Re: [gutvol-d] a review of some digitization tools -- 007
keith said:
Then you disclaim that your idea do have merit! ;-))
jim is like a hyperactive clock that's running backward... he's correct several times a day, completely by accident. but nobody, including jim, could tell you when that'll be.
Talking, about discussing things hypothetically.
exactly! see what i mean! pretty pointless, isn't it? :+)
I will forgive you here, as I believe you do not have a formal education in Computer Science.
and i'll forgive you here, for thinking that matters...
I am home and whether you believe me or not I think code! 99% of the time my code works out of the box. An important paradigm in CS is think first, code later.
ok, well then, when you think the code you are thinking can be written, and you are ready to write it, and then ready to have it evaluated as to whether it works or not, you let us know, ok?, and we'll be ready to evaluate it... because i'll let you evaluate my code, to see if it works... in the meantime, there's not much point talking about it. because, in the end, it will either work right, or it won't... the proof is in the pudding, keith, right in the pudding...
So, extensive light-mark-up is NOT heavy mark-up. then?
oh, yet bet your sweet ass that light can become heavy! and if you want the proof of _that_, go look at ascii-doc. even restructured-text, in marcello's hands, is too obese. it takes real discipline to keep it light. but i can do that.
Then using XML is light-mark-up then?
no, those angle-brackets all by themselves make it heavy. anything that makes you press the caps-key is oppressive.
Or those features you have proposed are not a minimal !
minimal work. maximum power. that's the sweet-spot, keith.
Can be is hypothetical!
can be can be real as well, if you decide you will make it real.
C'mon, you know better than play games with me!
after all these years, i certainly _should_ know better, right? perhaps those cyberarchaeologists will think i am dense too, just for continuing to persist in conversation with all of you... and thus, keith, you have given me something to think about, so i will reward you with my $2 prize for positivity. ironic, eh? -bowerbird
O.K. back to serious matters. Would you except pseudo code? regards Keith. Am 01.12.2011 um 10:49 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
Then you disclaim that your idea do have merit! ;-))
jim is like a hyperactive clock that's running backward...
he's correct several times a day, completely by accident.
but nobody, including jim, could tell you when that'll be.
Talking, about discussing things hypothetically.
exactly! see what i mean! pretty pointless, isn't it? :+)
I will forgive you here, as I believe you do not have a formal education in Computer Science.
and i'll forgive you here, for thinking that matters...
I am home and whether you believe me or not I think code! 99% of the time my code works out of the box. An important paradigm in CS is think first, code later.
ok, well then, when you think the code you are thinking can be written, and you are ready to write it, and then ready to have it evaluated as to whether it works or not, you let us know, ok?, and we'll be ready to evaluate it...
because i'll let you evaluate my code, to see if it works...
in the meantime, there's not much point talking about it. because, in the end, it will either work right, or it won't... the proof is in the pudding, keith, right in the pudding...
So, extensive light-mark-up is NOT heavy mark-up. then?
oh, yet bet your sweet ass that light can become heavy! and if you want the proof of _that_, go look at ascii-doc.
even restructured-text, in marcello's hands, is too obese.
it takes real discipline to keep it light. but i can do that.
Then using XML is light-mark-up then?
no, those angle-brackets all by themselves make it heavy. anything that makes you press the caps-key is oppressive.
Or those features you have proposed are not a minimal !
minimal work. maximum power. that's the sweet-spot, keith.
Can be is hypothetical!
can be can be real as well, if you decide you will make it real.
C'mon, you know better than play games with me!
after all these years, i certainly _should_ know better, right?
perhaps those cyberarchaeologists will think i am dense too, just for continuing to persist in conversation with all of you...
and thus, keith, you have given me something to think about, so i will reward you with my $2 prize for positivity. ironic, eh?
-bowerbird _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
jim is like a hyperactive clock that's running backward... he's correct several times a day, completely by accident.
Bizarre that BB would claim to know what I have said when at the same time he claims not to read what I have said. If BB isn't reading what I have said then you might think he would have the common decency not to comment on that which he has not read. Not that he ever bothered to actually read what I had written back in the "good old days" when he claimed to have read what I wrote.
participants (3)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jim Adcock -
Keith J. Schultz