Re: Regarding "dogma" words [Was: Re: Regarding "make"-systems [Was: Re: [dev] Build system: redo]]

From: Sean Howard <silver_AT_callysto.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:49:43 -0400

Obviousness varies by experience and research.
On 2012-08-10 2:27 PM, "Anselm R Garbe" <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 August 2012 16:32, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> <ciprian.craciun_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM, hiro <23hiro_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> people like inventing words. so what?
> >
> > I'm not against inventing words... On the contrary a language must
> evolve...
> >
> >
> > But I'm against using a quasi meaningless word as an answer
> > without also providing a meaningful or coherent argument sustaining
> > it. Thus just to keep in the context of "suckless", if someone says:
> > >> Project blah is not "suckless".
> > I just ignore that statement on the basis of trolling...
> >
> > But if on the contrary he says:
> > >> Project blah is not "suckless" because << insert at least an
> > intent to explain why >>.
> >
> > Then I agree to the usage of the word, and I don't count it as
> dogmatism.
>
> If something is obvious there is no need for a "because".
>
> -Anselm
>
>
Received on Fri Aug 10 2012 - 20:49:43 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Aug 10 2012 - 21:00:06 CEST