Kudos Mr Masover

On 21/06/11 09:52, David Masover wrote:
> A quick, lazy response, because I shouldn't feed trolls anyway, and I simply
> do not have the time tonight.
>
> Anyone who believes Ilias should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that
> the "list police" (just concerned users, really) shouldn't be warning people
> not to feed the troll, watch what Ilias does here. I'll bet money that if he
> responds to this post at all, he'll be sure to point out how little of it he's
> read, and how little he respects me. Judge for yourself if that's a fair
> reaction to what I'm actually writing here, with no particular bias towards
> Ilias, though I should be biased by now.
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 20, 2011 02:26:03 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> If "Matz" would act like a Moron (in context of language-design),
>> would this mean that the "We's" would act like moron's, too?
> Probably not.
>
>> you cannot design a consistent OO language if you apply "Design by
>> Egoism". If you ignore logic and reason, just because it happens that
>> you have some warm feelings for a construct (or person), and cold
>> feelings for another one, then you apply "Design by Egoism". And this
>> will slowly degrade the language.
> This from the person who now ignores everything I say, no matter how on-topic
> and relevant, as "biased babbling" -- yet somehow has the time to _post_ a
> reply pointing it out as "biased babbling" and informing the community that he
> didn't read it.
>
>> It's his language, one will say, he has the right to do so. Well, it's
>> possibly his language, but there is something more:
>>
>> Honour!
> Actually, there's something even more than that: Fork it. IIRC, Ruby is mostly
> under the BSD license. If you really think Matz is doing a bad job, and you
> can't convince him otherwise, you are welcome to fork the language or the
> interpreter. This has been done before, with some success -- maybe in the long
> run, Matz will prefer your fork. See: YARV.
>
>> What is clear is, that this framework *requires* much from ruby - and
>> the Main Ruby Implementation (MRI, Matsumutos Ruby Implementation)
>> starts buckling.
>>
>> Several new interpreters "pop out of nowhere". There's a "professional
>> edition" of ruby, other companies implement specialized versions with
>> new garbage-collectors, and who knows how many "hidden" ones.
> Actually, one of these interpreters "popping out of nowhere" was YARV, which
> has become Ruby 1.9. It's also given us the beginnings of an actual language
> standard, which would imply that, like other established languages, Ruby could
> have any number of compliant implementations, and your code would be portable
> between them.
>
> Regardless, I don't know of anyone claiming YARV is "buckling".
>
>> Others
>> make the "scalability dictated" move to the beloved Java Language. And
>> others take the "in between solution":
>>
>> Ruby On Java On Rails.
>>
>> What a contradiction! Shouting on Java, and then using Java as the
>> foundation to execute the "better" language, JRuby, and the "better"
>> web-framework. Anyway.
> As if Ruby people like C any better? Using the JVM (not as much actual Java
> itself these days) as a lower-level basis for implementing Ruby, and providing
> a convenient API for scripting Java from Ruby, is really no different than
> using C to implement Ruby.
>
> It's Java's semantics we don't like, not its performance characteristics.
>
>> Oracle&  IBM&  Others - large scale companies, which manage to
>> cooperate (because they realize they *have* to join efforts). Not that
>> the eclipse-project is a masterpiece of liberality, but at least there
>> are processes.
>>
>> The companies surrounding ruby *fail* to do so. They do not cooperate
>> efficiently,
> So they do cooperate, just not "efficiently"? Is that what you're saying?
>
>> In the Ruby and the Rails domain, you see "big" names in the sponsor
>> list of conferences and events. But you don't see those companies
>> *collaborate* efficiently where it is most important: on the language
>> level.
> Yet your example of Oracle, IBM, and others, is an example of collaborating on
> the IDE and framework level, not the language level.
>
>> Politics everywhere, throughout the language system, an even the
>> "Rebels" (see e.g. "Rails is a Ghetto")
> Say what you will about Zed, but he has actually contributed something.
> Quite a lot of things, in fact.
>
>> I know that the people which write here publicly are *not* the so
>> called "community".
>>
>> The population of the language-system "Ruby" consists first of all
>> from the thousands of users which do *not* write here.
>>
>> They use the language, e.g. to write glue-code for their applications,
>> to control a small part of a film-production, a pre-processor, a quick-
>> prototype or something that I can't even imagine.
> Then how do they communicate? How do you have a "community" of people who
> don't talk to each other?
>
>> Professionals.
>>
>> So, where are the professionals, which focus on the technical essence
>> and which know that language-evolution has not much to do with
>> politics and "freak-shows" or "liking each other" and all this
>> nonsense?
> It does, however, require communication. Professional communication, which
> means broadening the scope beyond "Give me a seven-letter word that means
> require_relative, and don't change the subject!" It means actually discussing
> actual issues, not inventing them out of thin air and refusing to provide a
> single real scenario where they are useful.
>
> And it does mean courtesy. Not "liking each other", but common courtesy.
>
>> If you like to confirm my sayings, but you don't want to do it
>> publicly, please feel free to contact me with private email.
> Of course, because then you can come back and claim you had a lot of people
> respond to you in private.
>
> I have so far seen one person defend you, but he wasn't defending you
> personally, just didn't like the fact that people reply to your brand-new
> thread with "don't feed the troll." I suspect these are people who don't have
> experience dealing with you.
>
> To those replying: If you think I'm wrong, I do want to know about it. Please
> _do_ respond publicly, and tell me why I'm wrong. I'm willing to change my
> mind, really.
>
> Ilias, of course, will respond publicly, but won't tell me why I'm wrong.
> He'll just dismiss what I have to say out of hand. He'll even do it in so many
> words.
>
> Hey, Ilias, prove me wrong. Write a professional response, for once.
> Hell, even read my whole email -- that's a rare treat, coming from you.
>