Re: SIL Toolbox and IPA Unicode 1.0
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 3, 2004, 6:38|
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 08:30 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
> Ha, you got me wrong.
Have I? It seems I'm not the only one to do so.
> Now think for a moment. Computers and programs are
> supposed to be used by, you know what ? Not computer
> specialists, but PEOPLE.
I know - that's why I have a Mac :-)
> Ordinary people with two
> hands, each one's property being having fingers, usual
> cardinality of them being (0,6), but rather five.
No, no, no - any person, whether they have only one or no hands - and
quite irrespective of the number of fingers. IMHO computers can do much,
if provided with right hardware & software (as they SHOULD BE) to enhance
the life of people who are not blessed with two working hands, each
equipped with five working digits.
> This is the topic of a (supposed) science called
Goan - yet another supposed science. But i wasn't talking about ergonomics;
I was asking about computer science.
> This is exactly the thing that a real,
> pure, smart, clever, computer specialist doesn't want
> to hear about.
Oh, how wrong can you be. For the last three years I, as a computer
scientist, have been teaching students "Human Computer Interface". I made
extensive use of Ben Sheiderman's excellent book "Designing the User
Interface". Who is Ben Sheiderman? A professor of *computer science* at
the University of Maryland. He is also a pioneer in user-interface design
and done much valuable research in this area.
Ben Sheiderman is a guy I can and do respect. Your insult is ill-informed
and IMO contemptuous.
> "If I can understand and master it, why
> should the vulgum pecus
Ach! 'vulgum' ain't Latin!
> not understand it, except
> because they are stupid" is the motto.
Get real, please! What planet do you live on?
> But I, as a
> user, don't give a damn about what the smart
> specialist thinks. I got a fucking tool,
I assume you're not familiar enough with colloquial English to realize
what you've just written!
[rest of the silly rant snipped]
> May they roast in hell for a very, very long time,
> I'll bring the spices.
Yes, from several emails I've noticed you seem to like confining people to
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 05:06 , Paul Bennett wrote:
> Philippe, if you don't like "vi", use another editor. Somebody using bad
> tools should blame themselves for not finding better tools, not the
> toolsmith for making something that satisfies millions of other people.
Quite so. I remember being told many times as a youngster "The good
workman never blames his tools".
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 05:59 , Keith Gaughan wrote:
> computers, despite the name. To quote Dijkstra, a man far smarter than
> any of us:
> Computer science is no more about computers
> than astronomy is about telescopes.
Yep, a nice comparison. So far in all Philippe's rantings I've seen next
to nothing actually about computer science; nor has even begun to explain
why he called it a "so-called science".
> That's not uncommon: PHP and Perl do it. You're bitching about nothing
> there. Most languages designers attempt to keep things familiar and only
> change things if they can't think of any other clean way to do it.
Yes, I did try to explain this to Philippe a few weeks back. I agree he's
bitching about nothing, but he won't be convinced.
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 06:22 , Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:59:39 +0100, Keith Gaughan <kmgaughan@...>
>> Which isn't a bad idea, but have you ever thought of the complexity
>> of these things? Most human endevours pale in comparison to the
>> complexity involved in software.
> A) You're over-reacting. It's just Philippe. In his world, anything that
> requires thought is badly-designed.
...and anyone who disagrees with him is consigned to hell.
I'm sure glad I don't live in his world. I do try to ignore his rantings
but I guess Keith, like me, doesn't like being gratuitously insulted.
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 06:53 , Mark P. Line wrote:
> Philippe Caquant said:[snip]
>> The computer specialists are, as a rule, unbearably
>> satisfied of themselves and their tools.
> I guess that depends on how broadly you choose to define "computer
A guy with high thoughts and the Big Idea has surely defined "computer
specialists" properly. It's just the rest of us that get things wrong.
> In my book, software requirements engineers, software
> quality engineers and software ergonomists are computer specialists who
> are seldom satisfied with the state of the art (and often enough
> dissatisfied with the final product they're forced to confront).
That's been my experience also; but then you and I both live on planet
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760