Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
adalke at mindspring.com
Sun Oct 12 05:24:22 CEST 2003
> Aren't you the scientist who praised a study because statistics showed
> the studies statistics had a better than even chance of not being
> completely random? Credibility zero, dude. (if you now complain that it
> was fully a 75% chance of not being completely random, you lose.)
Wow! You continue to be wrong in your summaries:
- I am not a scientist and haven't claimed to be one in about 8 years
- I didn't 'praise' the study, I pointed out that it exists and that it
some interesting points to consider. At the very least it makes a
- After someone asserted that that study had been "debunked" I asked for
more information on the debunking, and pointed out the results of
one experiment suggest that the language mapping was not complete
bunkum. (Note that since 100% correlation is also a 'better than even
chance' your statement above is meaningless. What is your
I would be *delighted* to see more studies on this topic,
even ones which state that COBOL is easier to use than Python.
- When I make statements of belief, I present where possible the
sources and the analyses used to justify the belief and, in an
attempt at rigour, the weaknesses of those arguments. As such,
I find it dubious that my credibility can be lower than someone
making claims based solely on gut feelings and illogical thought.
I take that back; a -1.0 credibility makes a wonderful oracle.
Given how imprecise you are in your use of language (where your
thoughtless turns of phrase gracelessly demean those who don't believe
that programming is the be-all and end-all of ambitions), your inability
to summarize matters correctly, and your insistance on ad hominum attacks
(dude!) over logical counter-argument and rational discourse, I'm surprised
you can make a living as a programmer or in any other field which
requires mental aptitude and the ability to communicate.
dalke at dalkescientific.com
More information about the Python-list