You seem to be under the impression that adding new syntax necessarily breaks existing code. But that just isn't true. If you can't fathom how it's done, then look at the use VERSION statement in Perl.
Under the circumstance that the primary and secondary education levels have failed to adequately prepare a student for tertiary level, I think your idea would be unfair.
The university teaches what it teaches; it exists as a place of higher learning. If the student is unprepared for that, they are unprepared to attend. It's not university's job to fix shitty high schools' teachings and redo lower learning. Go get a highschool tutor if you need that.
Do you have an actual argument? Shaming tactics are ineffective on HN.
Reality check: in most countries, if you made a public demand of effectively depriving the disabled of the proper care they want and deserve, they would regard you as an inhumane monster, and the education ministry would refer you to state prosecution for violating the constitution.
You were downvoted as a punishment because you made a retarded argument and HN users saw fit to not engage with words.
No billionaire is forced to break up a public company to pay taxes, the same as no average Joe is forced to sell his clothes to pay taxes. The idea in common is that if one knows that one must have cash at the end of the fiscal year, then one sets aside the money and simply avoids buying clothes or investing in assets.
This VB feature existed to accommodate programmers coming from the DOS based QB IDE who were used to the one function per screen view there. To my sensibilities, it does not make much sense with the advent of high-resolution desktop environments.
I recognise it from regularly talking with fellow programmers at the local tech meet-ups. At least in my area, the work places with result-oriented policies were and still are in the clear majority, and only big companies with likewise big financial reserves could afford to pursue the economically wasteful route of process-oriented policies.
People use the extension for the same reason people use other content blockers against advertisement, notices banners, social media widgets and so on, namely not to suffer avoidable annoyances.
> you would lose meaning
No meaning is lost that has not been there before.
> someone else's use of language awkward
Most would judge that it's not just awkward, but grating.
I wish the Wx proponents would stop saying these things. Who exactly are you trying to fool? Do you have no concept of reputational damage? What good comes from a claim that is so easily disproven by just installing a Wx application and looking?
Do you understand the difference between a toolkit API and a graphical widget?
I’m not trying to fool anyone. I'm not affiliated with the project. I’m just aware of it and have used it a few times. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar and a fraud because I repeated exactly what the project docs state and which your two links do nothing to contradict. In fact, you linked to yourself being corrected by the actual maintainer of the project. Did you read anything he wrote?
> Do you understand the difference between a toolkit API and a graphical widget?
I think I do. I have taken a few minutes on the Web to compare that what I had in mind is correct. What was the point of asking this question? Was it to trap me in a gotcha, or paint me as clueless, or what?
> have called me a liar and a fraud because I repeated exactly what the project docs state
Good, you realise you are taking on the claims made by Wx on paper. However, there's more to the world. To get the full picture, you have to also engage with what I have listed. The docs say one thing, the reality shown in the screenshots say another. There is a contradiction. It remains unresolved, not for lack of trying on my part.
> your two links do nothing to contradict
You are not further allowed by me to invalidate what I was writing about by simply disregarding the evidence. Engage with the points I was making. The differences in look and feel between Wx and native are plain for everyone to see and verify. So, what now? Who is right?
> Did you read anything he wrote?
Yes. Examine this:
his claim> OTOH all the standard UI elements (buttons, checkboxes, text controls, date pickers, ...) are native
his deflection> Sorry, I don't know what is this supposed to prove
So instead of admitting that there is a contradiction, he just pretends to not understand it.
Also examine this:
> look good
> look good
> looks fine
> look good
I never mentioned anything about looking good, this is a distraction designed to deflect from the central point I was making. As I wrote before, the central point made by me remains completely unaddressed.
Alas, I cannot deal with those crazy-making techniques, his behaviour measured by outcome is indistinguishable from the mentally ill. With the help and advice from a friend, I came to the conclusion that it was not safe for me to respond, so I then decided not to.
I don’t really care what you “allow” me to do, and I don’t owe you my time for a deep rebuttal of your claims.
I accept that you’ve had a bad experience with the project and that you are speaking in good faith about that experience. I do not accept that I’m a liar or a shill because my experience does not match yours, and you will not convince me to accept that.
Whatever has gone on in other places between you and some third party has nothing to do with me. I didn’t see any credible threat to your safety in the links you shared, but I’m willing to guess that’s not the complete story between the two of you. I really can’t and won’t be dragged into the middle of that, because I don’t know either of you.
I notice you did not address the central point. This is, of course, because you are unable to. You have no argument to attack the evidence I have shown, you cannot answer any of the questions I have posed, the sidetrack about the other HN user was fruitless, you rationally know you are holding on to an indefensible position. And yet… the fragile ego cannot allow admission of being wrong, or even merely entertain the thought. So "muh experience is different" emotional cope comes out instead of dealing with objective reality, like installing a Wx software or looking at a screenshot. Stop digging, man, we already feel embarrassed on your behalf.
If you can read someone’s thoughts so thoroughly you should be making a living playing poker. All you have cited as evidence is your own other posts. You just have to have the last word, though, and that word has to be an insult to a stranger.
reply