🚀 go-pugleaf

Summary: Dan politely responds to Benjamin. Skip if you don't care.

In article <BBC.91Jan6224438@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes:
> Ozan, you made a small mistake.  It is my opinion that Dan would have
> expressed this as "8088 assembler has Forth".

As Dan explained last week, Dan would not have said any such thing,
because the definition of ``has'' which he posted only applies to
features of language power.

> When Dan uses the word
> "has", he seems to mean "can be used to implement" or "can implement".

If Benjamin were able to read then he would notice that Dan's definition
of ``has'' was spelled out quite precisely in a previous article. If
Benjamin were able to think then he would realize that ``has,'' like
most English words, is overloaded. If Benjamin had ever used overloaded
operations he would know that ``C has composable functions'' does not
have the same argument types as ``8088 assembler has Forth.''

> For example, when he said that C has composable functions, he must
> have meant that C can implement composable functions.  Yes, I know
> this usage is unusual, and not standard computer science terminology.

Dave Gudeman has claimed that C has first-class functions. Therefore
Benjamin is accusing Dave of using nonstandard terminology. Dan advises
Benjamin to keep digging his hole deeper.

> In the future, it would help if you and all of the other readers of
> comp.lang.misc could remember this simple abberation of Dan's
> vocabulary (as well as any other abberations you may have noticed),

Dan observes that it is Benjamin who has an aberration of vocabulary.

> and perform the appropriate translation of Dan's postings.  Thus, the
> compulsion to reply to his postings will be greatly reduced.

If Benjamin had the intelligence to practice what he preaches, he would
not have followed up in this thread in the first place.

> Yes, I
> realize that it would be more sensible for Dan to change, and speak
> the same language as the rest of us.  But I suspect that Dan is not
> capable of this.

Yes, Benjamin doesn't even realize that he doesn't know the first thing
about the language he speaks. Dan politely observes that *constructive*
criticism would take the form of an alternate definition of ``has'' that
everyone could agree to. Benjamin apparently isn't intelligent enough to
be constructive and formulate a useful definition of ``has.'' Dan rudely
observes that Benjamin is merely being insulting for the pleasure it
brings to Benjamin's hypothalmus.

> Or, you could just put his name in your kill file...

Benjamin, believing that his godlike words are important enough for the
rest of the net but not for himself, does not have the common sense to
fuck off until he has something to contribute to the discussion. In ten
years Benjamin's ulcer kills him.

---Dan