On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 08:30 , Philippe Caquant wrote:

> Ha, you got me wrong.

Have I? It seems I'm not the only one to do so.

> Now think for a moment. Computers and programs are
> supposed to be used by, you know what ? Not computer
> specialists, but PEOPLE.

I know - that's why I have a Mac    :-)

> Ordinary people with two
> hands, each one's property being having fingers, usual
> cardinality of them being (0,6), but rather five.

No, no, no - any person, whether they have only one or no hands - and
quite irrespective of the number of fingers. IMHO computers can do much,
if provided with right hardware & software (as they SHOULD BE) to enhance
the life of people who are not blessed with two working hands, each
equipped with five working digits.

> This is the topic of a (supposed) science called
> "ergonomy".

Goan - yet another supposed science. But i wasn't talking about ergonomics;
  I was asking about computer science.

> This is exactly the thing that a real,
> pure, smart, clever, computer specialist doesn't want
> to hear about.

Oh, how wrong can you be. For the last three years I, as a computer
scientist, have been teaching students "Human Computer Interface". I made
extensive use of Ben Sheiderman's excellent book "Designing the User
Interface". Who is Ben Sheiderman? A professor of *computer science* at
the University of Maryland. He is also a pioneer in user-interface design
and done much valuable research in this area.

Ben Sheiderman is a guy I can and do respect. Your insult is ill-informed
and IMO contemptuous.

> "If I can understand and master it, why
> should the vulgum pecus

Ach! 'vulgum' ain't Latin!

> not understand it, except
> because they are stupid" is the motto.

Get real, please! What planet do you live on?

> But I, as a
> user, don't give a damn about what the smart
> specialist thinks. I got a fucking tool,

I assume you're not familiar enough with colloquial English to realize
what you've just written!

[rest of the silly rant snipped]

> May they roast in hell for a very, very long time,
> I'll bring the spices.

Yes, from several emails I've noticed you seem to like confining people to

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 05:06 , Paul Bennett wrote:

> Philippe, if you don't like "vi", use another editor. Somebody using bad
> tools should blame themselves for not finding better tools, not the
> toolsmith for making something that satisfies millions of other people.

Quite so. I remember being told many times as a youngster "The good
workman never blames his tools".

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 05:59 , Keith Gaughan wrote:

> computers, despite the name. To quote Dijkstra, a man far smarter than
> any of us:
>     Computer science is no more about computers
>         than astronomy is about telescopes.

Yep, a nice comparison. So far in all Philippe's rantings I've seen next
to nothing actually about computer science; nor has even begun to explain
why he called it a "so-called science".

> That's not uncommon: PHP and Perl do it. You're bitching about nothing
> there. Most languages designers attempt to keep things familiar and only
> change things if they can't think of any other clean way to do it.

Yes, I did try to explain this to Philippe a few weeks back. I agree he's
bitching about nothing, but he won't be convinced.

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 06:22 , Paul Bennett wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:59:39 +0100, Keith Gaughan <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> Which isn't a bad idea, but have you ever thought of the complexity
>> of these things? Most human endevours pale in comparison to the
>> complexity involved in software.
> A) You're over-reacting. It's just Philippe. In his world, anything that
> requires thought is badly-designed.

...and anyone who disagrees with him is consigned to hell.

I'm sure glad I don't live in his world. I do try to ignore his rantings
but I guess Keith, like me, doesn't like being gratuitously insulted.
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 06:53 , Mark P. Line wrote:

> Philippe Caquant said:
>> The computer specialists are, as a rule, unbearably
>> satisfied of themselves and their tools.

> I guess that depends on how broadly you choose to define "computer
> specialists".

A guy with high thoughts and the Big Idea has surely defined "computer
specialists" properly. It's just the rest of us that get things wrong.

> In my book, software requirements engineers, software
> quality engineers and software ergonomists are computer specialists who
> are seldom satisfied with the state of the art (and often enough
> dissatisfied with the final product they're forced to confront).

That's been my experience also; but then you and I both live on planet

[log in to unmask]
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760