Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 23 Jul 2010 17:53

> David Mark wrote:
>> library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
>> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
>> Kenny who fits all three).

Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!

kt

ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?: http://teamalgebra.com/

pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity? Libraries are
easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css. Do an
application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.

k

--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 18:23
On Jul 23, 5:53 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > David Mark wrote:
> >> library.  That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
> >> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
> >> Kenny who fits all three).
>
> Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!

You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.

[...]

>
> ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
> part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/

Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
your future as a grease spot.

>
> pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?

Yes.

> Libraries are
> easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.

Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
*you*, you've just performed your one trick again.

> Do an
> application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.
>

And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
to build a desktop-like application (among many other things). Is it
your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
cobbling them together to form an application?

If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
cobble together applications with jQueryUI? And why would anyone use
such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
applications? It seems to me that (once again) you've got the wrong
end of the stick.
From: Kenneth Tilton on 23 Jul 2010 18:54
David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:53 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
>>>> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
>>>> Kenny who fits all three).
>> Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!
>
> You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
> and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.
>
> [...]
>
>> ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
>> part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/
>
> Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
> the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
> your future as a grease spot.
>
>> pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Libraries are
>> easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.
>
> Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
> a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
> something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
> *you*, you've just performed your one trick again.
>
>> Do an
>> application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.
>>
>
> And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
> that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
> to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).

yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz I did look and I did not see much. Maybe take
a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?

> Is it
> your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
> cobbling them together to form an application?

Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?

>
> If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
> clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
> cobble together applications with jQueryUI?
> And why would anyone use
> such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
> applications?

So they can save their energy for the applications. Do I have to teach
you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
not know it. Yet.


kt


--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 19:13
On Jul 23, 6:54 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 5:53 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> David Mark wrote:
> >>>> library.  That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
> >>>> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
> >>>> Kenny who fits all three).
> >> Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!
>
> > You are certainly a hat trick.  Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
> > and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.
>
> > [...]
>
> >> ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
> >> part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/
>
> > Yes.  Yes, they do.  Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
> > the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat.  Best of luck with
> > your future as a grease spot.
>
> >> pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> Libraries are
> >> easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.
>
> > Let me see if I get this straight.  Sometimes, late in the day, I get
> > a little tired and confused.  Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
> > something like My Library is *easy*?  Assuming that means easy for
> > *you*, you've just performed your one trick again.
>
> >> Do an
> >> application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors..
>
> > And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
> > that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
> > to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).
>
> yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz

Definitely. Cuz.

> I did look and I did not see much.

I'd look again. :)

> Maybe take
> a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?

Are you blind too? Well, that can't be as you've made your contempt
for blind people well know. Just another TV baby. :)

>
> >  Is it
> > your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
> > cobbling them together to form an application?
>
> Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
> a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?

Can your algebra tutorial play chess at all?

>
>
>
> > If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
> > clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
> > cobble together applications with jQueryUI?
> >  And why would anyone use
> > such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
> > applications?
>
> So they can save their energy for the applications.

Those must be some energy-sapping applications they have in mind.
They've been waiting forever. I recently saw a comment to the effect
of: what can we do except donate more more? Of course, that was
likely a shill as they claimed to have just sent another $100. :)

Keep pumping in quarters. The game will start eventually.

> Do I have to teach
> you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
> not know it. Yet.
>

IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
ExtJS or whatever). They're hooked on feeling, high on
believing... ;)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 23 Jul 2010 20:03
David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:54 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 5:53 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>> library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
>>>>>> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
>>>>>> Kenny who fits all three).
>>>> Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!
>>> You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
>>> and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.
>>> [...]
>>>> ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
>>>> part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/
>>> Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
>>> the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
>>> your future as a grease spot.
>>>> pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
>>> Yes.
>>>> Libraries are
>>>> easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.
>>> Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
>>> a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
>>> something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
>>> *you*, you've just performed your one trick again.
>>>> Do an
>>>> application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.
>>> And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
>>> that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
>>> to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).
>> yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz
>
> Definitely. Cuz.
>
>> I did look and I did not see much.
>
> I'd look again. :)
>
>> Maybe take
>> a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?
>
> Are you blind too? Well, that can't be as you've made your contempt
> for blind people well know. Just another TV baby. :)
>
>>> Is it
>>> your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
>>> cobbling them together to form an application?
>> Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
>> a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?
>
> Can your algebra tutorial play chess at all?
>
>>
>>
>>> If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
>>> clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
>>> cobble together applications with jQueryUI?
>>> And why would anyone use
>>> such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
>>> applications?
>> So they can save their energy for the applications.
>
> Those must be some energy-sapping applications they have in mind.
> They've been waiting forever. I recently saw a comment to the effect
> of: what can we do except donate more more? Of course, that was
> likely a shill as they claimed to have just sent another $100. :)
>
> Keep pumping in quarters. The game will start eventually.
>
>> Do I have to teach
>> you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
>> not know it. Yet.
>>
>
> IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
> ExtJS or whatever). They're hooked on feeling, high on
> believing... ;)


I am sorry, you have had your three flames for the today. See you tomorrow*.

kt

* You might consider my Platinum Plan if you think you will want this
level of abuse regularly.

--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)