Dillon Levenque Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 English is the only language I can speak or write. I know enough Spanish to be able t order from the menu in a Mexican restaurant (as should anyone who grew up in California) and I am able to read it fairly well, but there's no way I could hold up one end of a conversation. And Aethel, I took two years of Latin also (in High School—age 14 and 15). Back in the day, I could produce whole translated sections of the Aeneid that weren't embarassingly wrong, but these days I'm left with nothing but things I learned later. To Spit: spitto, spittere, achtui, splattus* * From "P.S. Wilkinson" by C.D.B. Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: BASIC, C, Pascal and x86asm and 5 C derivatives, 3 BASICs, and 3 Pascals add i have troubles with them all (: But, unlike here, you probably don't complain at debuggers when they point out errors in spelling, syntax and punctuation. i dont complain about blackboard monitors either. They are quite important. Cheapshot artists not so important is quite good tho the GD has a Cambridge scholar to be our blackboard monitor. Like most of them other scholars they are off writing great literature and doctoring, economicing, bankering, debating the great issues of the day at the Union Society, sitting in the House of Lords and other grand stuff etc. So we quite grateful really that we are blessed in this way. Well I am anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: BASIC, C, Pascal and x86asm and 5 C derivatives, 3 BASICs, and 3 Pascals add i have troubles with them all (: But, unlike here, you probably don't complain at debuggers when they point out errors in spelling, syntax and punctuation. Debuggers don't point out any of those things. Code editors, pre-processors, and the lexical analyzers of compilers and interpreters do and they must, because the semantic analyzers of compilers and interpreters are unable to divine intent in the presence of syntax errors. Only after passing all those checks is code produced that you can debug if necessary. And that's often necessary because the compilers and interpreters cannot detect most semantic errors and virtually any intent errors. So, nobody complains about the grammar checking, it's necessary. Bad syntax guarantees no code, good syntax does not guarantee good code. Debuggers simply allow one to examine the compute environment during execution of a program, halting and stepping, poking and prodding as necessary to reveal differences between the actual operation and the intended operation, and between the intended operation and the desired operation (we don't always know how do get the results we want). Here, people are able to divine desire (with varying degrees of success) in the presence of syntax and semantic errors and even errors in intent. That's pretty cool. Some people don't do this as well as others, either because they don't want to, or they can't. When things don't go as intended, we either accept the error, or debug (further conversation). While reducing errors in syntax here is helpful, it's not always necessary, and it's not always efficient. In communications theory, you learn that reducing the error rate has a cost somewhere in the system (often in speed), so you reduce only to the extent that it helps achieve the overall system goal. As with code, good syntax here does not guarantee good understanding. Unlike code, bad syntax here doesn't guarantee no understanding. Here's an example: Feelynx Lavender recently made a first post in the forums, one you took issue with. In your response, you insinuated that you're a member of the cognoscenti, and that you recognized Feelynx had created an alt to provoke... https://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Trolls-vs-Long-Time-players/m-p/2922221#M206193 Nyll Bergbahn recognized something different in exactly the same information... https://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Trolls-vs-Long-Time-players/m-p/2922270#M206208 She realized (and it doesn't take one of the congnoscenti to do it, I can do it) that "Freelynx Lavender" consists of a first name and a last name and that last names stopped being granted years ago. On checking Feelynx's profile, Nyll further discovered a rez date over five years old, and a fairly fleshed out profile. You had access to error free syntax (two names vs one) and substantial semantic content and yet you misunderstood. And your response to Nyll demonstrated an inability to construct a plausible explanation that you had not made an error. I make mistakes all the time, though I try to avoid them. Admitting that I make mistakes saves me from failing to explain why I don't make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: BASIC, C, Pascal and x86asm and 5 C derivatives, 3 BASICs, and 3 Pascals add i have troubles with them all (: I was able to satisfy my college's foreign language requirement by citing "C". For good measure, I also cited ASM-11, Basic, Fortran, 68K Assembler and Pascal. In college I added Fortran, Smalltalk and HyperTalk. Since college, I've added VHDL, Verilog, PHP, Perl, Python, LSL (you forgot LSL) and few more assembly languages. Swift and maybe SystemC are on my to-do list. And like you, I have troubles with them all. But ultimately, as with English, it's not really the languages that I have troubles with. It's the things that understand the languages. ;-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Debuggers don't point out any of those things. Your experience of what you consider debuggers is obviously of tools less sophisticated and comprehensive than those I have used. You have also missed the (designed) pun. Madelaine McMasters wrote: She realized (and it doesn't take one of the congnoscenti to do it, I can do it) that "Freelynx Lavender" consists of a first name and a last name and that last names stopped being granted years ago. On checking Feelynx's profile, Nyll further discovered a rez date over five years old, and a fairly fleshed out profile. As I pointed out, I personally have multiple alts with creation dates stretching back almost a decade, with various names and comprehensive to blank profiles which I use for a range of reasons in varying circumstances. So your "evidence" proves absolutely nothing. Indeed, Freelynx Lavender might actually be another one of the multiple identities you run - despite your (or was it Snookie or whatever its name is) initial criticisms of me for that strategy - intentionally or otherwise making a fool of yourself. PS Have you been checked for autism recently? Your inability to grasp the way in which others think seems to have increased recently. Or perhaps it's just the beginnings of early onset dementia. PPS The cognoscenti generally make sure they spell cognoscenti correctly. More EOD symptoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: irihapeti wrote: BASIC, C, Pascal and x86asm and 5 C derivatives, 3 BASICs, and 3 Pascals add i have troubles with them all (: I was able to satisfy my college's foreign language requirement by citing "C". For good measure, I also cited ASM-11, Basic, Fortran, 68K Assembler and Pascal. In college I added Fortran, Smalltalk and HyperTalk. Since college, I've added VHDL, Verilog, PHP, Perl, Python, LSL (you forgot LSL) and few more assembly languages. Swift and maybe SystemC are on my to-do list. And like you, I have troubles with them all. But ultimately, as with English, it's not really the languages that I have troubles with. It's the things that understand the languages. ;-). as those of us who are multilingual whether that be human oral and/or human read/writeable languages can know that the spellchecker/debugger isnt what makes it. What makes a language is comprehension. Which is the job of the parser, the pre-processing of the words heard and/or read can write (or say even) something that is perfectly spelled, grammatically and syntatically perfect. and perfect diction. the parser will pass it (and so will the debugger), and yet the outcome will be garbage bc the parser isn't able to comprehend what it read/heard. It cant extrapolate/deduce the meaning of the writer/orator without being spoonfed c example n = random(2); if (n = 1) idontmeanthis(); else imeanthis(); this example compiles without any debug error. It parses good as well. But yeah the outcome is not good. If tho write it in another language if 1 = (n = random(2)) then idontmeanthis else imeanthis which can be a bit confusing bc of the runtogether. Yet it will not only pass the parser and debugger but the outcome is also good + my own experience is that people who are monolingual and presume thats all they will ever need on the internets really struggle with parsing. They need everything spelled out to them, clearly and concisely. You have to spoonfeed them all the time bc their parsing skills are pretty much non-existent is why Llaz for example gets upset. He has no spoon and expects everyone else on the internets to feed him. And when they dont he does what babies do. He baws. Is faux upset tho. He just likes to hear himself baw q; (: + ps about LSL. Is a C derivative (syntatically) so I count as C. Same C++, javascript, D, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 It isn't just computer "languages" (which aren't languages at all, of course) which allow syntactically correct formulations which generate nonsense. This is a lie. Analyse that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: It isn't just computer "languages" (which aren't languages at all, of course) which allow syntactically correct formulations which generate nonsense. This is a lie. Analyse that! C is not a language of computers. Nor is BASIC or Pascal or any of them. They are human read/writeable languages. Some people can even chat in them ps Tusi was here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance. all methods communications are symbolic. They are not necessarily logical tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance. all methods communications are symbolic. They are not necessarily logical tho That's why I described what you call "computer languages" as "symbolic logical codes". Are you getting there yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance. all methods communications are symbolic. They are not necessarily logical tho That's why I described what you call "computer languages" as "symbolic logical codes". Are you getting there yet? you still need to catch up + a person goes on a game forum and complains about how come in this game when they move their mouse to the left their avatar turns to the right. When they move mouse right then avatar turns left. This is completely illogical so they complain. Move mouse left and avatar should turn left. Right move and right turn is a explanation ( justification even) given by the game provider for why this is. Is still illogical to the person tho even after the explanation logical is a adjective yes. of or according to the rules of logic + ps i didnt call them computer languages. You did. I called them human read/writeable languages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: human read/writeable languages Well, she doesn't, actually. Not most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: human read/writeable languages Well, she doesn't, actually. Not most of the time. is that all you got left ?? i am dissapoint jejejeje (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: human read/writeable languages Well, she doesn't, actually. Not most of the time. is that all you got left ?? i am dissapoint jejejeje (: I have a reputation to maintain for being less than prolix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: prolix. \o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urzul Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 ....lol 0100010101 people lost the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now