ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Configure->Template->Build
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:08:11 GMT
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
>on its own BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE A WELL FORMED PROJECT FILE.
>
>	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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message