[OT] - Requesting Comments for Process Definition and Presentation

[Xavier Morel]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself 
> (content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)
> 
This is a lie, and you know it.

You are merely some kind of strange troll. You've built something that 
you consider the only "object model" worth using within your mind and 
proceed to try bashing OO languages such as Py or Ruby because they 
don't fit your own object model and terminology.

No one in either c.l.p or c.l.r need you, no one wants your object 
model, no one wants your so-called evaluations (especially about the 
community leaders, your various comments about both Guido van Rossum and 
Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto are insulting and disrespectful), please do 
everyone a favor: create your damn own language, or head over to 
comp.lang.lisp and implement your object model in this language, Lisp is 
a meta-language and _nothing_ stops you from heading over and creating a 
new object model from scratch (that's been done countless times anyway, 
and the CLOS probably wouldn't fit your personal object model, so go ahead).

The fact is that you don't live in reality, you generate more buzzwords 
and empty acronyms than a well-trained marketroid, but guess what? that 
doesn't matter, unless you can prove that what you advocate _works_.

And you can't.

Both Ruby's object model and Py's object models work. They have flaws, 
they evolve, they grow and change, but they work, they are used in real 
world situations and they fit the needs of their respective communities. 
"Ilias Lazaridis Majic Object Model" doesn't. Period.

Just stop posting altogether, implement your damn blasted object model 
(or try to) in an existing language or create a new language to 
implement it and just leave us.


And stop spamming your damn worthless website too. Thank you very much.

>> I can't see anything at this site what would make sense to me.
> 
> you mean, you don't understand _anything_?
> 
No, he means that your website just doesn't make sense. There is no 
purpose, no consistency, no way to understand what the website is 
supposed to hold, no way to find *informations* (and your colorful 
graphs with an informative level of somewhere below 0 do not count as 
information BTW).

I'll add that the color/style schemes are awfully misleading (why the 
hell are random words in bold-ocre, please go read a few books on 
interfaces and websites creation because you obviously don't have a clue 
there, Steve Krug's "Don't Make Me Think" would be a much required 
start), that the various categories are unclear, fuzzy and *never 
explained anywhere* and that you claiming that you can *review websites* 
(for a fee on top of that) is insulting to people with actual skills in 
the field.