On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> Thinking something is obvious so doesn't need to be demonstrated is
>> another common traits amongst zealots.
>
> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.

That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.

> The OSS zealots
> repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just
> completely out of left field.  This is a common pathology when you have
> decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it: your
> arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
>
> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to
> try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out
> a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and
> therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.

"Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any" impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something more interesting.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.  The OSS zealots repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just completely out of left field.  This is a common pathology when you have decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it: your arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
>
> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad, just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.

You seem confused by the difference between saying something and providing conclusive evidence.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>
> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.

By whom?  It's pretty obviously the zealots.

>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
>> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to
>> try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out
>> a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and
>> therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
>
> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any" impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something more interesting.

I call it like I see it.  An impartial observer can determine if what you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or wrong tenor of their arguments and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate.  If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic and pick out a little name-calling and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.  The OSS zealots repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just completely out of left field.  This is a common pathology when you have decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it: your arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
>>
>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad, just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
>
> You seem confused by the difference between saying something and providing conclusive evidence.

That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  If you think otherwise, you are deeply confused.

On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>>
>> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
>
> By whom?  [...]
>

When communication fails, there is usually not a single side responsible for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are typically anonymous.)

>>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
>>> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to
>>> try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out
>>> a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and
>>> therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
>>
>> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if
>> that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any"
>> impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned
>> argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something
>> more interesting.
>
> I call it like I see it.

Great.

> An impartial observer can determine if what
> you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or
> wrong tenor of their arguments
> and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate.

How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association fallacy" and "fallacy of irrelevance".

> If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic
> and pick out a little name-calling
> and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
>

Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the name-calling instead of arguments when summarizing the past discussion. In case any valuable arguments were part of that discussion then I'd advise to pick out those instead and put them in a coherent form.

> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.  The OSS zealots
>>> repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just
>>> completely out of left field.  This is a common pathology when you
>>> have decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it:
>>> your arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
>>>
>>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
>>> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments
>>> to try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to
>>> carve out a place for open source.  You may agree with their
>>> conclusion and therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial
>>> observer wouldn't.
>>
>> You seem confused by the difference between saying something and
>> providing conclusive evidence.
>
> That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  If you think otherwise, you are
> deeply confused.

(Please do not mess up the threading.)

Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 13:23:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>>>
>>> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
>>
>> By whom?  [...]
>>
>
> When communication fails, there is usually not a single side responsible for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are typically anonymous.)

Except that trolling has nothing to do with communication failure and one would think those zealots are the ones trolling, despite using what are presumably their real names, because of how dumb their arguments are.

>>> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if
>>> that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any"
>>> impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned
>>> argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something
>>> more interesting.
>>
>> I call it like I see it.
>
> Great.

Except that you then criticize me for "personal attacks" and name-calling, make up your mind.

>> An impartial observer can determine if what
>> you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or
>> wrong tenor of their arguments
>> and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate.
>
> How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association fallacy" and "fallacy of irrelevance".

I don't think you know what "incidental" means. :) In any case, if you can't see that they make several statements that are just factually wrong, I don't know what to tell you.  If you are so ignorant that you don't even know the facts, there can be no discussion, which is why I bailed on that thread.

>> If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic
>> and pick out a little name-calling
>> and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
>>
>
> Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the name-calling instead of arguments when summarizing the past discussion. In case any valuable arguments were part of that discussion then I'd advise to pick out those instead and put them in a coherent form.

I called them what they are, zealots, which isn't really name-calling but an accurate description, and noted one of their main dumb arguments, so I did both.  I'm not going to summarize that thread for you: either read it or don't.  I could care less either way, because you seem to make almost as many mistakes as them.

>> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> You seem confused by the difference between saying something and
>>> providing conclusive evidence.
>>
>> That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  If you think otherwise, you are
>> deeply confused.
>
> (Please do not mess up the threading.)

Responses to the two of you are best lumped together.  I don't like it when people like you spam threads with multiple separate short responses to every other response in the thread.  This is better.

> Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.

Except there was little reasoning in my above two sentences, only two statements about the other thread.  The "critical audience" is not the problem, as you haven't been able to muster a "critical" response to any actual arguments in that thread.  All you two do is make a bunch of dumb twits about the tone or character of the other thread, so I'll leave this "meta-discussion" here, as you two are clearly incapable of dealing with my actual arguments.

On 09/04/2013 08:00 PM, Joakim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 13:23:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>>>>
>>>> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
>>>
>>> By whom?  [...]
>>>
>>
>> When communication fails, there is usually not a single side
>> responsible for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are typically
>> anonymous.)
>
> Except that trolling has nothing to do with communication failure

Good trolling is often _indistinguishable_ from communication failure.

> ...
>
>>>> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if
>>>> that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any"
>>>> impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned
>>>> argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something
>>>> more interesting.
>>>
>>> I call it like I see it.
>>
>> Great.
>
> Except that you then criticize me

I don't criticize people, I question arguments. If you think these two things should be conflated, I beg you to reconsider.

> for "personal attacks" and name-calling, [...]
> ...

There are multiple possibilities to replace the above statement in a way I would disapprove of, eg:

- "I call it like I don't see it."

- "I state inevitable fact."

>>> An impartial observer can determine if what
>>> you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or
>>> wrong tenor of their arguments
>>> and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are
>>> accurate.
>>
>> How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly
>> incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association fallacy" and
>> "fallacy of irrelevance".
>
> [...] what "incidental" means. :)

It means: "Occurring by chance in connection with something else." A possible reason informal reasoning makes use of heuristics is that they often work by chance in some evolutionary relevant contexts.

> [...]they make several statements that are just factually
> wrong, [...]

IIRC you more or less successfully debunk some factually wrong statements. Not all of them were actually made, though.

> If you [...] don't [...] know the facts, there can be no discussion,

One of the points of a discussion is to exchange facts and to widen one's understanding of different viewpoints.

> which is why I bailed on that thread.
> ...

There are less intrusive ways of doing that.

>>> If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic
>>> and pick out a little name-calling
>>> and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
>>>
>>
>> Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the name-calling
>> instead of arguments when summarizing the past discussion. In case any
>> valuable arguments were part of that discussion then I'd advise to
>> pick out those instead and put them in a coherent form.
>
> I called them what they are,

As I see it it is irrelevant in a discussion how anyone may classify anyone else taking part in that discussion. It is often even irrelevant who those people are. I'm just saying that if the goal is to make one's reasoning and opinions available to a potential reader, making it inconvenient to read and seemingly irrelevant is not the way to go.

> [...] which isn't really name-calling
> but an accurate description,

:o)

> and noted one of their main [...] arguments,
>  so I did both.

No point can be made by noting that one hasn't made a specific fallacious argument or by noting that somebody has defended another point poorly.

> [...]
>>> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> You seem confused by the difference between saying something and
>>>> providing conclusive evidence.
>>>
>>> That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  [...]
>>
>> (Please do not mess up the threading.)
> [...]
>> Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find
>> resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.
>
> Except there was little reasoning in my above two sentences, only two
> statements about the other thread.

Exactly. (Or rather, one statement about the other thread and one irrelevant statement about a community member.)

So a point of contention appears to be that some assume that evidence should be given in the form of reasoning or at least be accompanied by reasoning, whereas others don't?

> [...] I'll leave this "meta-discussion" here, as you two are clearly
> incapable of dealing with

Typically the ones incapable of dealing with something leave.

> my actual arguments.

What actual arguments are there? ("Go look for them yourself." is not a valid answer.)

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 18:00:21 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.
>
> Except there was little reasoning in my above two sentences, only two statements about the other thread.

That, my friend, is called autodestruction.

Now I'll have to invoke Poe's law and get out that thread.

The linux user ended up heading the art team so we didn't test on that
environment.
Ideally the Linux user would like D support in KDevelop. Monodevelop is
acceptable but a bit clunky.



On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-09-01 04:05, Manu wrote:
>
>  Naturally, this is primarily a problem with the windows experience, but
>> it's so frustrating that it is STILL a problem... how many years later?
>> People don't want to 'do work' to install a piece of software. Rather,
>> they expect it to 'just work'. We lost about 6 hours trying to get
>> everyone's machines working properly.
>> In the context of a 48 hour game jam, that's a terrible sign! I just
>> kept promising people that it would save time overall... which I wish
>> were true.
>>
>
> Was this only on Windows or were there problems on Linux/Mac OS X as well?
>
>
>  Getting a workable environment:
>>
>> Unsurprisingly, the Linux user was the only person happy work with a makefile. Everybody else wanted a comfortable IDE solution (and the linux user would prefer it too).
>>
>
> I can understand that.
>
>
>  IDE integration absolutely needs to be considered a first class feature
>> of D.
>> I also suggest that the IDE integration downloads should be hosted on
>> the dlang download page so they are obvious and available to everyone
>> without having to go looking, and also as a statement that they are
>> actually endorsed by the dlanguage authorities. As an end-user, you're
>> not left guessing which ones are good/bad/out of date/actually work/etc.
>>
>
> I completely agree.
>
>
>  Obviously, we settled on Visual-D (Windows) and Mono-D (OSX/Linux); the
>> only realistic choices available.
>>
>
> There's also DDT with Eclipse. It supports auto completion, go to definition, has an outline view and so on.
>
>
>  The OSX user would have preferred an  XCode integration.
>>
>
> This one is a bit problematic since Xcode doesn't officially supports plugins. But it's still possible, as been shown by Michel Fortin with his D for Xcode plugin.
>
>  One more thing:
>> I'll just pick one language complaint from the weekend.
>> It is how quickly classes became disorganised and difficult to navigate
>> (like Java and C#).
>> We all wanted to ability to define class member functions outside the
>> class definition:
>>    class MyClass
>>    {
>>      void method();
>>    }
>>
>>    void MyClass.method()
>>    {
>>      //...
>>    }
>>
>> It definitely cost us time simply trying to understand the class layout
>> visually (ie, when IDE support is barely available).
>> You don't need to see the function bodies in the class definition, you
>> want to quickly see what a class has and does.
>>
>
> Sounds like you want an outline view in the IDE. This is supported by DDT in Eclipse. Even TextMate on Mac OS X has a form of outline view.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg
>

>
> Screw makefiles. dub[1] is the way to go. Dead easy to configure [2] and dead easy to use. A default debug build on the command line is "dub build", or even just "dub".
>
> [1] http://code.dlang.org/packages/dub
> [2] http://code.dlang.org/package-format

dub + Geany is my combination of choice. Great for cross platform - I'm using the same source tree to build across Windows, Linux and FreeBSD.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 20:27:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 23:20:37 +1000
> Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 September 2013 17:46, Nick Sabalausky <
>> SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:45:48 +0200
>> > "Kapps" <opantm2+spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> > > > One more thing:
>> > > > I'll just pick one language complaint from the weekend.
>> > > > It is how quickly classes became disorganised and difficult to
>> > > > navigate
>> > > > (like Java and C#).
>> > > > We all wanted to ability to define class member functions
>> > > > outside the class
>> > > > definition:
>> > > >   class MyClass
>> > > >   {
>> > > >     void method();
>> > > >   }
>> > > >
>> > > >   void MyClass.method()
>> > > >   {
>> > > >     //...
>> > > >   }
>> > > >
>> > > > It definitely cost us time simply trying to understand the
>> > > > class layout
>> > > > visually (ie, when IDE support is barely available).
>> > > > You don't need to see the function bodies in the class
>> > > > definition, you want
>> > > > to quickly see what a class has and does.
>> > >
>> > > This isn't something I've found to be an issue personally, but I
>> > > suppose it's a matter of what you're used to. Since I'm used to
>> > > C#, I haven't had problems with this. I've always felt that this
>> > > was the IDE's job, personally. That being said, perhaps .di files
>> > > could help with this?
>> >
>> > I see it as the job of doc generators.
>> >
>> 
>> Why complicate the issue? What's wrong with readable code?
>> 
>
> I spent several years using C/C++ exclusively (and was happy with it
> at the time) and I still don't understand what's "readable" about having
> a class's members separate from the class itself. It's also a non-DRY
> maintenance PITA and one of the biggest reasons I left C/C++.
>
> I don't like complicating things, and I like readable code. That's
> why I find C++-style class definitions intolerable.
>

I also hate them. It is always a pain to get back to C and C++ land with double
header and implementation files, specially after being spoiled with languages that have proper module support.