On Wednesday 20 June 2007 03:27, Robert Cummings wrote: > > 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and > > weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what > > you've learnt > > Now, now, let's not pretend that you even nearly suggested that in your > original answer: > > "It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. > .... > at it :)" > > You don't offer anything up. Only that pursing the creation of a > framework is "extremely inefficient use of precious time" by relating > it to Inventing of the wheel over and over. ... I still stand by that answer. But IF the OP wanted really really wanted to create a new framework then that is where the first paragraph comes in. > > Please note the distinction between possibility and probability. > > Please stay on track. Note how hard it is to get a straight answer out of you. You said: > Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build > a framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his > mistakes. Then he may try again and subsequently build a kickass > framework. Since not all paths lead to the same conclusion it is just > as possible that if he doesn't go down this path that he will never > create a kickass framework no matter how many frameworks he studies. Which basically is saying, whatever path you choose the outcome may not turn out the way you expect, which I summed up as: > Now you're trudging into the realms of philosophy, crystal ball gazing > and groundless speculation. You counter with: > No, it's simple probability. Seeking clarification I ask: > So it's probability now? Which has the greater probability: > > 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and > weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what > you've learnt > > 2) just jump right in a create a kickass framework > > Please note the distinction between possibility and probability. And finally you dodge the question with: > Please stay on track. Similarly I ask at which point you made the word "update" to mean "popularity": > > > > 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. And you dismiss the question out of hand - damn you're good at this. <sarcasm> > > Still, it's good to know that your code is flawless and can be relied > > upon. </sarcasm> > So obviously I said they were all fallacious. Perhaps you don't > understand what fallacious means. Perhaps you don't recognise sarcasm when you see it? -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
