On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:20 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote: > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:26, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages > > only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument. > > I really wish you would make up your mind. On the one hand you value > individuality and originality (or so you claim) and yet now you dismiss > my quote because of it's lack of popularity? All great quotes comes from > humble origins, and you yourself said that popularity does not equate to > quality. I didn't dismiss it for lack of popularity, I dismissed it for being passed off as an adage when it is not. If you had claimed from the onset of its usage that you made it up then I would have accepted it at face value. > > I have little faith in your words now. If I > > wanted fallacious reasoning I'd go watch a commercial on the telly. > > Your loss, not mine :) Nothing gained, nothing lost. > > You're not very good at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > In that case could you point out to me where you mistake my pointing out > projects' lack of updates equates to a project's lack of popularity. You attempted to use an Ad Hominem to discredit my argument by suggesting I was jealous at the lack of popularity of my own project. I'm sure that's why you quoted the Ad Hominem link but I'm not sure about your following question since that's not at all related to an "Ad Hominem". But it is related to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring > > > Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of), > > > not popularity. > > > > You implied it. > > Where? How? Maybe the English that they taught me at school is subtly > different to the English that you learnt. I'm moving forward with the discussion, not backwards, Please keep up. I've no reason for the discussion to go into circular mode. > > It doesn't seem like you're exchanging ideas. > > That is a suggestion. > > > I have plenty of ideas, but they would mostly be based on my experience > > writing InterJinn and what I hate about other frameworks I've come > > across, as such I chose to keep quiet rather than pollute his ideology > > with my own and sound like I'm tooting my own horn. I often find myself > > writing responses to people that are based on "what I did or do" in my > > framework... often I delete them before sending them because I don't > > like how it seems impartial. once in a while it still comes up, but I'm > > not perfect. > > The OP was not asking questions on _how_ a framework should behave or > _what_ a framework should contain. Rather the question was "how to > _start_ [writing a] php framwork [sic]". Exactly, so why you gave him an answer that didn't suggest anything about writing a framework still eludes me. > Your answer, should it ever be > forthcoming, need not pollute his innocent mind with your framework > ideals. Well it would, since I'd almost certainly begin talking about how I started mine. > > One of the ways to do anything is to just wade in. > > Er, obviously. Can't really argue with that statement. Another true > statement is "One of the ways to do anything is to study the situation > before you wade in." So your point? Like I said, it's one of the ways. The point is that you're suggestions push away other options as though your suggestion is the right one. I'm not going to argue whether yours is right or wrong, only that many options exist and that anyone who tells you their way is the right way is probably wrong. > > Who are you to > > assess the OP's skills and determine that he is unable to make a > > reasonable assessment? > > I think you were the one assessing the OP's skills. You stated that > evaluating the available frameworks is a "staggering task", yet suggest > that the OP go ahead and write his own framework. In my life experience, > judging is easier than creating. I know a good book when I read one, a > good meal when I eat one and a good movie when I see one, however I'm not > sure I know how to write a good novel, cook a good meal or make a good > movie. No, you assessed the OP's skills when you assumed that he would be unable to create a fully-baked" framework and should totter off and join an existing framework. But see how you're trying to circle back again. This has already been discussed, the archives show it, I'll not answer it again. > > But going back to your point about narrowing it down, you've > > already jumped to the conclusion that the OP has no clue what he's > > doing and so it follows that he probably wouldn't know how to begin > > narrowing down the candidates since that would require experience. > > And yet he is able to put together a kickass framework sometime in the > future through flirting with serendipity? No, I never said the OP would flirt with serendipity, in fact if he created a kick-ass framework while pursuing that goal then it could not be serendipity. Now if he discovered something else while pursing the creation of a framework then THAT could quite possibly be serendipity. > > > So working as a one-person band on your very own framework how easy is > > > it to get your code reviewed? And a security audit? > > > > I'm going to borrow a bit of your style here and make a fallacious > > statement... I write perfect code and I have no bugs. > > There, your ego is showing through again :) I was using "you" as in the > royal "One", not "you" as in "you, Robert". Thank you, you've proven that indeed we do not speak the same English. You speak some non-existent version since there is no such thing as a "Royal you" when speaking, only a "Royal we". Perhaps you speak some street version of english? It certainly isn't the Queen's English as I was taught while living in Scotland. > Still, it's good to know that your code is flawless and can be relied > upon. Not much point continuing this discussion because either you don't read what I write or you intentionally pull things out of context. The complete statement was: I'm going to borrow a bit of your style here and make a fallacious statement... I write perfect code and I have no bugs. Haven't you heard the saying? "Rob is the perfect coder"? What about this one: "InterJinn is da bomb!" or maybe: "All your frameworks are belong to me" So obviously I said they were all fallacious. Perhaps you don't understand what fallacious means. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
