Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:07 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>[...]
>> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
>> programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual
>> programming languages.
>>[...]
>> Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes
>> sense or doesn't.
> 
> Couldn't you have simply made your points without the above comments?
> Those points stand perfectly fine on their own without the ad hominem
> attack.

Not every observation about a person is "ad hominem", let alone an 
attack, even if they are uncomplimentary. You are mistaken to identify 
such observations as both.

"Ad hominem" is the standard term for a logical fallacy, whereby a claim 
is rejected solely because of *irrelevant personal characteristics* of 
the person making the claim, rather than allowing it to stand on its own 
merits. It is not an ad hominem to call somebody a pillock. It is, 
however, an ad hominem to imply that *merely because they are a pillock* 
their arguments must therefore be wrong.

Ad hominems:

    "Henry's argument cannot be believed, as he is known to hang 
     around loose women, thieves and tax collectors."

    "Of course George would oppose the war, he's a homosexual."

    "Clearly Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would 
     she know about programming?"


Not ad hominems:

    "Susan's argument in favour of the proposal is influenced by
     the fact that she will make a lot of money if it goes ahead."

    "David has no experience with Oracle databases, and his advice
     about Oracle technology should be taken with caution."

    "Barry is a plonker. His post is good evidence of this, and
     here are the reasons why..."


Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of 
whether or not he understands what he is talking about.

If you consider that merely suggesting that somebody is not experienced 
at programming counts as an attack, well, words fail me.

If you want to accuse me of anything underhanded, "poisoning the well" 
would be more appropriate. At least that is in the ball-park. A cynical, 
nasty-minded person [this is an example of poisoning the well] might 
consider that by merely pointing out that Skybuck appears to have no 
actual experience in programming, I'm trying to influence others to 
reject his claims out of hand. If that's how you want to see it, I can't 
stop you. On the other hand, an alternative interpretation is that by 
gently reminding Skybuck that he doesn't have any real experience in the 
topic he's discussing (or so it seems), he'll be encouraged to actually 
learn something.

I think it is quite unfair of you to misrepresent my post as an attack, 
particularly since my reply gave an example of a type of loop that 
supports Skybuck's position.


 
-- 
Steven