4 ms·

>>I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses. Which were that you made wild claims about stuff you obviously know nothing. >>I actu

>>I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses. Which were that you made wild claims about stuff you obviously know nothing. >>I actually haven't made a single claim about Perl :-) In the same comment you make explicit claims about what is part of "real" Perl and what is not: >>My main point is that you could brand anything you want as Perl. It doesn't have to still be Perl to be called Perl. (Quite fun, considering that programmable language extensions have been on CPAN (/in the Perl binary) for lots of years!) Originally, I reacted to this claim about what is "real" Perl: >>even though the modern language has [..] standard computer science constructs like OOP and Unicode etc that require coding against a different abstraction than Perl. That is not [ignorant] claims about Perl?! (There are more examples.) Again: The Perl Unicode support is one of the best of the scripting languages -- and todays std OO (Moo[se]) is arguably better than the other scripting languages. And OO has been in Perl 5 since the start (1990s). TL;DR: 1. TRIVIALLY bad claims. 2. Long messages without touching the bad claims. 3. "I never made any claims at all".

logicallee 12y ago
In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring to "So go troll on some subject you know". Your way of parsing my reference as referring to your second sentence is extremely bizarre, though possible if you were hasty. If every variable is a reference to an object, that would be a different abstraction from Perl. "The modern language" refers to my hypothetical language which has nothing to do with Perl. My entire post refers to something hypothetical, which is why you state that it was written about 'something else'. We are not arguing, and I'm not making any claims about Perl. I am talking about a hypothetical language in which writing any normal Perl fails with a syntax error.
- BugBrother 12y ago
  >>In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring You wrote "I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses." Which was what I discussed. (I did have a 2nd parenthesis, too.) >>I'm not making any claims about Perl. I quoted you twice as saying two old language features, which are probably best among the std scripting languages, goes against being Perl. At least one of those features is from the 1990s. That might mean something different than making claims, but you have carefully not touched it, despite multiple opportunities (while being both called "troll" and down voted over that).
  - logicallee 12y ago
    I've flagged this as well, for your argumentative style, specifically that you write: >despite multiple opportunities while being both called "troll" and down voted over that This style of discussion is not normal here. Nobody but you has called me a troll, because that goes against our community guidelines. Please read the guidelines. Until then you will not receive more replies from me. If you pay a bit of attention you will note that this community is much more civil than you may be used to from elsewhere. ("But why??" - I hope if you give it some thought you can appreciate the broader context that there is insight to be gained from discussion, as shown by congresses of minds from Athens to the Royal Society, from the Continental Congress to the National Academy of Sciences, all of which have shown that amazing things can be borne of civil discourse. Whether you think you have anything to gain from anyone else's opinion is up to you to decide. Engaging in name-calling, cheap argumentative tricks (as repeated here), and willful misinterpreting is not up to you. Please read the guidelines and contribute or ask honest questions, rather than attack. You are very welcome to express a differing opinion, of course, as long as it is done in civil terms.)
    - BugBrother 12y ago
      Sigh, I'll just note that you missed yet another opportunity to explain your strange statements that some of Perl 5's older and stronger features are not Perly. (You even quoted part of my comment where I discussed that.) But it is informative with indignation, while repeatedly refusing to discuss criticism.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - BugBrother 12y ago
      On consideration, this was interesting. You are called troll because of stupid statements on basic points. You refuse to talk about WHY you are stamped a troll in multiple comments -- instead you complain in big blocks of text about impoliteness! This is a common troll strategy, but does it really work? Do a causal reader miss that you refuse to talk about why you are called troll -- and just see two people complaining about each others? Edit: So your smoke screen of complaints will change my behavior. :-) The next troll with your strategy will just get a note that he refuses to touch why he is called troll + link.

logicallee 12y ago

In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring to "So go troll on some subject you know". Your way of parsing my reference as referring to your second sentence is extremely bizarre, though possible if you were hasty. If every variable is a reference to an object, that would be a different abstraction from Perl. "The modern language" refers to my hypothetical language which has nothing to do with Perl. My entire post refers to something hypothetical, which is why you state that it was written about 'something else'. We are not arguing, and I'm not making any claims about Perl. I am talking about a hypothetical language in which writing any normal Perl fails with a syntax error.

BugBrother 12y ago
>>In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring You wrote "I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses." Which was what I discussed. (I did have a 2nd parenthesis, too.) >>I'm not making any claims about Perl. I quoted you twice as saying two old language features, which are probably best among the std scripting languages, goes against being Perl. At least one of those features is from the 1990s. That might mean something different than making claims, but you have carefully not touched it, despite multiple opportunities (while being both called "troll" and down voted over that).
- logicallee 12y ago
  I've flagged this as well, for your argumentative style, specifically that you write: >despite multiple opportunities while being both called "troll" and down voted over that This style of discussion is not normal here. Nobody but you has called me a troll, because that goes against our community guidelines. Please read the guidelines. Until then you will not receive more replies from me. If you pay a bit of attention you will note that this community is much more civil than you may be used to from elsewhere. ("But why??" - I hope if you give it some thought you can appreciate the broader context that there is insight to be gained from discussion, as shown by congresses of minds from Athens to the Royal Society, from the Continental Congress to the National Academy of Sciences, all of which have shown that amazing things can be borne of civil discourse. Whether you think you have anything to gain from anyone else's opinion is up to you to decide. Engaging in name-calling, cheap argumentative tricks (as repeated here), and willful misinterpreting is not up to you. Please read the guidelines and contribute or ask honest questions, rather than attack. You are very welcome to express a differing opinion, of course, as long as it is done in civil terms.)
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    Sigh, I'll just note that you missed yet another opportunity to explain your strange statements that some of Perl 5's older and stronger features are not Perly. (You even quoted part of my comment where I discussed that.) But it is informative with indignation, while repeatedly refusing to discuss criticism.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    On consideration, this was interesting. You are called troll because of stupid statements on basic points. You refuse to talk about WHY you are stamped a troll in multiple comments -- instead you complain in big blocks of text about impoliteness! This is a common troll strategy, but does it really work? Do a causal reader miss that you refuse to talk about why you are called troll -- and just see two people complaining about each others? Edit: So your smoke screen of complaints will change my behavior. :-) The next troll with your strategy will just get a note that he refuses to touch why he is called troll + link.