Semantic analysis of one response (was Re: Autocoding project proposal.)

[Peter Hansen]

Timothy Rue wrote:
> 
> >I think Timothy has an idea that would make computers
> >much easier to use, but he's making one or more of the following
> >mistakes:
> 
> >1. Thinking his idea is new and that most of us haven't had
> >   roughly the same idea already, when in fact we've all thought
> >   similar things or read about them, sometimes decades ago.
> 
> show me verification of this claim you are making?

Hard to do until you tell us what this you are talking about actually
is.

> >2. Thinking it's an idea that can be turned into an implementation
> >   with relatively little work, when in fact it is something that
> >   requires not only an enormous amount of work but even advances
> >   in computing in areas which have proven slow to advance (e.g. AI).
> 
> a shell with nine commands?????

Ah!  That's the shortest, clearest description of it I've seen here,
although unfortunately it's _so_ summarized I'm not sure it
has much useful information (but it has a little).

Let's see... two parts... a "shell" (undefined in this context, but
let's assume you mean the same as shell generally means to a 
programmer these days), and "nine commands"....  

I've thought of "shells" before... used some, wrote some.  So it
must be the "nine commands" part that is so important.  You're
quite right, I haven't thought of doing a shell with only nine
commands before.  Must be the precise combination of nine which
is so important...

The problem is, the descriptions of those commands on your web
site are, among other things, incredibly vague, and even 
inconsistent.  In fact, just the first one "Activate Interaction"
is described as "Alternate Interface" on the page which purports
to explain it.  Why should anyone be thinking of helping you,
if you can't even spend the time to get a *one line* description
of one of the basic commands of your shell correct?!

> >3. Thinking most of us have even the slightest idea what he's
> >   trying to say when he talks, when in fact his words are so
> >   abstract, obscure, meandering, or just plain semantically and
> >   grammatically unrecognizable that most of his time writing
> >   is wasted.
> 
> Maybe you should try the general and detailed description of the commands
> along with the code for IQ and it's test files.

No thanks.  I've just come to the conclusion that either my brain
is simply not able to soar at the heights yours works at, or you
are a con-man or amateur psychologist or something, pretending to
have discovered a basic principle on par with the meaning of life 
and attempting, oh so hard, to share it with us lowly mortals, all
so you can enjoy the attention or observe the reactions or something.
I found this all entertaining for a while, but I'm tired now.

> It is common knowledge that reading about how computers work is not enough
> to really inderstand. You gotta do, in order to cause a feedback loop
> required in really learning.

If you're implying I cannot understand what your thingie is supposed
to do until I actually try using it (and it hasn't actually been
developed yet, right?  Wasn't that the whole point?), then you can
forget that idea.  I've got better things to do, when you could
simply explain it in one paragraph and save us all from wasting
our time on something that we don't even know what it is...

> There has been a great deal of relative and useful information I have
> given in these autocoding threads. So much so that I intend on extracting
> it to a new web page. Seeings how this is the only help I'm going to get
> here.... inspiration to focus another Q&A paper.

Wonderful!  Write another white paper.  Don't actually *do* anything
like, say, build a working example of part of your framework, or 
write up an example like Phil's nice example for Herbivore... (have
you even looked at that example yet?  Have a go at writing one
for your own thingie... it can't be that hard for someone as smart
as you obviously are.)

-Peter