14/02 3:13:02 PM
|
WTF does that have to do with my point??
You said: One of the "tricks of the trade" in software engineering is to study what people use the most often, and simplify the task of doing these frequent operations. IOW, make the most common things the easiest and breifest. This is why "the" and "a" are *short* words. Paragraphs *are* very common. Thus, they deserve simplicity in HTML. Vulcan Logic 101. To which I responded, pointing out that doing that is a BAD idea: Making things work how people use them is what got Perl into the mire it is in now. I'd rather they didn't do that with HTML. To which you replied: Perl fans *like* Perl. Just because Perl does not fit the way you think does not mean that it does not fit the way Perl fans think. Your first venture away from my point marked in bold -- what I think about Perl is irrelevant, as I pointed out here: Ben Tilly is the one who pointed that out to me. If Ben Tilly isn't a "Perl fan" then I don't know what is. The fact that a "Perl fan" pointed out that one of the biggest problems with Perl is that Larry Wall does exactly what you suggested we do with HTML is my point. It's not a problem because Ben doesn't think that way -- the particular item we were discussing is a BUG, plain and simple, that has stayed around because people were using it that way. This is a BAD thing, because it makes the language crufty and unintuitive. The paragraph tag is SUPPOSED to be a container. The fact that you like to use it otherwise is irrelevant. Additionally, I would point out that you love to bitch about the English language. One of the reasons English is the way it is stems from that exact practice -- making the things people use most often standard usage. You're a great one for inconsistency like this Bryce. You'll bitch and moan about one thing, then turn around and suggest that a different thing that you don't happen to like be corrupted in exactly the same way. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #62,988
11/15/02 2:19:49 AM
|
Ah, so that is why my ears were burning...
What I believe that Scott is referring to is the following trivia question of what non-trival effect the following code has...
pos($foo) = pos($foo);
This is actually documented. You can theoretically find out the answer by reading and understanding the output of "perldoc -f pos" and then "perldoc perlre".
[link|http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.8.0/pod/func/pos.html|http://www.perldoc.c...pod/func/pos.html]
[link|http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.8.0/pod/perlre.html#Repeated-patterns-matching-zero-length-substring|http://www.perldoc.c...-length-substring]
Note that in the latter link I have put you at the very section that documents it. Follow that link, and figure out how likely YOU would be to have studied that section.
Furthermore I note that this is a fact that I needed to know to fix a bug in some code that I wrote.
Now if this was an isolated incident it wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't. There are tons of examples like that in Perl. Stuff you can't reasonably - even if you are an expert - be expected to know. But which can still bite you. Why is this the case? Quite simply because different pieces with different designs met, and didn't join well.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #63,141
11/15/02 6:58:05 PM
|
"Supposed to" my ess
The paragraph tag is SUPPOSED to be a container. The fact that you like to use it otherwise is irrelevant.
It is "supposed" to be whatever the f*ck the designer wants it to be. I see no conceptual distinction between a line break and a paragraph break. If you are that hard-up for "purity", then have/use a SPAN or DIV-like tag to apply a style to a range or let it be a seperator if it has no closing tag but a container if it does. Why does that upset the perceived balance of your universe? Save the "purity" for the UNcommon stuff, where it belongs.
You repeatedly mistake your personal opinion for fact. Learn not to.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,147
11/15/02 7:40:11 PM
|
O.______M.______G.______
It is "supposed" to be whatever the f*ck the designer wants it to be. HA nHey, Scott, I'm a designer. I want the "submit" button on all zIWE pages to be an inline frame. It's "supposed" to be that because I want it to be. *snort* Haven't laughed this hard in days. :D
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #63,215
11/16/02 11:00:18 AM
|
If it is your job to mangle the code then by all means do it
it is anything you say it is. Ive looked at code for years that the designers took unatural liberties with. A box displayed on a screen can be shaped and placed by a infinite variety of methods.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
|
Post #63,420
11/17/02 2:16:45 PM
|
I meant the HTML spec desingers, not each user
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,166
11/15/02 10:26:08 PM
|
/me falls over.
Bryce, your density is perturbing the orbit of Jupiter. Stop it.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #63,167
11/15/02 10:27:31 PM
|
Ha!
|
Post #63,173
11/15/02 11:16:55 PM
|
It's Part of the Plan
Bryce is really from the future, and in order not to be stomped into dust by OOP controlled RaptorBots, he has to undermine the object movement here and now. He's the "Line Terminator". His code name is Semicolon.
And what's he doing with gerbils anyway?
-drl
|
Post #63,188
11/16/02 5:41:45 AM
|
And there we have the nub of the problem.
I see no conceptual distinction between a line break and a paragraph break. If you can never conceive of a distinction between the P tag and the BR tag, then you will never understand why the P tag is a container tag. I believe we have now reached The End Of The Discussion. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
|
Post #63,214
11/16/02 10:57:42 AM
|
sorry I agree with bryce here
a break is a break is a break defined by type.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
|
Post #63,216
11/16/02 11:05:31 AM
11/16/02 11:23:16 AM
|
Then use breaks
A paragraph is an entity that hapens to include breaks above and below.
In any decent page layout scheme (and HTML fails the "decent" qualification by miles), a paragraph includes an attribute sheet, such as how much whitespace above and below, indent / undent, font and size, bulleting or enumeration, and what following paragraph style it will spawn.
A paragraph may include breaks, which start a new line and may even insert white space, but which do not start a new paragraph, thus it is seen to transcent breaks, being a higher level "container object".
We see then, that a paragraph is, in wider practice, an entity with bounds, and in html these bounds are properly defined by the p and /p tags. The fact that anyone can even view paragraphs as a text stream divided by double breaks is simply one of the many weaknesses of HTML.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #63,218
11/16/02 11:12:28 AM
|
There's nothing to agree with.
A <p> tag *is* a container, whether you like it or not.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #63,365
11/17/02 5:01:50 AM
|
That's not what I was saying.
My personal opinion about the "correctness" of the P tag being a container was never mentioned. I was commenting that Bryce himself has revealed why he can't understand why the P tag is a container.
Wade.
"Ah. One of the difficult questions."
|
Post #63,422
11/17/02 2:33:12 PM
|
Officially Optional
My personal opinion about the "correctness" of the P tag being a container was never mentioned.
Then why was a P closing tag made *officially optional* in the first place? Did they have my virus, and then were later cured?
Answer: because it is a pain in the ass and distracting eye-clutter to keep typing closing tags for it even though most of the time one is not altering paragraph attributes for each new paragraph.
Maybe they are flip-flopping now. It just means that the original standards group was more practical minded than the latest crop of stuffy european bloatocracy specialists.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,433
11/17/02 3:58:53 PM
|
Probably because . .
. . the original committee included a bunch of typing challenged C programmers who hadn't a clue where HTML would be going in the real world or why it would ever be used for anything beyond a few academic documents.
A committee that produces a page layout language that has no way to control white space is totally brain dead from the start, and there's a hell of a lot of repair work still needed. Removing the "optional" from closing a container tag is just one simple item.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #63,434
11/17/02 4:06:23 PM
|
Re: Probably because . .
HTML was never designed as a page layout language.
That's PostScript you're thinking of.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #63,435
11/17/02 4:40:07 PM
|
That's the standard cop out . .
. . "It's a markup language, not a page layout language".
Markup languages have been used for page layout ever since the first electronic typesetting machine, and quite capable they have been. I used markup languages to format my business documents for more than a decade (Mince/Scribble > Perfect Writer > Final Word > Sprint) and they do a fine job.
HTML arranges text and graphics on a page for viewing, thus it is a page layout language. It differs from others in allowing far more interpretation at the viewer's end.
The primary failure of the HTML design team was insufficient vision as to what Web pages would be used for, and why much greater control of the page would be needed for many uses.
The only really useful layout tool they provided was the ability to abuse tables. They might have tried to prevent that if they had any idea what desperate page designers would be using tables for.
Less capable designers have resorted to the abomination of fixed size fonts and images of text. What Microsoft Word does in a vain attempt to control an HTML page is better left unseen and undiscussed.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #63,440
11/17/02 5:26:16 PM
|
Your browser is Ronald Reagan
The phrase comes from Neal Stephenson's [link|http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml|In the Beginning Was the Command Line]. Highly recommended reading. I'll also note that Stephenson runs Debian, for nontrivial reasons. \r\n\r\n \r\nWhen Ronald Reagan was a radio announcer, he used to call baseball games by reading the terse descriptions that trickled in over the telegraph wire and were printed out on a paper tape. He would sit there, all by himself in a padded room with a microphone, and the paper tape would eke out of the machine and crawl over the palm of his hand printed with cryptic abbreviations. If the count went to three and two, Reagan would describe the scene as he saw it in his mind's eye: "The brawny left-hander steps out of the batter's box to wipe the sweat from his brow. The umpire steps forward to sweep the dirt from home plate." and so on. When the cryptogram on the paper tape announced a base hit, he would whack the edge of the table with a pencil, creating a little sound effect, and describe the arc of the ball as if he could actually see it. His listeners, many of whom presumably thought that Reagan was actually at the ballpark watching the game, would reconstruct the scene in their minds according to his descriptions. \r\n \r\n\r\n So it is with the browser. HTML is structural hints. Browser provides client interpretation. And that interpretation is malleable through various means, be they client restrictions (text-mode browsers, text-to-speech browsers, programmer discretion, stylesheets). \r\n\r\n There are presentation-oriented markup languages. PostScript is just this, and Postscript and PDF format documents are the de facto standards for distributing materials in a consistent-presentation format. Note that this has its problems. Jakob Nielson identifies this as [link|http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021111.html|a major detractor from intranet useability]: \r\n\r\n \r\nPDF Morass \r\n\r\nSpecial mention must be reserved for a single, simple design mistake that caused huge usability problems for the users in our study: unconverted PDF files. These files were especially troublesome when they were used to post an entire employee handbook or other massive document on the intranet in a single unnavigable and overwhelming mass. \r\n\r\nPDF is great for printing. And it's fine to have printable documents available on the intranet, which saves distribution costs and gives employees instant access to print out whatever they need. But don't take the lazy way out and just stick a PDF handbook on the intranet; give users other options for accessing the information as well. Search, navigation, and online reading are all enhanced when you convert content into well-designed intranet pages, each containing a meaningful chunk of information about a specific topic with cross-reference links to related material. \r\n \r\n\r\n Nielsen's also covered the issue of [link|http://useit.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=8080800&EXTRA_ARG=&host_id=2&page_id=89&query=pdf&hiword=PDF+|PDF] and [link|http://useit.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=8080800&EXTRA_ARG=&host_id=2&page_id=142&query=pdf&hiword=PDF+|print as a medium]. \r\n\r\n CSS allows the user to control presentation. I've demonstrated this myself with the [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/UserContentCSS|UserContentCSS] TWIT node. I use both a default stylesheet which overrides a number of HTML directives, from font size and face (standardized to my preferences) to advertising boxes and embedded objects (both simply not displayed). I'm starting to provide other "problem fix" stylesheets which can be selectively applied to sites with specific faults (background colors, poor frame sizing, etc.). The user and user agent determine presentation. Don't ever forget this. This isn't print-on-the-web, it's a new medium. It's not entirely divorced from what's come before (as some would like you to believe). It is fundamentally different in that the medium is malleable. \r\n\r\n Yes, designers can attempt to dictate presentation and content. The best way to do same is in a way that gracefully acknowledges a user's preferences, rather than rigidely insisting that there is some One True Way to present information. Yes, there are sites whose design strikes me as beautiful, graceful, useful. But there are far more which are rendered by fasciast design-school rejects (or worse: design-school graduates). And a huge majority for which design really doesn't particularly matter, so setting my own preferences is preferable. --\r\nKarsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #63,450
11/17/02 6:08:57 PM
|
I understand the principle and do not argue with it . .
. . but I consider the tools provided at the creation end to be insufficient to the job of providing adequate hints to the interpreter. The types of pages provided for are simply inadequate except for academic papers and other very simple documents.
Once again, a layout language without even the most rudimentary ability to describe white space is brain dead from birth - and you have your Reagan browser making up a lot of stuff because it's working with an inadequate information set.
Trying to compensate for the lack of basic layout features is, in my opinion, the root cause of a great deal of the mess you are trying to correct from the user end. If the creation tools were adequate, you'd be doing a lot less repair.
PDF, while capable of a minor supporting role, is of limited use because it is far too rigid. So we are stuck with a huge unserved territory between inadequacy and inflexibility.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #63,521
11/18/02 1:56:47 AM
|
Re: Your browser is Ronald Reagan
If we had reasonable Postscript-based displays, we could draw on them directly without an intermediary. Don't blame PDF. It's one of the good things.
-drl
|
Post #63,474
11/17/02 7:34:03 PM
|
I thought we'd reached an and to this discussion?
But to recap: I don't know why HTML < 4 had the </p> tag optional, but I can theorise that because the DTD langauge used (SGML) supports optional closing tags, they thought it would be a good idea*. I do know that the designers of XML realized that optional closing tags are A Difficult Problem for parsers, to they ditched the idea. Since the latest HTML standards are derived from XML, optional closing tags are therefore no longer optional. This affects more than just <p>**, BTW. Tags like <lt> are also affected. Wade, merrily playing "here-we-go-round the cul-de-sac" with Bryce... * with 20/20 hindsight and this discussion in view, I am thinking it wasn't a good idea. ** and in XML, a <P> tag is different from a <p> tag, too. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
|
Post #63,513
11/18/02 12:52:24 AM
|
Feed the people, not the parser
I do know that the designers of XML realized that optional closing tags are A Difficult Problem for parsers, to they ditched the idea.
F*ck the parser, make life easier on the people.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,572
11/18/02 11:04:01 AM
|
The SEP field is reaching astronomical proportions.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #63,698
11/18/02 10:26:49 PM
|
Did you want the 5 minute or the 10 minute argument? :-)
"Ah. One of the difficult questions."
|
Post #63,219
11/16/02 11:23:41 AM
|
Link to my "personal opinion":
[link|http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html#para|HTML 3.2]: The P element is used to markup paragraphs. It is a container and requires a start tag. You said: I see no conceptual distinction between a line break and a paragraph break. Then you are unclear on what is going on behind the scenes. The user agent, in the absence of an end </p> tag, determines where the end is, then applies the default paragraph markup style to everything in the paragraph. It is not simply a "line break". If it were supposed to be usable as just a line break, then the [link|http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1|specification] would not say this: We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should ignore empty P elements. Especially when the <br> tag was created specifically for creating line breaks. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #63,225
11/16/02 12:09:48 PM
|
BAH>>> You throw water on....
Every flaming arguement by Whipping out the *BOOK*...
People should know *WHEN* dealing with Bryce Jacobs... You can't use the book, he rewrites languages and books to fit himself!
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Homeland Security Officer reminds:
Hold Thumbprint to Screen for 5 seconds, we'll take the imprint, or
Just continue to type on your keyboard, and we'll just sample your DNA.
|
Post #63,228
11/16/02 12:18:16 PM
|
The problem he has with this is, you see . . .
. . that a paragraph is a "container object", which is far too close to "object oriented" for his comfort, so he seeks to leave one side of the container open in hopes that the orientedness will drain out through the opening.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #63,243
11/16/02 1:18:39 PM
|
Now that you mention it...
That *IS* a pretty good approximation of what it appears to be!!!
I wondered what that stuff leaking out his arguement was...
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Homeland Security Officer reminds:
Hold Thumbprint to Screen for 5 seconds, we'll take the imprint, or
Just continue to type on your keyboard, and we'll just sample your DNA.
|
Post #63,423
11/17/02 2:49:56 PM
|
re: Link to my "personal opinion":
It also says:
"The end tag is optional as it can always be inferred by the parser."
Your "parser" does NOT fit the 3.2 standards (for good or bad). BTW, I thot you were targeting 4 standards, so why quote 3.2 standards?
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,426
11/17/02 3:00:27 PM
|
Ewe THOUGHT WRONG
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Homeland Security Officer reminds:
Hold Thumbprint to Screen for 5 seconds, we'll take the imprint, or
Just continue to type on your keyboard, and we'll just sample your DNA.
|
Post #63,468
11/17/02 7:14:53 PM
|
Let's not drag the poor sheep into this
|
Post #63,439
11/17/02 5:22:51 PM
|
re: Link to my "personal opinion":
Sorry. What it said was, "Bryce was wrong." The <p> tag is a container. I used the 3.2 docs because they were the most specific about it. I thought perhaps even you could get that through your head. EOC. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #63,445
11/17/02 5:47:17 PM
|
container or not, the end P tag is optional in spec
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #63,451
11/17/02 6:10:03 PM
|
Was optional
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #64,396
11/21/02 9:13:45 PM
|
Was sane
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,844
11/14/02 11:34:22 AM
|
HTML bashing, eh?
HTML fans *like* HTML. Just because HTML does not fit the way you think does not mean that it does not fit the way HTML fans think. HTML is fine-tuned for a certain "kind" of thinker. You don't like HTML, but that does not mean that it doesn't work well for others. Tim Berners-Lee probably weighed things pretty heavily based on *his* perception of what is good and bothersome. He also had many, many people giving him input, to which he paid attention. I am pretty sure if you ever got full L running, I wouldn't like it even though it would fit your mind like a glove, because there's NO room for creative collaboration in your world.
After many debates and battles, I also realize that your ideal work environment and paradigms may likely not extrapolate to everybody else. Each head is different and is bothered and helped by different things. Unfortunately the industry is not big enough to allow enough different languages and paradigms so that we can find one that makes each of us reasonably comfortable. Therefore, "comfort" is on your own head. Deal with it.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #62,864
11/14/02 1:43:49 PM
11/14/02 1:44:40 PM
|
hmmm. objective comfort
Unfortunately the industry is not big enough to allow enough different languages and paradigms so that we can find one that makes each of us reasonably comfortable.
Well the current crop of crap is based mostly on marketing fads and not on any methodic psychological programmer profiling. I get emails from co-Java haters and co-OO haters all the time.
Therefore, "comfort" is on your own head.
Is it *ever* anywhere else for anybody?
Deal with it.
I am, by ranting about silly practices.
________________
oop.ismad.com
Edited by tablizer
Nov. 14, 2002, 01:44:40 PM EST
|
