From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/05 Message-ID: <35f48276.90997557@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388026857 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sebjr$b69$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sff74$q0s@gurney.reilly.home> <6sh2j5$jnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35EC2E5A.16DB6CB1@bigfoot-.com> <6sjc0a$1lk$3@news.indigo.ie> <35EFB09E.15412933@s054.aone.net.au> <35f2bd98.40599408@news.erols.com> <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 904957416 4210 207.172.100.88 (5 Sep 1998 01:03:36 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Lory Jenkins wrote: >> And amongst those especially the ones who are most effective in >> exposing the purely fictitious basis of the arguments held by their >> opposition. Eh? :-} >Not at all, Elliot. > >I think that Matthew Heaney has produced the overall best contributions >to this thread on the side of those who like 'tree-structured' rather >than 'structured' programming. > >He is obviously not a "combatorial" participant, but he is an eloquent >one. > >Some others, on the other hand, have flagrantly violated: >1) good manners Please be concrete. But remember that this is not a tea party. I know that I haven't cursed anyone, or not shown them basic human respect. Whatever I have said about others was based on readily demonstrable practices - either from recent practice, or on-going practice over the years. It seems you have not been around for more than a few months so it would be impossible for you know about years of on-going practice. >2) good sense Again, please be concrete. >3) any sense of academic honesty (which includes, of course, refusing to >investigate the published sources that inspired this debate so many >years ago) You are obviously seriously biased toward the wrong - pro-se/se - view of SP. It is evident in that you fail to acknowledge that the onus for proving an assertion is on the asserter. The asserter has shown zilch evidence that se/se has been advocated as a key design heuristic for SP by the founders of SP. This is as opposed to the founders obvious push against unstructured flow control and for abstraction. One can have multiple exits while easily maintaining structured flow control. >It is possible to disagree with someone without calling insults. > It is possible to have someone disagree with you because they value different >principles to yours. But that doesn't give one the right to name call. A truly applicable adjective is not an insult, but a statement of fact. And there is nothing at all wrong with stating facts. >Really. Kindergarten children often learn more manners than is >displayed, from time to time, on this list. You have a right to defend falsehood if you want, and to attempt to portray those who oppose it as acting like kindergartners. But I'm not about to suppress the truth about people or positions when that truth is apparent to many both in the present case and after years of interaction. Further this is not a tea party. And I have been civil to the extent that the facts allow, if one is truly objective about what is going on. And finally again, you are straight up dead wrong not to put the onus of proof for an assertion on the asserter. For you to attempt to put the onus on me stretches all sense of logic, fair play, and traditional academic standards. Elliott