From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <5imhdo$hvj@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
John Ousterhout (······@tcl.eng.sun.com) wrote:
: In article <··········@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, ········@Bayou.UH.EDU (········@bayou.uh.edu) writes:
: |> ...
: |>
: |> As for Tcl, it's there for one reason and one reason only -- strong
: |> corporate backing. We've got a powerful company that wants to
: |> make a quick buck and therefore is using its clout to force
: |> Tcl down our throats. This is the same tactic used by charlatans
: |> like Micro$oft. Indeed that's the only possible explanation
: |> as to why a glorified text preprocessor would even get a second
: |> look -- that and the fact that it is riding on the coattails
: |> of Tk.
: Sorry for taking so long to respond to this comment, but I couldn't stop
: laughing long enough to compose a response.
Is that also the reason why you didn't bother answering any of the
numerous posts that raised very legitimate questions about your
motivations, and Tcl in general?
I find it very interesting that you ignored all these interesting
posts, and when you chose to followup, you chose a followup where
you cut everything except one passage that necessitated nothing
more than a smug response on your behalf.
You know, if I didn't know any better I'd say you were avoiding
the other posts. I wonder why?
: I wish your accusation were
: true, but I'm afraid you are a bit out of touch. Apparently you haven't
: heard of a language called Java, which is the main thing Sun is pushing
: these days?
Gee Java, what's that? Yes I know about Java, how on Earth could
anyone not know about Java? Java this, Java that. Yes, for the
love of Shub Niggurath -- the goat with a thousand young, I know
about Java!
Could you tell that the Java hype is getting to me just a wee
bit?
: We're a small player in comparison. Also, how do you explain
: the 100,000 or so people who learned Tcl while I was still a lowly
: professor at Berkeley? Was that just a powerful university trying to
: make a quick buck and using its clout to force Tcl down people's throats?
Ok, pay attention Mr. Ousterhout, I'm about to do something that you've
been avoiding all along. I'm about to directly address an issue
relating to something I said! Yes, pay close attention so that you'll
know what to do if you actually decide to do this yourself (as
unlikely as that may seem):
My statement was exxagerated. I still maintain that Tcl does have
corporate backing, but my comparison with M$ and statements about
having it rammed down our throats was an (unintentional) exxageration.
Indeed, comparing any organization with M$ is the sort of thing
that should be done with extreme care, and in doing this, I have
unjustly insulted Sun, which has not done anything (yet) to warrant
the kind of contempt bred by Bill & Co. I'm no fan of Sun, but
comparing them to M$ is very unfair.
There, I have admitted my mistake, are you man enough to admit yours?
[Snip]
: Yes, I mean "we". Many many people have participated
: in this sinister plot, including Larry Wall, Dennis Ritchie, Bill Gates,
: the Bureau of ATF, most of the LAPD, and Mark Fuhrman (sorry you guys, but
: the truth has overwhelmed me so I've been forced to expose you). I feel
: just terrible at how I have set the programming world back, and I promise
: to be a good boy from now on.
I'm very glad that you are enjoying this Mr. Ousterhout. You've
blundered, people are criticizing you, and you are in a position
where you can learn something, possibly even do something to further
computing, yet you just take this as a joke.
I'm very happy that you find this funny.
: Now that that's over with, you can all get back to work now.
Yes, I'm sure you have a few more "gems" to release to the reading
public.
--
Cya,
Ahmed
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3070103559376281@naggum.no>
* John Ousterhout
| Unfortunately, it isn't really possible to sustain a coherent debate on a
| hot topic via unmoderated newsgroups. The discussion very quickly
| fragments into dozens of sub-topics that drift off the main thread of
| discussion.
it might be instructive to consider which measures are used in "real life"
to maintain coherent debates in a cacophony of protests and more or less
valid arguments. in my experience, the primary measure is for those who
wish to maintain the coherent debates to focus _only_ on the best parts of
the discussion. those who do not wish to maintain any coherent debates are
the first to complain that _others_ don't and that they, therefore, can't
reign in the crowds or just speak their minds without some authority figure
like a moderator. if you complain about the noise, you _are_ the noise.
life in general _is_ noise. intelligence is filtering out the information
from the plethora of irrelevancies that bombards us. USENET is an amazing
experiment in how people choose to think when they have to _recreate_ the
opinions and arguments of others by _reading_ and _interpreting_ them in
their own minds. some see only ad hominem arguments (and most of those who
do seem to be ignorant of what "argumentum ad hominem" actually means),
while others see technical debates with lots of emotions in the argumetns,
and focus on the technical issues. e.g., if one writes "you'd have to an
idiot to argue that point", some will read this as "he called him an idiot"
while others will read it as "he's fed up with ignorant spluts who can't
even bother to do their homework", while yet others will read it as "in his
mind, that point is an absolute" and decide how to read his other points
based on whether it really is a settled issue or not. there's an old adage
that goes something like this: "be careful of whom you allow to insult you".
of course, there are also liars and frauds on the Net, like everywhere
else. I think this is a relevant character issue insofar as one points out
that people do not argue truthfully. if someone has a hidden agenda, it
should be brought out in the open for others to see. untruthfulness is not
an argumentum ad hominem if it is the _arguments_ that are untruthful.
| I'm too swamped to respond to each of the hundreds of arguments that have
| been made (many of which do have merit), and if I did, each of those
| responses would generate 30 more counter-responses that would be even
| harder to respond to.
no wonder you're swamped -- you choose to be! most of us learn to deal
with noise-makers pretty fast and to ignore them. if you don't, of course
you're going to run into all sorts of problems. this is what focus and
concentration is all about. barring, of course, the reduced cognitive
abilities of mild schizophrenia or attention deficit disorder, but there's
no reason to expect such in somebody who can focus long enough to get _any_
product out the door and complete a serious academic carreer.
I've seen you respond with ridicule to lots of arguments. that would be OK
only if one was in a well-established position of superiority. such has
_not_ been established by you. ridiculing an opponent is a very dangerous
rhetorical technique -- if the opponent is proven right and ignores the
ridicule to continue to hammer down his points, he who has committed the
ridicule is left as the laughing stock. right now, I'm having the distinct
impression that you have left yourself in a very unenviable position by
ridiculing only the most incoherent of your critics, ignoring lots of
coherent arguments, and then arguing that you're swamped! by not answering
technical points and instead turning to rhetorical tricks, you have
yourself contributed to the voluminous flow of irrelevancy.
| Or, look at it this way: if I don't respond then you get the last word :-)
I wish you could be serious a little more than you seem to want to be. if
you were as superior to your critics as you seem to think you are, it would
not have been a problem to debunk the serious arguments without smileys or
ridicule. of course, it is possible to be superior to one's critics and
use smileys and ridicule, but then it would not behoove one to complain
that others aren't presenting serious technical arguments.
#\Erik
--
I'm no longer young enough to know everything.
From: ozan s. yigit
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <x6k9m1wzic.fsf@ds9.rnd.border.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes [amongst many other things] in
response to John Ousterhout:
> ... right now, I'm having the distinct
> impression that you have left yourself in a very unenviable position by
> ridiculing only the most incoherent of your critics, ignoring lots of
> coherent arguments, and then arguing that you're swamped! by not answering
> technical points and instead turning to rhetorical tricks, you have
> yourself contributed to the voluminous flow of irrelevancy.
it is worth noting that ousterhout did respond over the years to many
pieces of criticism, on usenet and elsewhere. sometimes technical solutions
came as a result; consider the byte-code compiled tcl in 8.0.
people who have strong criticisms [and those who actually understand the
meaning of the word] have the obligation to do some homework and see if such
criticisms have been responded to in the past. life is too short to have to
re-respond to the same old bits again and again, and not everyone has
tom christiansen's stamina. :)
oz
··@ds9.rnd.border.com (ozan s. yigit) writes:
> life is too short to have to re-respond to the same old bits again
> and again, and not everyone has tom christiansen's stamina. :)
sorry ozan, you were fouled:
the Tom Christiansen on c.l.p. is an AI perl program
(gb:)
From: Abigail
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <E8up6D.GM8@nonexistent.com>
On 18 Apr 1997 11:38:56 +0200, giacomo boffi wrote in
comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.scheme.scsh,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.eiffel <URL: ···················@boffi95.stru.polimi.it>:
++ ··@ds9.rnd.border.com (ozan s. yigit) writes:
++ > life is too short to have to re-respond to the same old bits again
++ > and again, and not everyone has tom christiansen's stamina. :)
++
++ sorry ozan, you were fouled:
++
++ the Tom Christiansen on c.l.p. is an AI perl program
++
And that shows the power of Perl.
Abigail