«

On 09-02-2011 20:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4c88f3$0$23753$> , Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 04-02-2011 17:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message< >, Roedy Green
>>> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I don’t see the point of any great rush to support 32-bit
>>>> Unicode. ... The rest I can’t imagine ever using unless I took up a
>>>> career in anthropology ...
>>>
>>> But you, or another programmer, might work for an anthropologist. The
>>> computer is a universal machine, after all. If a programming language
>>> can’t support that universality, what good is it?
>>
>> The idea that a single programming language needs to support
>> everything is not a good one.
>
> But if it’s going to support text processing, then it should support what is
> commonly accepted as the minimum requirements for that area. The incremental
> cost of adding lesser-used language scripts on top of the more common ones
> is so low, it seems entirely reasonable to insist that you should at least
> have provision for dealing with them all.

That seems as an obvious good idea.

But none of the common languages for text processing apps
does, so ...

And it is not clear that it is a big problem in practice.

Arne

On 18-02-2011 02:24, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:51:23 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 08-02-2011 05:10, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote:
>>>> Especially after several people have set him straight!
>>>
>>> Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the
>>> original use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather
>>> than to be neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and "set
>>> someone straight". The difference is the same as someone having allowed
>>> for several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the case, and
>>> someone having only allowed for one possibility and having been wrong.
>>> You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the former, as I have
>>> said several times now.
>>
>> That all depends.
>>
>> If you are a programmer is´t was "set me straight".
>
> No. You once again seem to presume that everyone that is a programmer
> never uses the term in any other sense than the negative. That may be
> true of the programmers *you know* but it is demonstrably *not* true of
> programmers in general -- for one, I do not invariably use it in that
> sense and I am a programmer.

We have not seen any evidence of that so far.

>>>> What reason in the world can someone have to argue with the answers
>>>> universally provided by knowledgeable professionals in response to his
>>>> question?
>>>
>>> This is not even meaningful in this context, because I hadn't asked a
>>> question.
>>
>> You did not post anything intended as a question.
>
> I'm glad you realize that. I was getting worried there for a minute.
>
>> But posting misunderstandings about programming terminology in a
>> programming group tend to be considered an implicit question to be
>> answered.
>
> First of all, nobody posted "misunderstandings about programming
> terminology". Someone may have posted "an unwelcome reminder that Arne's
> personal circle of acquaintances and colleagues is not the entirety of
> the profession", but that is by no means even close to the same thing.

Hint: try and read the other comments or try google. That would
confirm that it is not my personal opinion, but a general
use of the term.

Yeah - I know that you don't want to google. But seeking
information is the only way to learn anything.

> Second, even posting the former cannot be considered an "implicit
> question". The hypothetical poster had no question in mind when he posted
> it, so cannot have implied anything of the sort. You might have inferred
> it, but that is not the same thing.

The fact that you did not intend to imply a question does not change
that it is being considered such.

> And third, with reference to your original statement, it said something
> about answers "universally provided by knowledgeable professionals". Yet
> the "answers" were provided by a smattering of usenet users using no
> particular form of authentication, possibly posting under assumed names;
> even if they were all "knowledgeable professionals" it would be passing
> arrogant for three or four such individuals to claim any particular
> opinion of theirs was universally held by the whole profession, which no
> doubt has hundreds of thousands of practitioners if not millions. Even if
> they were well-respected and famous experts in the profession posting
> verifiably under their real names, rather than relatively unknown members
> of it posting unverifiably, it would be questionable for them to claim to
> speak on behalf of the whole profession.

Given that it is easy to verify by anyone capable of using google,
then ....

> Further to that, we know for a fact that at least one of them was clearly
> *not* knowledgeable about at least one thing: the existence of a
> programmer who did *not* in fact uniformly use "micro-optimization" in
> the specifically pejorative sense that has been discussed here.

I did not see any such.

Arne

On 23-02-2011 15:52, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:22:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 18-02-2011 02:24, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:51:23 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 08-02-2011 05:10, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote:
>>>>>> Especially after several people have set him straight!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the
>>>>> original use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather
>>>>> than to be neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and
>>>>> "set someone straight". The difference is the same as someone having
>>>>> allowed for several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the
>>>>> case, and someone having only allowed for one possibility and having
>>>>> been wrong. You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the
>>>>> former, as I have said several times now.
>>>>
>>>> That all depends.
>>>>
>>>> If you are a programmer is´t was "set me straight".
>>>
>>> No. You once again seem to presume that everyone that is a programmer
>>> never uses the term in any other sense than the negative. That may be
>>> true of the programmers *you know* but it is demonstrably *not* true of
>>> programmers in general -- for one, I do not invariably use it in that
>>> sense and I am a programmer.
>>
>> We have not seen any evidence of that so far.
>
> Then you haven't been looking. Try doing a google groups search on my
> name sometime.

Why - I have seen lots of posts proving the opposite, so there would
be no point.

>>> First of all, nobody posted "misunderstandings about programming
>>> terminology". Someone may have posted "an unwelcome reminder that
>>> Arne's personal circle of acquaintances and colleagues is not the
>>> entirety of the profession", but that is by no means even close to the
>>> same thing.
>>
>> Hint: try and read the other comments or try google.
>
> Hint: try and be polite to people if you want them to listen to you.

It is really not my problem if you prefer to stay ignorant.

>>> Second, even posting the former cannot be considered an "implicit
>>> question". The hypothetical poster had no question in mind when he
>>> posted it, so cannot have implied anything of the sort. You might have
>>> inferred it, but that is not the same thing.
>>
>> The fact that you did not intend to imply a question does not change
>> that it is being considered such.
>
> Then it is being considered such erroneously.

You are free to claim that gravity is an error as well.

That does not change the facts.

>>> And third, with reference to your original statement, it said something
>>> about answers "universally provided by knowledgeable professionals".
>>> Yet the "answers" were provided by a smattering of usenet users using
>>> no particular form of authentication, possibly posting under assumed
>>> names; even if they were all "knowledgeable professionals" it would be
>>> passing arrogant for three or four such individuals to claim any
>>> particular opinion of theirs was universally held by the whole
>>> profession, which no doubt has hundreds of thousands of practitioners
>>> if not millions. Even if they were well-respected and famous experts in
>>> the profession posting verifiably under their real names, rather than
>>> relatively unknown members of it posting unverifiably, it would be
>>> questionable for them to claim to speak on behalf of the whole
>>> profession.
>>
>> Given that it is easy to verify by anyone capable of using google, then
>> ....
>
> Google is a funny creature. It often favors nonstandard and quirky
> meanings above the standard one. For example the build tool "ant" ranks
> higher than the insect for the query "ant".
>
> So you cannot use google rankings and results as an ironclad proof of
> which usage is actually majority.

Real IT people quickly learn to sort in Google info.

>>> Further to that, we know for a fact that at least one of them was
>>> clearly *not* knowledgeable about at least one thing: the existence of
>>> a programmer who did *not* in fact uniformly use "micro-optimization"
>>> in the specifically pejorative sense that has been discussed here.
>>
>> I did not see any such.
>
> Then check your glasses!

That will not create any such.

Arne

On 24-02-2011 23:33, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:28:20 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 23-02-2011 15:52, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:22:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 18-02-2011 02:24, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:51:23 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 08-02-2011 05:10, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote:
>>>>>>>> Especially after several people have set him straight!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the
>>>>>>> original use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage
>>>>>>> rather than to be neutral. There is a difference between
>>>>>>> "clarified" and "set someone straight". The difference is the same
>>>>>>> as someone having allowed for several possibilities, one of which
>>>>>>> turned out to be the case, and someone having only allowed for one
>>>>>>> possibility and having been wrong. You seem to think the latter
>>>>>>> occurred but it was the former, as I have said several times now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That all depends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are a programmer is´t was "set me straight".
>>>>>
>>>>> No. You once again seem to presume that everyone that is a programmer
>>>>> never uses the term in any other sense than the negative. That may be
>>>>> true of the programmers *you know* but it is demonstrably *not* true
>>>>> of programmers in general -- for one, I do not invariably use it in
>>>>> that sense and I am a programmer.
>>>>
>>>> We have not seen any evidence of that so far.
>>>
>>> Then you haven't been looking. Try doing a google groups search on my
>>> name sometime.
>>
>> Why - I have seen lots of posts proving the opposite
>
> A lie.

True.

>>>>> Second, even posting the former cannot be considered an "implicit
>>>>> question". The hypothetical poster had no question in mind when he
>>>>> posted it, so cannot have implied anything of the sort. You might
>>>>> have inferred it, but that is not the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you did not intend to imply a question does not change
>>>> that it is being considered such.
>>>
>>> Then it is being considered such erroneously.
>>
>> You are free to claim that gravity is an error as well.
>
> But I do not do so. I only claim that something is an error if it
> actually is an error.
>
> The fact of the matter is, I neither stated a question nor had one in
> mind when I wrote the paragraph that you are erroneously claiming stated
> or implied a question.
>
> You may have *inferred* a question. But none was *implied*. Get the
> difference?

Learn to read and understand English.

"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.

>>>>> Further to that, we know for a fact that at least one of them was
>>>>> clearly *not* knowledgeable about at least one thing: the existence
>>>>> of a programmer who did *not* in fact uniformly use
>>>>> "micro-optimization" in the specifically pejorative sense that has
>>>>> been discussed here.
>>>>
>>>> I did not see any such.
>>>
>>> Then check your glasses!
>>
>> That will not create any such.
>
> They will maybe let you see what's right there in front of your nose,
> though.

There are dozens of posts showing that:
- you don't know Java
- you don't know char sets
- you don't know OS'es
- you don't know software engineering practices

Arne

On 26-02-2011 04:01, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:01:18 -0500, Arne Vajhøj spammed:
>> On 24-02-2011 23:33, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:28:20 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 23-02-2011 15:52, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:22:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 18-02-2011 02:24, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>>>> No. You once again seem to presume that everyone that is a
>>>>>>> programmer never uses the term in any other sense than the
>>>>>>> negative. That may be true of the programmers *you know* but it is
>>>>>>> demonstrably *not* true of programmers in general -- for one, I do
>>>>>>> not invariably use it in that sense and I am a programmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have not seen any evidence of that so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you haven't been looking. Try doing a google groups search on my
>>>>> name sometime.
>>>>
>>>> Why - I have seen lots of posts proving the opposite
>>>
>>> A lie.
>>
>> True.
>
> So, you admit your lie.

No.

It was about my claim not about your claim.

> Indeed, if it gets much higher you'll be in violation of most
> newsservers' terms of service because your Breidbart Index will pop 25 --
> post 26 posts in one day whose sole purpose is to repeat the same litany
> of irrational anti-Wesson beliefs and you will risk losing your account.

If you bothered to read and understand the term you use then
you would know that the BI of almost all my posts were 1.

But then reading and understnding has never been you strong interest.

>>>>>>> Second, even posting the former cannot be considered an "implicit
>>>>>>> question". The hypothetical poster had no question in mind when he
>>>>>>> posted it, so cannot have implied anything of the sort. You might
>>>>>>> have inferred it, but that is not the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you did not intend to imply a question does not change
>>>>>> that it is being considered such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it is being considered such erroneously.
>>>>
>>>> You are free to claim that gravity is an error as well.
>>>
>>> But I do not do so. I only claim that something is an error if it
>>> actually is an error.
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is, I neither stated a question nor had one in
>>> mind when I wrote the paragraph that you are erroneously claiming
>>> stated or implied a question.
>>>
>>> You may have *inferred* a question. But none was *implied*. Get the
>>> difference?
>>
>> Learn to read and understand English.
>
> Thank you, I already have, and consequently I, unlike you, understand the
> difference between implied and inferred. *Implied* means the writer
> intended a certain meaning that they did not state outright. *Inferred*
> means the reader interpreted a certain meaning, whether or not that
> meaning was intended by the writer.
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer
>
> Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the
> distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence
> implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without
> being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule
> out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some
> taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity
> performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are
> not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not
> rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting
> with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in
> favor of tax reductions.
>
>> "it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.
>
> Perhaps not, but "it is implied" is.You inferred it incorrectly and now
> you are desperate to justify your position after I have stated that you
> did so.
>
> But the fact is, I am *inherently* the sole arbiter of what I did and did
> not intend to convey, and I intended no question.

You mean that you still did not understand:

#"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.

Arne

On 27-02-2011 08:01, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:23:04 -0500, Arne Vajhøj spammed:
>> On 26-02-2011 04:01, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:01:18 -0500, Arne Vajhøj spammed:
>>>> On 24-02-2011 23:33, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>>> Why - I have seen lots of posts proving the opposite
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie.
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>> So, you admit your lie.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It was about my claim not about your claim.
>
> But ... but ... but you just did!

Try read again.

> You didn't even trim your admission

No - I leave those childish trimmings to you.

>> #"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.
>
> No, but its *correctness* is.

No.

If people do consider such (and it should been obvious by now
that they do), then it is correct no matter what your intentions
were.

Arne

On 27-02-2011 10:05, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:06:06 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 27-02-2011 08:01, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:23:04 -0500, Arne Vajhøj spammed:
>>>> #"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.
>>>
>>> No, but its *correctness* is.
>>
>> No.
>
> If someone considers something I write to be a question, when that was
> not my intention, then they are considering it incorrectly. If I say "up"
> and someone misreads it as meaning "down", then surely you agree that
> *that* is incorrect? Same principle applies.
>
>> If people do consider such (and it should been obvious by now that they
>> do), then it is correct
>
> No, it isn't. By your definition, misunderstandings are literally
> impossible, because however anyone interprets something is automatically
> correct just because they interpreted it that way! That way lies madness,

We are not misunderstanding you. We know that it was not your
intention, but we still consider it to be a question to
be answered.

Arne