Types, types: static vs. dynamic -- 
Author Message
 Types, types: static vs. dynamic --

Quote:
>From: Piercarlo Grandi
>Ah, I see that the competition for "inanity of the year in comp.object"=
>is still going on. However I am sure that you can do better than this!

The competition 'arrogant postings to comp.lang.Smalltalk' is over.
You have won it with a wide margin. In time you will realize that the
discussions you think you have "won" ended because people have
gotten so disgusted with your tone.

/Niklas

_________________________________________________
Niklas Bjornerstedt
Entra Data AB, Sweden       tel: +46-8-80 97 00
Gustavslundsv. 151 G           fax: +46-8-26 04 76



Sat, 09 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Types, types: static vs. dynamic --

Quote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:52:00 +0100, "Bjornerstedt, Niklas"


From: Piercarlo Grandi
pcg> Ah, I see that the competition for "inanity of the year in comp.object"
pcg> is still going on. However I am sure that you can do better than this!

Bjornerstedt,> The competition 'arrogant postings to
Bjornerstedt,> comp.lang.smalltalk' is over.  You have won it with a
Bjornerstedt,> wide margin. In time you will realize that the
Bjornerstedt,> discussions you think you have "won" ended because people
Bjornerstedt,> have gotten so disgusted with your tone.

I personally find it arrogant to use a holier-than-thou tone like yours,
and to the religious claims of some other posters.

Conversely I don't think that sarcasm is arrogant, but rather a device
that conveys the message that some opinion is not merely wrong, but
fatuously, ludicrously so. And when this is the case I don't just make a
pronouncement of truth, as you and others do, but always append a
careful technical justification, expending quite a bit of effort in
looking up references, typing in quotes, in order to justify my use of
sarcasm, and this I did in the rest of my discussion, the part which you
did not quote. I try hard never to lose my patience, and I always try to
discuss, not just condemn, the various inanities I often read.

This to me is rather the contrary of arrogance. But some think
otherwise, and think that summary judgments from above are more proper.
Cool.



Sun, 10 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Types, types: static vs. dynamic -- classification

2. Types, types: static vs. dynamic -- classification

3. Types, types: static vs. dynamic -- classification

4. Flying With Python (Strong versus Weak Typing) [actually, Static vs Dynamic typing]

5. Static vs Dynamic Typing: Effects on Productivity?

6. Dynamic vs. static type checking

7. Static vs Dynamic Typing: Effects on Productivity?

8. Static vs Dynamic Typing: Effects on Productivity?

9. Static vs Dynamic Typing: Effects on Productivity?

10. Dynamic vs static typing: impact on modelling capabilities

11. static vs dynamic/soft typing

12. static vs. dynamic typing (again, again)

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software