ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject RE: Configure->Template->Build
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:18:52 GMT
Let's see,

	lieing, insane, tirade, etc, etc

this are adjetives you have been using for a while. If I stop answering your
messages, which you consider insulting, is because I prefer to stop a
conversation degenerating in adjectives like that, all over.

I have heard your arguments I have not being convinced by them. If you want,
we can agree to disagree and live it at that.

About my supposedly false statement:

------- XX.XML ---------------
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<project name="test" default="devtest" basedir=".">
-------------- END OF FILE ------

D:\ASF\jakarta-ant>ant -buildfile xx.xml -projecthelp
Buildfile: xx.xml


D:\ASF\jakarta-ant\xx.xml:3: Unexpected element "javac"

Total time: 1 second

Imagine that, it did what I said it would.

Jose Alberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald []
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Configure->Template->Build
> Hi,
> Interesting email. One of the most interesting bits of course was "too
> willing to insult others with different points of view.".
> This is false. I
> treat everyone in the same manner and try to treat different
> points of view
> fairly. The exception of course being those who get caught
> lieing - thats
> effectively the kiss of death for working in an OSS group.
> The respect you get from me is generally the respect you earn. I first
> replied to your ideas in a relatively civilized manner
> explaining why they
> are inane. I took the time to respond to you but you ignored
> me. That was
> insulting. The next time you continued with your tirade, it
> became obvious
> to me that you hadn't actuall tested your ideas or put them
> to practical
> use. I indicate you should do this or alternatively read
> comments of those
> who have. You ignore that. Again insulting. This pattern
> continues for a
> bit longer and ironically you insult me in the same sentence
> as you say "I
> prefer to keep the discussion at a higher level".
> You want to be treated with respect? Start acting like you deserve it.
> At 12:14 PM 6/6/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> >Well, you can certiantly validate the syntax witout running.
> >"ant -projecthelp" will do it.
> false.
> >But even if you need to execute (to take into
> >account dynamic typedefs and such), you can actually run the
> refered project
> >
> >	ant -Dxxx -Dyyy ....
> So by running it you can prove it will run?
> >Since I am talking of syntactic validity and not execution
> correctness
> >(which I have made clear in my previous e-mails, by the way)
> I stand by my
> >position.
> Many people stood behind the "world is flat" theory too ...
> didn't make it
> right.
> >The fact is you can say very little about the correctness of
> >templates (i.e, the syntactic validity of the output produced after
> >expansion).
> no different from what you describe.
> >I have to agree with Stefan comments on this point. We have
> asked you for
> >examples, since you considered yourself the guru of the
> complex builds.
> I have never said that. I just try and listen and talk to
> people who do
> know what they are talking about. If you look through the
> archives I shared
> many of your opinions pre-December. Right up until someone
> came in and told
> me how stupid I/ant-dev was (see archives). I listened to his
> opinion and
> he was right. So far you have not backed up anything with facts.
> >There is a big difference between execution correctness,
> which I have not
> >being talking about, and program validity: whether the
> program makes sense.
> umm ... you sure you wanna go with that comment?
> >You may not understand the difference because most modern programming
> >languages do not allow you to write invalid programs. That
> is what compiler
> >are suppose to fenced against. The fact that programs in
> Java can be proved
> >not only valid but safe (i.e., can be verified by the JVM
> verifier) is due
> >to the fact that the language was defined with very strong
> typing at its
> >core. And the JVM does this analysis everytime a class is
> loaded, even
> >though you do not see 30 or 50 pages of profs comming out on
> the side.
> what point does this little diatribe have?
> >> XSLT can offer similar features. You would know that if
> you knew XSLT.
> >
> >I know XSLT. I have written XSLT, and no, in general XSLT
> does not give you
> >any guarantees. Can you write XSLT templates that follow
> these principles?
> >yes you can. Can you write templates that do not? yes you can.
> much like you can write a project file that is invalid or
> valid... hmmm.
> >"Spagettis is what this produces - as thread of
> >execution travels between each CLASS constantly changing frames,
> >terrorizing anyone who has to read it and try to understand
> >the values of things without executing it."
> >
> >When a class calls methods in another we have exactly the
> same thing.
> nope - classes don't make assumptions about methods in caller class.
> Cheers,
> Pete
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
> |              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*

View raw message