Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. [snip]
> 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. [snip]
> This is the topic of a (supposed) science called > "ergonomy".
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 hell. ========================================== 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: [snip]
> 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". [snip]
> > 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@...> > wrote: > >> 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:
>> 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 > specialists".
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 earth. Ray =============================================== =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760


Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>