Discord

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Clapper wrote:

> Again, I'm not saying Tony is any of those things. How you interpret the man
> is your business. But, as he is the current target of nasty T-shirts...

For what it's worth I didn't interpret the T-shirt thing as putting Tony
in a negative light. If anything it seems quite the opposite to me. It
says, "this guy is exceptionally knowledgeable and I must be someone if
he bothered to give me a slap." I guess the presumption is that if I
were truly useless he wouldn't have wasted his time with me. I'm seeing
it as a kind of strict master vs anxious student sort of thing.

Anyway, I can see how others might feel differently.

Peter

On 10/06/2011 02:07 PM, Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Clapper wrote:
>
>> Again, I'm not saying Tony is any of those things. How you interpret the man
>> is your business. But, as he is the current target of nasty T-shirts...
>
> For what it's worth I didn't interpret the T-shirt thing as putting Tony
> in a negative light. If anything it seems quite the opposite to me. It
> says, "this guy is exceptionally knowledgeable and I must be someone if
> he bothered to give me a slap." I guess the presumption is that if I
> were truly useless he wouldn't have wasted his time with me. I'm seeing
> it as a kind of strict master vs anxious student sort of thing.
>
> Anyway, I can see how others might feel differently.

Yes, I saw it that way, too. However, since we're all worried about how the
"new community member" is going to view all this discord, it seems to me that
T-shirts are every bit as fair game as any one individual.

In any case, I wouldn't ban either one. If my experience, over the last 26
years, is any guide, vibrant online communities tend to be self-policing, and
the ego-driven flare-ups are just the cost of working with other humans (and,
really, a symptom of the community's liveliness).

There are loads of completely polite, intellectually dead, online communities
out there. I prefer this one.

Fine with me. I'm a medium size shirt.

I really wish these distractions and jests didn't come at the expense of accuracy of information though. I found the final charge of ulterior motive, in a thread pleading to "stop making stuff up" pretty funny actually (do you se the irony?).

Maybe we should be nice and helpful to newbies before rewarding ourselves with jokes at each others' expense.

On 07/10/2011 3:54 AM, "Brian Clapper" <brian.clapper@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's been some discord on this list lately, including name calling,
> arrogant and dismissive behavior, and even a T-shirt that mocks a member of
> the community (a member who can come across as arrogant and condescending at
> times, but a valuable, contributing member, nevertheless).
>
> There's been hand-wringing about the awful effect this kind of discord will have
>
> - on the Scala community, as a whole;
> - on the willingness of people to adopt Scala; and
> - in increasing the chance of scaring newcomers away.
>
> To all of the above, I say, "Nonsense."
>
> I'm not a Scala expert on the scale of many of the people who routinely post
> on this list. I enjoy the hell out of the language; I'm also enjoying helping
> the community to grow, in a small way, in my local community. But I don't
> shine with the same bright light that some folks on here do.
>
> However, I *have* been around the Internet for more than a quarter-century,
> and I have a few observations that might be useful here.
>
> First, any vibrant community exhibits this kind of discord, from time to time.
> A community, such as this one, that attracts strong-willed and bright people
> will tend to have flare-ups, ego-driven or otherwise, from time to time.
>
> I contend that this is actually healthy, a sign of the vibrancy of the
> community. It also tends to be self-policing. If someone were, say, to suggest
> banning a particular individual from the mailing list, because a large
> proportion of people on the list find that person to be unnecessarily arrogant
> or condescending, I'd be uncomfortable. That kind of prior restraint can't
> help be connote an iron-fisted attempt at controlling the community. That kind
> of control rarely works in person; it is highly unlikely to work in a medium
> that, as John Gilmore famously put it, interprets censorship as damage and
> routes around it.
>
> Second, I believe that most technical people--and, certainly, the ones who are
> in a position to guide their organizations' technology directions--realize
> that this is how Internet discussion groups work. If someone at Typesafe, for
> instance, is worried about how Tony Morris's comments reflect on The Scala
> Message, I would challenge that person to stop hand-wringing, and remember the
> intelligence level of typical person who has, voluntarily, chosen to join this
> mailing list.
>
> If Tony is, in fact, routinely being a cantankerous prat (and I'm not alleging
> that; consider this to be a thought experiment), then the likelihood is high
> that most people will simply roll their eyes and hit the delete key. If, on
> the other hand, his perceived arrogance is leavened with a healthy mixture of
> useful information, then the likelihood is high that people will decide,
> "Okay, he may come across as a jerk, but that doesn't make him wrong."
>
> Again, I'm not saying Tony is any of those things. How you interpret the man
> is your business. But, as he is the current target of nasty T-shirts...
>
> My point is, people are smart enough to understand that the Scala community is
> more than just one guy. It's more than Martin Odersky, EPFL, and Typesafe,
> too. It's the sum of everyone out there (out here?) who chooses to use this
> language, to participate in user groups, to blog about its good and bad
> points, to organize and attend conferences--in short, it's the sum of all of us.
>
> One guy who happens to piss people off now and then doesn't define the community.
>
> Creating T-shirts that seem to mock the guy is every bit as arrogant as the
> behavior he's being accused of. But the community is more than those T-shirts,
> too.
>
> This community is one of the most enjoyable technical communities in which
> I've participated. That's not going to be spoiled by any one individual. And
> talk of banning anyone from the lists, just for being cranky, strikes me as
> exactly the wrong response, in a vibrant community like this.
>
> Of course, you're free to disagree with me or dismiss my views. You know where
> the DELETE button is. ;-)
> --
> -Brian
>
> Brian Clapper, http://www.clapper.org/bmc/
> A bore is a m

2011/10/6 Peter C. Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Clapper wrote:

> Again, I'm not saying Tony is any of those things. How you interpret the man
> is your business. But, as he is the current target of nasty T-shirts...

For what it's worth I didn't interpret the T-shirt thing as putting Tony
in a negative light. If anything it seems quite the opposite to me. It
says, "this guy is exceptionally knowledgeable and I must be someone if
he bothered to give me a slap." I guess the presumption is that if I
were truly useless he wouldn't have wasted his time with me. I'm seeing
it as a kind of strict master vs anxious student sort of thing.

Anyway, I can see how others might feel differently.

If no joke on Tony was intended, we would probably talk about the "monad slap" ...
 

Peter

--
Alex REPAIN
ENSEIRB-MATMECA - student
TECHNICOLOR R&D - intern
BORDEAUX I      - master's student
SCALA           - enthusiast

> Again, I'm not saying Tony is any of those things. How you interpret the man
> is your business. But, as he is the current target of nasty T-shirts...

For what it's worth I didn't interpret the T-shirt thing as putting Tony
in a negative light. If anything it seems quite the opposite to me. 

Just thought I'd clarify, Peter has it right. The T-shirt was an attempt at humor and was NOT meant to be nasty. I for one, usually try to work through any examples that Tony posts in order to learn something from them. 
Anyway, I completely agree with Martin's point to try to be more civil on the list so that scala-users doesn't scare off people who aren't familiar with it's resident personalities. We're all here to learn more about scala, but nobody likes to be made to feel stupid for trying to learn.
Cheers
p.s. Tony, I removed the T-shirt from the store, otherwise I would've sent you a medium size.
--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Brian Schlining
bschlining@gmail.com

I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this discussion:

a) beginner versus advanced
b) civil versus offensive

Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split the list, move to a forum, or whatever.

Brian puts it very well:

On 6 Oct 2011, at 21:41, Brian Schlining wrote:
> Anyway, I completely agree with Martin's point to try to be more civil on the list so that scala-users doesn't scare off people who aren't familiar with it's resident personalities. We're all here to learn more about scala, but nobody likes to be made to feel stupid for trying to learn.

--
paul.butcher->msgCount++

Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park...
Who says I have a one track mind?

http://www.paulbutcher.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher
MSN: paul@paulbutcher.com
AIM: paulrabutcher
Skype: paulrabutcher

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:57:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Butcher wrote:

I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this discussion:

a) beginner versus advanced
b) civil versus offensive

Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split the list, move to a forum, or whatever.

 
I think the problem is that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

I disagree.

A reply that reads

"You are wrong. Can't you try to use your brain for a change?"

Is offensive. OTOH,

"You are wrong because of X and Y as has been discussed before on post blah-blah."
or
"That is not right. See post/site blah-blah for an explanation."

is not. If you are too tired or busy or bored to give a proper answer, then don't give any answer at all. Simple.

Jeff.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:57:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Butcher wrote:

I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this discussion:

a) beginner versus advanced
b) civil versus offensive

Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split the list, move to a forum, or whatever.

 
I think the problem is that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

--
"You question the worthiness of my Code? I should kill you where you stand!"

True.  I hate to have to put minimum, arbitrary guidelines on the list, but perhaps we need  a few.
Tony's facts were correct, and I think we all learned something in that thread.   Kevin's suggestions were a 'best practice' meaning that in the simple case it might be ok, but for different reasons than offered.  The choice of lazy val vs. val vs. def vs. var is one that needs judgement.   The basic rule of thumb is just that, a rule of thumb.   It'll get you so far but not to the moon.  Or perhaps, to the driveway.... depending on the rule of thumb.
The real issue in that thread was that of civility.   I don't think Tony actually meant to offend, but the truth is that offense was taken, and the manner of his entry into the discussion was less than ideal.   This doesn't discount the accuracy or utility of the information we eventually got, but sullied the whole experience.
Scala-user is for *helping* with *details* and understanding.  To those who help users on this list, It is *your* responsibility to figure out how much information is required to help a user, and how much learning is useful for that user at the particular time.  To offer an answer that can be taken as dismissive does a dis-service to yourself and your goal of helping someone learn.  Forcing a user to learn something they do not want to *also* does a disservice to your teaching.
Combined with the use of Profanity, which is not offensive to some *and* highly offensive to others, the situation devolved quickly.
So to recap:

• Profanity is *never* welcome on this list.
• Offering an answer without the energy to help guide a user to understanding is not welcome.  If you're tired of trying to explain a topic you can
• Construct a pre-generated email explanation for users
• Write a blog article
• Not respond (although I'd prefer a blog)
• Snarky kitten picture meme like:

•  

This is not a list I would want to moderate or put formal rules on, but If those two behavior continue, we might be forced to as a community.   I consider this a serious loss if it does.  We all come from different backgrounds and the internet is an easy place to offend people.   Let's do our best to help each other and better Scala.
- Josh

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:57:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Butcher wrote:

I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this discussion:

a) beginner versus advanced
b) civil versus offensive

Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split the list, move to a forum, or whatever.

 
I think the problem is that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

On 10/06/2011 05:56 PM, Jefferson Andrade wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> A reply that reads
>
> "You are wrong. Can't you try to use your brain for a change?"
>
> Is offensive. OTOH,
>
> "You are wrong because of X and Y as has been discussed before on post blah-blah."
> or
> "That is not right. See post/site blah-blah for an explanation."
>
> is not. If you are too tired or busy or bored to give a proper answer, then
> don't give any answer at all. Simple.

A 24-point +1 on the above.

Once a subordinate asked me for honest feedback and advice for advancing on a technical path.  Maybe two thirds of the way through the conversation I received a response along these lines:
"What do you want me to do?  I can't change my brain!"

I was being direct, but I wasn't being mean or derogatory.  What happened was that the individual concluded that what I described was beyond them.  I've found people have a much strong reaction when they come to this conclusion themselves, when dealing with a person who is basically being polite, than they do when it is thrust upon them.  And it's not uncommon for it to make people angry.

The point is that a lot of posts on this list that can produce an "OMG I'm never going to understand that!" reaction in even a relatively well-educated developer.  This can easily turn people off, because (1) people feel like they were expected to understand, and they don't; (2) people feel like they are expected to take the time to understand, and they don't have time between now and when they have to get something done.

I personally don't think it's situations like Tony being terse to the point of rudeness and then arguing with Kevin that turn people off.  This is the Internet!  What happens on these lists is relatively tame.  But this list also has a strong air of "these things are important, you should be learning them," about stuff that many people have never even heard of.  That can make people feel like "I'm not welcome here, because I'm not ever going to learn this stuff, and I'm expected to start learning it in order to be part of this community."

I'm not saying the community should change.  Everyone needs to be reminded to be polite occasionally, but beyond that I don't think it should change.  Smart people are intimidating, no matter how hard they try not to be.  And this list has people on it who can make others who are probably accustomed to being one of the smartest people in the room feel like they need to go repeat half their education because they are just so lost.

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:56:22 PM UTC-4, Jefferson Andrade wrote:

I disagree.

A reply that reads

"You are wrong. Can't you try to use your brain for a change?"

Is offensive. OTOH,

"You are wrong because of X and Y as has been discussed before on post blah-blah."
or
"That is not right. See post/site blah-blah for an explanation."

is not. If you are too tired or busy or bored to give a proper answer, then don't give any answer at all. Simple.

Jeff.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.en...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:57:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Butcher wrote:

I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this discussion:

a) beginner versus advanced
b) civil versus offensive

Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split the list, move to a forum, or whatever.

 
I think the problem is that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

--
"You question the worthiness of my Code? I should kill you where you stand!"

Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of this hospital bed right now.

I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself with all this other pathetic nonsense.

On 07/10/2011 9:08 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once a subordinate asked me for honest feedback and advice for advancing on
> a technical path. Maybe two thirds of the way through the conversation I
> received a response along these lines:
> "What do you want me to do? I can't change my brain!"
>
> I was being direct, but I wasn't being mean or derogatory. What happened
> was that the individual concluded that what I described was beyond them.
> I've found people have a much strong reaction when they come to this
> conclusion themselves, when dealing with a person who is basically being
> polite, than they do when it is thrust upon them. And it's not uncommon for
> it to make people angry.
>
> The point is that a lot of posts on this list that can produce an "OMG I'm
> never going to understand that!" reaction in even a relatively well-educated
> developer. This can easily turn people off, because (1) people feel like
> they were expected to understand, and they don't; (2) people feel like they
> are expected to take the time to understand, and they don't have time
> between now and when they have to get something done.
>
> I personally don't think it's situations like Tony being terse to the point
> of rudeness and then arguing with Kevin that turn people off. This is the
> Internet! What happens on these lists is relatively tame. But this list
> also has a strong air of "these things are important, you should be learning
> them," about stuff that many people have never even heard of. That can make
> people feel like "I'm not welcome here, because I'm not ever going to learn
> this stuff, and I'm expected to start learning it in order to be part of
> this community."
>
> I'm not saying the community should change. Everyone needs to be reminded
> to be polite occasionally, but beyond that I don't think it should change.
> Smart people are intimidating, no matter how hard they try not to be. And
> this list has people on it who can make others who are probably accustomed
> to being one of the smartest people in the room feel like they need to go
> repeat half their education because they are just so lost.
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:56:22 PM UTC-4, Jefferson Andrade wrote:
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> A reply that reads
>>
>> "You are wrong. Can't you try to use your brain for a change?"
>>
>> Is offensive. OTOH,
>>
>> "You are wrong because of X and Y as has been discussed before on post
>> blah-blah."
>> or
>> "That is not right. See post/site blah-blah for an explanation."
>>
>> is not. If you are too tired or busy or bored to give a proper answer, then
>> don't give any answer at all. Simple.
>>
>> Jeff.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.en...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:57:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Butcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned that we're conflating two different issues in this
>>>> discussion:
>>>>
>>>> a) beginner versus advanced
>>>> b) civil versus offensive
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have no strong feelings about the first of these. I have
>>>> *very* strong feelings on the second. We all have an obligation to treat
>>>> other members (new or long-standing) with respect and forbearance. I would
>>>> hate for this point to be lost in the discussion of whether we need to split
>>>> the list, move to a forum, or whatever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the problem is that it is often very difficult to tell the
>>> difference between the two.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "You question the worthiness of my Code? I should kill you where you
>> stand!"
>>
>>

On 07/10/2011 00:08, Erik Engbrecht wrote:

> I personally don't think it's situations like Tony being terse to the point
> of rudeness and then arguing with Kevin that turn people off.

Unfortunately that's wrong, they do turn people off. And learning from
those exchanges is almost impossible because the facts are buried in a
mass of invective and posturing.

> Smart people are intimidating, no matter how hard they try not to be. And
> this list has people on it who can make others who are probably accustomed
> to being one of the smartest people in the room feel like they need to go
> repeat half their education because they are just so lost.

In my experience, *really* smart people know how to make their point in
a way that is polite, accessible and comprehensible, because they've
learned through experience that if they don't do that they are generally
just ignored.

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:

Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of this hospital bed right now.

I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself with all this other pathetic nonsense.

Awww, come on.  Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun.  And I don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug Kevin.  Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to make good on it.  You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss.  I'd donate and fly across the pond to see it.

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

Hi Tony,

I have been having deja vu, did a search and found a very similar
conversation we had 3.5 years ago. Right here:

http://scala-programming-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/Re-scala-Scala-n...

I have always thought of myself as an old Java guy but it seems I'm
already turning into an old Scala guy. Either way I'm an old guy, and
experience tells me if we didn't solve it then we probably won't solve
it now.

I had forgotten I wrote that about two worlds. I still see, or think I
see, the same social dynamic in the Scala community of two worlds
coming together, the imperative/OO and pure functional, sometimes
merging sometimes more like colliding. The Scala language blends the
two technically. The community socially. Sometimes the two blend less
smoothly in the community than the language, which is unfortunate, but
on the plus side we enjoy more opportunities to learn from others than
if it were one or the other monoculture.

Bill

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris wrote:
> Shall we let Kevin know? Nah
>
> On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>>
>>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>>> this hospital bed right now.
>>>
>>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting
>>> others
>>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar
>>> with
>>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract
>>> yourself
>>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
>> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
>> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
>> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
>> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
>> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
>> the pond to see it.
>

I don't really buy into the "two worlds coming together" thing. There
aren't two worlds -- it's an illusion -- a destructive one in my
opinion. The issues at hand are so easily resolvable and indeed, they
are regularly resolved for certain individuals. It's comes down to a
matter of what is important to whom. It's cool -- I'm pretty patient.
All the best.

On 07/10/11 13:12, Bill Venners wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> I have been having deja vu, did a search and found a very similar
> conversation we had 3.5 years ago. Right here:
>
> http://scala-programming-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/Re-scala-Scala-n...
>
> I have always thought of myself as an old Java guy but it seems I'm
> already turning into an old Scala guy. Either way I'm an old guy, and
> experience tells me if we didn't solve it then we probably won't solve
> it now.
>
> I had forgotten I wrote that about two worlds. I still see, or think I
> see, the same social dynamic in the Scala community of two worlds
> coming together, the imperative/OO and pure functional, sometimes
> merging sometimes more like colliding. The Scala language blends the
> two technically. The community socially. Sometimes the two blend less
> smoothly in the community than the language, which is unfortunate, but
> on the plus side we enjoy more opportunities to learn from others than
> if it were one or the other monoculture.
>
> Bill
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris wrote:
>> Shall we let Kevin know? Nah
>>
>> On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>>>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>>>> this hospital bed right now.
>>>>
>>>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>>>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting
>>>> others
>>>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar
>>>> with
>>>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract
>>>> yourself
>>>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
>>> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
>>> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
>>> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
>>> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
>>> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
>>> the pond to see it.
>
>

Please keep the discord off of scala-user.

Please keep save the discord for scala-debate - and feel free to flame
on at will - it is after all the deep end.

Cheers, Eric

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 14:38 +1000, Tony Morris wrote:
> I don't really buy into the "two worlds coming together" thing. There
> aren't two worlds -- it's an illusion -- a destructive one in my
> opinion. The issues at hand are so easily resolvable and indeed, they
> are regularly resolved for certain individuals. It's comes down to a
> matter of what is important to whom. It's cool -- I'm pretty patient.
> All the best.

In the UK at least, there is very much a "two worlds", at least
historically. In the 1980s, the functional programming (FP) folk set
themselves up as people involved in the only form of computing that
mattered. They got into positions of research power and hence research
funding. But they became insular, and indeed dismissive of the
non-declarative forms, e.g. object-oriented (OO). Also they did not
worry about being relevant to folk making money from software. As OO
rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the OO folk became an equally
arrogant and insular crowd, who were as dismissive of non-believers as
the FP folk were. The FP crowd began to demean the approach of being
relevant to industry and commerce, a line being trodden by the OO folk.
Both sides made jokes about any integrative work, cf. FOOPLOG.

There was a real Paradigm War. You were on one side or the other, the
two could never merge, cf. making FOOPLOG the butt of jokes.

End result: C++ and Java are the only programming languages that matter
in an industrial and commercial setting, with a smattering of C for the
embedded systems folk. OO won the battle and the war. At least for the
hearts and minds of CEOs, CTOs, CIOs and entrepreneurs. Not to mention
the VCs.

C++ though led the way for the comeback of FP. The STL opened the door
to a more FP approach to data structures in an OO world. Moreover
template meta programming is FP.

Simon Peyton Jones (with Simon Marlowe) has been putting Miranda "out
there" not just for its FP purity but because it can be made to be
industrially and commercially relevant in an increasingly parallel
world. Old views of concurrency are (finally after 40 years) almost
irrelevant in the post Multicore Revolution world of ubiquitous parallel
processors, of many architectures.

Nonetheless there is a underlying and pervasive "two worlds" mentality.
People are being engaged by the ideas of FP, are even looking to Miranda
as an alternative to OCaml (which has a global interpreter lock (GIL)
and so is problematic). Yet unless the there is a connection to C++ or
Java, languages do not get actually used and hence absorbed into "real
world" use.

It is not clear where the future is for native code, is it Go, is it C
++, is it a merge of Miranda and C++ totally unlike the Objective-C
mashup of C and Smalltalk?

On the JVM there is a much more obvious route given Groovy, Jython,
JRuby, Clojure and Scala. Integration is available for free on the JVM,
unlike the attempt via p-code 40 years ago.

Scala is in a position to bring the "two worlds" together in association
with the Clojure, Groovy and JRuby communities. By not acknowledging
that there really are, from a social perspective, "two worlds" out
there, then the opportunity to create a new computing fit for the
ubiquitously parallel world will be missed.

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 07:21 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
[ . . . ]
>
> Simon Peyton Jones (with Simon Marlowe) has been putting Miranda "out

s/Miranda/Haskell/

Obviously :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 07.10.2011 00:02, schrieb Josh Suereth:
> ...
> The real issue in that thread was that of civility. ...
>
> Scala-user is for *helping* with *details* and understanding.

Everybody was free to come up with a better answer, with a more friendly
answer, with an own approach. Why didn't they?

All my comments below are not about Tony specifically, but about the
effects of "name calling, arrogant and dismissive behavior" in the
mailing list.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Brian Clapper wrote:
> then the likelihood is high that most people will simply roll their eyes and hit the
> delete key.

Do you have data to back up that claim? There is another obvious
option: unsubscribe from the mailing list (or stop reading it, reading
it less frequently, contributing less, etc.). That can reduce
diversity in the mailing list, which I don't think is a good thing.

> My point is, people are smart enough to understand that the Scala community
> is more than just one guy. It's more than Martin Odersky, EPFL, and
> Typesafe, too. It's the sum of everyone out there (out here?) who chooses to
> use this language, to participate in user groups, to blog about its good and
> bad points, to organize and attend conferences--in short, it's the sum of
> all of us.

It's actually a weighted sum of all of us. If someone is more vocal,
they have a higher influence in the total than someone who is less
vocal.

> This community is one of the most enjoyable technical communities in which
> I've participated.

I wish more people felt that way, but I see negative statements about
the Scala community in my Twitter timeline more often than I would
like. I often try to put it into perspective, but I don't think it's a
good idea to dismiss the issue altogether.

Best,
Ismael

On 10/07/2011 05:03 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> All my comments below are not about Tony specifically, but about the
> effects of "name calling, arrogant and dismissive behavior" in the
> mailing list.
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Brian Clapper wrote:
>> then the likelihood is high that most people will simply roll their eyes and hit the
>> delete key.
>
> Do you have data to back up that claim? There is another obvious
> option: unsubscribe from the mailing list (or stop reading it, reading
> it less frequently, contributing less, etc.). That can reduce
> diversity in the mailing list, which I don't think is a good thing.

My anecdotal evidence is old, and not 100% applicable, but the notion applies:
In the Usenet days, we had killfiles, and people used them with a vengeance.
It's that remedy to which I was referring.

When Tony says OO is an illusion, he doesn't mean that those people doesn't exist. He means that mathematically speaking the concept doesn't exist.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 14:38 +1000, Tony Morris wrote:
> I don't really buy into the "two worlds coming together" thing. There
> aren't two worlds -- it's an illusion -- a destructive one in my
> opinion. The issues at hand are so easily resolvable and indeed, they
> are regularly resolved for certain individuals. It's comes down to a
> matter of what is important to whom. It's cool -- I'm pretty patient.
> All the best.

In the UK at least, there is very much a "two worlds", at least
historically.  In the 1980s, the functional programming (FP) folk set
themselves up as people involved in the only form of computing that
mattered.  They got into positions of research power and hence research
funding.  But they became insular, and indeed dismissive of the
non-declarative forms, e.g. object-oriented (OO).  Also they did not
worry about being relevant to folk making money from software.  As OO
rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the OO folk became an equally
arrogant and insular crowd, who were as dismissive of non-believers as
the FP folk were.  The FP crowd began to demean the approach of being
relevant to industry and commerce, a line being trodden by the OO folk.
Both sides made jokes about any integrative work, cf. FOOPLOG.

There was a real Paradigm War.  You were on one side or the other, the
two could never merge, cf. making FOOPLOG the butt of jokes.

End result:  C++ and Java are the only programming languages that matter
in an industrial and commercial setting, with a smattering of C for the
embedded systems folk.  OO won the battle and the war.  At least for the
hearts and minds of CEOs, CTOs, CIOs and entrepreneurs.  Not to mention
the VCs.

C++ though led the way for the comeback of FP.  The STL opened the door
to a more FP approach to data structures in an OO world.  Moreover
template meta programming is FP.

Simon Peyton Jones (with Simon Marlowe) has been putting Miranda "out
there" not just for its FP purity but because it can be made to be
industrially and commercially relevant in an increasingly parallel
world.  Old views of concurrency are (finally after 40 years) almost
irrelevant in the post Multicore Revolution world of ubiquitous parallel
processors, of many architectures.

Nonetheless there is a underlying and pervasive "two worlds" mentality.
People are being engaged by the ideas of FP, are even looking to Miranda
as an alternative to OCaml (which has a global interpreter lock (GIL)
and so is problematic).  Yet unless the there is a connection to C++ or
Java, languages do not get actually used and hence absorbed into "real
world" use.

It is not clear where the future is for native code, is it Go, is it C
++, is it a merge of Miranda and C++ totally unlike the Objective-C
mashup of C and Smalltalk?

On the JVM there is a much more obvious route given Groovy, Jython,
JRuby, Clojure and Scala.  Integration is available for free on the JVM,
unlike the attempt via p-code 40 years ago.

Scala is in a position to bring the "two worlds" together in association
with the Clojure, Groovy and JRuby communities.  By not acknowledging
that there really are, from a social perspective, "two worlds" out
there, then the opportunity to create a new computing fit for the
ubiquitously parallel world will be missed.

--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: 3Arussel [dot] winder [at] ekiga [dot] net" rel="nofollow">sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

I also may need to invest in a better proofreader.  I meant arbitrary.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

Arbitrary is a bit strong.  I will agree that what I find distasteful is a *personal* choice.   Arbitrary does carry a negative tone.  It's like arguing that my opinion is better because mine is not arbitrary and I choose not be offended by anything.  Especially when you start making "right" judgements.   This calls to an absolute truth, which cannot be arbitrarily defined.  
Great, that's a personal decision.  I don't think people make things "arbitrarily" usually, even if it may seem that way to others.
I also think this thread has perhaps run it's course on scala-user.   Please move to scala-debate if you wish to continue.  (i've already moved it, just stop cc'ing scala-user).
In any case, there's a modicum of political correctness we should hold on this list.   If every time i say "bananas" it causes someone to get upset, than this *only* hurts the message I'm trying to convey, unless I am an ass and wish to continue upsetting people for no good reason, or don't really care if people listen to me (in which case, just shut up).  
To continue the debate:
Even explaining how profanity does not exist can be done without the use of what some of us consider profanity.  Hey, let's look at the definition of profane:

pro·fane/prəˈfān/

Adjective: Relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular. Verb: Treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.
Right, so I'm taking something someone else firmly believes and disrespecting it.  Of course that will annoy people, that's what profanity/being profane *is*.   Now, if I don't believe in the sacred nature of things, then there would be no profanity, because there is nothing to profane.   That said, profanity + disrespect go hand in hand.  

dis·re·spect/ˌdisriˈspekt/

Noun: Lack of respect or courtesy. Verb: Show a lack of respect for; insult. Synonyms:irreverence - impiety
Now, there's a debate about how much respect people deserve.   I'm not advocated we start pandering to the most sensitive folk here.  There is a line.   Let's use a modicum of respect here.  If people complain, you know you've gone too far.   In general this list is pretty good, so let's be friendly and keep it that way.
- Josh

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I also may need to invest in a better proofreader.  I meant arbitrary.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

Arbitrary is a bit strong.  I will agree that what I find distasteful is a *personal* choice.   Arbitrary does carry a negative tone.  It's like arguing that my opinion is better because mine is not arbitrary and I choose not be offended by anything.  Especially when you start making "right" judgements.   This calls to an absolute truth, which cannot be arbitrarily defined.  
Great, that's a personal decision.  I don't think people make things "arbitrarily" usually, even if it may seem that way to others.
I also think this thread has perhaps run it's course on scala-user.   Please move to scala-debate if you wish to continue.  (i've already moved it, just stop cc'ing scala-user).
In any case, there's a modicum of political correctness we should hold on this list.   If every time i say "bananas" it causes someone to get upset, than this *only* hurts the message I'm trying to convey, unless I am an ass and wish to continue upsetting people for no good reason, or don't really care if people listen to me (in which case, just shut up).  
To continue the debate:
Even explaining how profanity does not exist can be done without the use of what some of us consider profanity.  Hey, let's look at the definition of profane:

pro·fane/prəˈfān/

Adjective: Relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular. Verb: Treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.
Right, so I'm taking something someone else firmly believes and disrespecting it.  Of course that will annoy people, that's what profanity/being profane *is*.   Now, if I don't believe in the sacred nature of things, then there would be no profanity, because there is nothing to profane.   That said, profanity + disrespect go hand in hand.  

dis·re·spect/ˌdisriˈspekt/

Noun: Lack of respect or courtesy. Verb: Show a lack of respect for; insult. Synonyms:irreverence - impiety
Now, there's a debate about how much respect people deserve.   I'm not advocated we start pandering to the most sensitive folk here.  There is a line.   Let's use a modicum of respect here.  If people complain, you know you've gone too far.   In general this list is pretty good, so let's be friendly and keep it that way.
- Josh

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I also may need to invest in a better proofreader.  I meant arbitrary.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

I agree that you are responsible for how you respond to your emotions.
But that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with provoking your emotions.
Also there's nothing different about this than physical harm. If a step on your toe and you punch me in the nose in response, I am responsible for having hurt you and you are responsible for hurting me back. That doesn't imply that we should not ask people to watch where they walk.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that you are responsible for how you respond to your emotions.
But that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with provoking your emotions.
Also there's nothing different about this than physical harm. If a step on your toe and you punch me in the nose in response, I am responsible for having hurt you and you are responsible for hurting me back. That doesn't imply that we should not ask people to watch where they walk.

Also, it's not true that emotional sensitivities are always arbitrary. For instance, if there is a significant number of people who get upset when spoken to in a certain way, then clearly that "upset-ness" is not arbitrary but triggered by that manner of speech.
 

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

I hold that my response to my emotions is my own problem to deal with.  I do not push responsibility for my reactions onto other people.
I do not (directly) control what emotions I will feel in response to what is presented to me.  However, I bear complete responsibile for my actions, no matter what emotions I am feeling.

To summarize: I do not have the right to force other people to behave differently just because I happen to find what they have to say distasteful.
The reason is simple: What I find distasteful is a personal and arbratrary choice.  It is unfair in the extreme to demand that those around me conform to that arbratrary choice.  If anything that would be harmful to those around me (arbratrary restriction of free will).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

There's something called emotions, and wishing them away won't make them disappear. Just because something doesn't cause harm doesn't mean it's not wrong. Harm is not the only undesirable thing. Do you honestly hold that you are not affected by your emotions?


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Byron Shelden <byron.shelden@gmail.com> wrote:

*blinks*
*blinks more*
We're programmers here.  Not baloons.  We don't pop the moment we encounter something sharp or abrasive.

How does Array(0x46, 0x75, 0x63, 0x6b) harm anybody?
Note, I asked "harm" there.  Very important.  Being offended is arbratrary.  Anybody can choose to be offended by anything.  How is anybody harmed by being told something they don't like?  Can we please grow up and stop spending all this energy complaining about things that cannot possibly hurt us?  There are much more interesting things we could be discussing with the limited time we have to spend on these mailing lists.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tony Morris <tmorris@tmorris.net> wrote:

Shall we let Kevin know? Nah

On 07/10/2011 11:57 AM, "Erik Engbrecht" <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:20:39 PM UTC-4, Tony Morris wrote:
>>
>> Kevin knows I don't mean anything personally. If flying to his house and
>> kissing him on the face meant the point was made better, I'd leap out of
>> this hospital bed right now.
>>
>> I do wish this list wasn't always distracted by such silly things as the
>> magical properties of words and other superstitions (then expecting others
>> to take any offense caused seriously). Sure you might not be familiar with
>> the subject matter. One sure way to keep it that way is to distract yourself
>> with all this other pathetic nonsense.
>>
>>
> Awww, come on. Sometimes a nice entirely subjective debate is fun. And I
> don't think this is the first time you've offered up to kiss and/or hug
> Kevin. Maybe we should start Kickstarter project to fly you to London to
> make good on it. You could whack him with a signed copy of your book when
> it comes out, tell him to read it before offering up anymore nonsense
> answers, and then give him a big hug and a kiss. I'd donate and fly across
> the pond to see it.

--
Byron Shelden

--
Byron Shelden