Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored... From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/01/16 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3125443765125566@naggum.no> * Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> | OOP vocabulary is the terminology that someone who is familiar with a | multitude of OO languages would be expected to understand. precisely, and _understand_ is the operative word here. someone who believes that other languages has to have "virtual functions" just because he's used to C++, does not understand what they are in the C++ context, _either_. you help nobody by defending their pretense to know something they don't. since you continue to pretend that you have every right to post your stupid drivel about _me_, as opposed to what I do and which you _can_ observe, I can only assume that you defend your _own_ pretenses to know something you don't, not actually those of anybody else. | Just because we happen to be in a CLOS context doesn't mean we can't make | references to features of other languages like C++. "references"? the introduction was "I'm trying to figure out how to make a virtual function", and the conclusion, _long_ before there had been time to answer him, was "actually, I'm not even sure that this is possible in CL (and if it isn't, then that's a bit dissappointing)". what the hell kind of "reference to features of other languages" is that? why _is_ it necessary for you to start talking about something else that _isn't_ wrong every time you're trying to argue against my pointing out something that _is_ wrong? what do you _gain_ from twisting things around so much? I can't see _any_ constructive element to anything you're doing in your moronic defenses of specific failures to understand something. again, I think you're defending yourself, not anybody else. if we _were_ talking about references to features of other languages, there wouldn't be any issue. if you would be happy in your pretense that this is a "reference to features of other languages" and not the request for help on doing C++ particulars in CLOS that it is, there might be grounds for a discussion, but I don't think you want that. all I see from you is an immense desire to attack _me_, no matter what I do, and every time I point to a serious lack of understanding and a willingness to make unwarranted, unfounded conclusions, you rise to the defense and you prove beyond any doubt that you are the champion of the unwarranted and the unfounded conclusions in the way you attack me. would you please have somebody you listen to tell you that if you keep making false accusations against somebody, they _will_ continue to be pissed at you, because _you_ do something wrong towards _them_, no matter how morally outraged you are and no matter what you really defend. you just _don't_ get people to treat you well if you ignore their objections and continue to attack them for stuff they have already denied or which has already been disproven. only braindamaged fanatics do that. | If we can't borrow the term "virtual function", we have to say "method | that dispatches on the dynamic type", which is unnecessarily verbose. why do you pretend we "have" to say that? there's already the prefectly usable term "generic function", and there's no lack of precision to what it means. it is no more verbose than "virtual function", and it doesn't talk about CLOS in terms unique to C++. now, _why_ did you discard the term "generic function"? you _did_ know about it, didn't you? | If someone were doing a survey of programming languages, and there were a | question like "Does your language include virtual functions?", I would | answer "yes" for Common Lisp. so would I, because every person has a moral obligation to lie to stupid people who are about to do damage in order to limit that damage: "no" would be true because CLOS isn't C++, but it would be more damaging than "yes" because any idiot asking that question has no clue what he's asking about or what either "yes" or "no" would mean. all that he _could_ be after is proving that C++ is the best language, just like Bill Gates ordering _surveys_ that "prove" his point. | However, I've discovered from past conversations that you believe it's | totally wrong to make any references or analogies between programming | paradigms (it's come up in threads comparing Lisp and Perl, for instance). holy shit. you can't even _read_ something you don't agree with! why am I not surprised by your willingness to make up even _more_ moronic bullshit from what you have _not_ observed? I wouldn't trust you to be able to discover your own navel, much less any protruding body parts. | In comp.lang.lisp we must act as if no other languages exist, and woe be | unto one who lapses and mentions a term they've learned in another | environment -- the wrath of Erik will be upon them. do you learn the wrong things from everything you experience? if you break the law and get caught, you'll study how not to get caught, not how to obey the law, right? when arguing with me, you "learn" that you must press harder, be even more moronic, make even more unfounded accusations and post even more insane drivel, because I might start to _accept_ it once it gets beyond a certain acceptance threshold, is that it? (but what _am_ I doing using rhetorical devices to a guy so illiterate that he doesn't even recognize when his own position is ridiculed?) just because _you_ are incapable of dealing with what I have said about suspending one's knowledge of something else until there is a _reason_ to compare it to other knowledge on their _respective_ premises, you will wind up with meaningless comparisons (or surveys) of apples and oranges, which I have to ask you if you believe is wrong: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES AND DISCUSSING APPLENESS OF ORANGES and ORANGENESS OF APPLES IS A GOOD WAY TO LEARN ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES? if you do not, there is perhaps hope that the view might one day penetrate your thick skull that I'm arguing against the concept of using appleness as a means of judging oranges, I'm _not_ arguing against either apples or oranges, which you have stupidly concluded over and over and over. I wish you would some day grow smart enough to realize that the reason my wrath is upon you in particular is that you make so many fucking annoying accusations that do nothing but help maintain your _own_ mental image of something despite a continued flow of information that would have negated it in a _living_ brain. I have to ask: what _do_ you gain from this? if you find the wrath uncomfortable, stop accusing me of stuff you have no way of knowing and which couldn't be any more false. if you have to make stuff up, be my guest, but be _honest_ enough to know that you make it up and don't pretend that you have knowledge you don't have, and _don't_ pretend that your amazing ability to reinforce your own prejudices is any smarter than poking people in the eye to see if they will get mad at you. to conclude, I think your defense of the doofuses here is something you do only because your own amazing inability to separate conjecture from fact is under implicit attack, and I guess that if I were allowed to successfully attack the phenomenon of baseless conjectures masquerading as fact or knowledge, something _you_ do would be in serious jeopardy. in order for this not to take place, my guess is that you have to make up a demonic image of me and do your best to portray me as something I'm not and as attacking something perfectly benign that I'm _not_ attacking in order that nobody turn around and ask _you_ why you keep your projection nonsense going at full speed. people _do_ notice that you argue against something other than that which people actually say, you know. the more you keep doing it, the easier it is to expose it as a pattern of yours. I wonder what nonsense you'll get out of this and which pathetic lies you will serve the next time you feel fear of exposure or whatever it is that keeps you going. when I argued that in order to learn something that is very close to something one already knows, one must effectively suspend what one knows from the prior, similar experiences and listen to the new as if it was _all_ new, your moronic "conclusion" is "I've discovered from past conversations that you believe it's totally wrong to make any references or analogies between programming paradigms". what the fuck possessed your pathetic excuse for a brain to arrive at such an amazingly unintelligent conclusion? you used to be quite able at what you were doing, but you've become incapable of dealing even with the simplest summaries of somebody else's position! what _is_ it that gives you the right to pretend you know better than somebody else what they think? my guess is some seriously misguided piece of fundamentalist religion, but please feel free to tell me you're not a religious nut -- such have been the only kind of people to make the kind of mistake I see you do, but it would be interesting to learn if there is a more basic error than that producing fundamentalist religious beliefs at work with you. now, I can't make you stop producing insane drivel about me, and I can't stop you from lying about what I say or from arguing against something I have _not_ said in order to defend whatever it is you are afraid of having exposed or from producing summaries of my position or arguments that would have got a failing grade from anybody who can read reasonably long sentences, but I _will_ continue to show how you defend something people _don't_ do in order to detract from my legitimate criticism of something they _do_ do, and I _will_ continue to object to every single piece of insane drivel you post about me, and I _will_ continue to correct your false statements of fact when you impute words or positions to me that are in fact _contradicted_ by the easily available evidence, a modus operandi you have stuck to for quite a while. if you can't stop posting insane drivel and impute all sorts of bullshit to me, talk to somebody about it, and just get _over_ your obsession, OK? I'm getting sick of it. #:Erik