Re: running an external app

FROM : Peter Duniho
DATE : Tue May 27 23:30:07 2008

On May 27, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Hamish Allan wrote:

> [...]

>>> That's because you don't really believe in conceptual documentation.

>>
>> Please.  Whatever else you do or say, do NOT presume to tell me 
>> what I do or
>> do not believe in.  Your statement is false and offensively arrogant.

>
> How about this, then: "The persona you present on this list doesn't
> appear to believe in the importance of familiarity with conceptual
> documentation."


No.  There's nothing I've ever posted that ever should have been 
reasonably construed as expressing that sentiment.

Especially when you are ascribing to someone attitudes you find 
distasteful, you should be very careful about the assumptions you 
make.  Right now, you are being incredibly careless about your 
assumptions.

> [...]
> I don't see any evidence for people who have learned those design
> patterns needing little code snippets to explain what is already
> explained in the method documentation.


You mean, other than explicit statements to that effect.  I suppose 
that no matter how many people say something, if it doesn't jibe with 
your world view, it's obviously not evidence in support of what you 
don't believe in.

In any case, again you are missing the point: you make the assumption 
that the information "is already explained in the method 
documentation".  Bad assumption.

You may further make the assumption that even if it's not already 
explained, it could be done so using a human language in a 100%, 
uniformly effective way.  Again, bad assumption.

> [...]

>> So what?  That's not relevant at all to the point I'm making, 
>> never mind
>> does it refute it.

>
> Don't chop my points in half, then. The "this" in the "this is the
> very opposite" below makes more sense if it actually refers to
> something :P


It's not that the statement you wrote doesn't make semantic sense. 
It's that it has NOTHING to do with what I wrote and which you quoted.

> [...]
> Indeed; that's what the API reference is for. Horses for courses. The
> API is for people who've already read the conceptual documentation,
> and don't need to be reminded of how to invoke a method.


Please stop making assumptions.  You should _read_ what I wrote, 
instead of just assuming you know what I wrote.  I never said that 
the code sample is required to show how to invoke a method.  In fact, 
I said the opposite.

> [...]
> If you think that experts need to be reminded of what method
> invocation syntax looks like each time they read a method declaration,
> then you and I have a very different idea of what constitutes an
> expert.


From basic Logic 101: your "if/then" statement has a false 
condition, so the statement is trivially true, whether the conclusion 
is true or false.

In other words: stop putting words into my mouth.

Pete