--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:38:19AM +0900, Mike Stephens wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote in post #1000266:
> > but it is *not* vital to explain to some
> > Microsoft obsessed shitbird why you are using Ruby to interact with an
> > XLS file rather than doing it "by hand" in Excel.
>=20
> The trouble with you Chad is you always manage to miss the point.

That's funny, considering you have, apparently, completely missed the
point of the original query in favor of criticizing someone's need for a
solution to the problem of programmatically generating spreadsheet
formulae in Ruby rather than just using Excel.


>=20
> No-one on this thread has mentioned doing it by hand. The issue was
> whether or not to use Windows OLE rather than a Linux environment, given
> that the end-product is for Windows users, and that it is does what Will
> wants  - unlike his Linux solution.

I'm not sure you're reading all that closely:

>>>>>> Daniel Berger wrote in post #999984:
>>>>>>> On May 20, 3:36pm, Mike Stephens <rub... / recitel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still fascinated why you are doing sophisticated things with
>>>>>>>> Excel (not Open Office) but steadfastly refuse to load it on
>>>>>>>> your computer.  Windows and Excel can be purchased for the price
>>>>>>>> of a monitor. You gain ownership of software that costs hundreds
>>>>>>>> and hundreds of millions to develop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why fanny around with some Micky Mouse spreadsheet gem when you
>>>>>>>> can have the Full Monty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if he had it installed locally, I'm guessing that he would want
>>>>>>> to generate the document in code since generating it by hand would =
be
>>>>>>> cumbersome. In addition, the spreadsheet gem works on any platform
>>>>>>> (last I checked).

Of course, I didn't read back too far in the thread -- because I didn't
keep an archive of the entire thread before that point.  It's possible I
lost some reference to a subject that made it clear Daniel's discussion
of "generating it by hand" was in error, but I think it's at least as
possible you're just full of it, given your attitude.


>=20
> I'm not Microsoft obsessed. The simple fact is it is the Linga Franca
> of the computing world. Linux is only on a tiny minority of desktops.
> So it's natural to question why someone would choose to go down a such
> a route when Windows is what most other people would be using.

It's not "natural" to criticize someone for writing software that allows
people to accomplish things on their OSes of choice.  Try to avoid
trolling by criticizing people's platform choices in circumstances like
this, and you won't have people pointing out that you sound like you're
obsessed with microsoft.


>=20
> Will has said his colleagues just happen to be avid Linux fans so
> that's fair enough.  That answers the question.

You didn't have a question.  You had non-constructive criticism.  Try
reading what you type after you're done typing it before sending it,
unless your actual goal is to be an abrasive asshole.  The latter seems
likely, given the fact that I frankly don't even know who you are, but
you clearly chose to treat me like some kind of mortal enemy.


>=20
> I know on this channel I will get the anti-Microsoft lobby. Fortunately
> I don't get it at work.

If you didn't come off as anti-anything-but-Microsoft with some of your
responses, you probably wouldn't get "anti-Microsoft" responses.  Of
course, my response was not "anti-Microsoft": it simply treated your
response as unreasonably demanding that people buy software they don't
want.

>
> Professional programmers grudgingly accept that .NET has bugs and the
> usual MS baggage but probably is a better bet than say Java for
> mainstream e-business. Sadly people rarely have an opinion on Ruby.

I've fed the troll enough already.  I'll just stop there.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3cJfgACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWnogCePAKtou2SfPuGbRecRHikDXK8
1LAAnRS9TwsA3FlFIqwkoGWtFeUl3pTy
=XE4Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:38:19AM +0900, Mike Stephens wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote in post #1000266:
> > but it is *not* vital to explain to some
> > Microsoft obsessed shitbird why you are using Ruby to interact with an
> > XLS file rather than doing it "by hand" in Excel.
>=20
> The trouble with you Chad is you always manage to miss the point.

That's funny, considering you have, apparently, completely missed the
point of the original query in favor of criticizing someone's need for a
solution to the problem of programmatically generating spreadsheet
formulae in Ruby rather than just using Excel.


>=20
> No-one on this thread has mentioned doing it by hand. The issue was
> whether or not to use Windows OLE rather than a Linux environment, given
> that the end-product is for Windows users, and that it is does what Will
> wants  - unlike his Linux solution.

I'm not sure you're reading all that closely:

>>>>>> Daniel Berger wrote in post #999984:
>>>>>>> On May 20, 3:36pm, Mike Stephens <rub... / recitel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still fascinated why you are doing sophisticated things with
>>>>>>>> Excel (not Open Office) but steadfastly refuse to load it on
>>>>>>>> your computer.  Windows and Excel can be purchased for the price
>>>>>>>> of a monitor. You gain ownership of software that costs hundreds
>>>>>>>> and hundreds of millions to develop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why fanny around with some Micky Mouse spreadsheet gem when you
>>>>>>>> can have the Full Monty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if he had it installed locally, I'm guessing that he would want
>>>>>>> to generate the document in code since generating it by hand would =
be
>>>>>>> cumbersome. In addition, the spreadsheet gem works on any platform
>>>>>>> (last I checked).

Of course, I didn't read back too far in the thread -- because I didn't
keep an archive of the entire thread before that point.  It's possible I
lost some reference to a subject that made it clear Daniel's discussion
of "generating it by hand" was in error, but I think it's at least as
possible you're just full of it, given your attitude.


>=20
> I'm not Microsoft obsessed. The simple fact is it is the Linga Franca
> of the computing world. Linux is only on a tiny minority of desktops.
> So it's natural to question why someone would choose to go down a such
> a route when Windows is what most other people would be using.

It's not "natural" to criticize someone for writing software that allows
people to accomplish things on their OSes of choice.  Try to avoid
trolling by criticizing people's platform choices in circumstances like
this, and you won't have people pointing out that you sound like you're
obsessed with microsoft.


>=20
> Will has said his colleagues just happen to be avid Linux fans so
> that's fair enough.  That answers the question.

You didn't have a question.  You had non-constructive criticism.  Try
reading what you type after you're done typing it before sending it,
unless your actual goal is to be an abrasive asshole.  The latter seems
likely, given the fact that I frankly don't even know who you are, but
you clearly chose to treat me like some kind of mortal enemy.


>=20
> I know on this channel I will get the anti-Microsoft lobby. Fortunately
> I don't get it at work.

If you didn't come off as anti-anything-but-Microsoft with some of your
responses, you probably wouldn't get "anti-Microsoft" responses.  Of
course, my response was not "anti-Microsoft": it simply treated your
response as unreasonably demanding that people buy software they don't
want.

>
> Professional programmers grudgingly accept that .NET has bugs and the
> usual MS baggage but probably is a better bet than say Java for
> mainstream e-business. Sadly people rarely have an opinion on Ruby.

I've fed the troll enough already.  I'll just stop there.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3cJfgACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWnogCePAKtou2SfPuGbRecRHikDXK8
1LAAnRS9TwsA3FlFIqwkoGWtFeUl3pTy
=XE4Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----