Re: implications, flames, etc.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:18:48 -0800, WCBaker at home <WCBaker at HOME.COM> wrote:
>1. I shouldn't free-associate on-line and then become irritated when others
>complain that I responded to
> something that they said (which is what triggered my tangent, but
>which is not directed at them)
>
>2. I shouldn't free-associate on topics like Java in which I've been
>*hammering* out 2 problems for the past 2
> weeks straight and still don't have the optimal solution.
>
>I will try to keep points 1 and 2 in mind in the future.
>
>Cheers!
>
>--Warren
You'd think I was immune by now. I have been flamed early and often by
many, and have mostly managed to stay on topic. I should have in this case.
I sympathize with your difficulties with JAVA. It is a far from ideal construct,
language, environment, whatever. I did not mean to "imply" that it was ideal
in any way. What I was pointing out was that many major players have
committed huge resources to it and I want access to the results of those
efforts, whatever they may be. I'll correct that. I may NEED to have access.
I'd also like for Nick to have access to ActiveX as long as he'll keep it
hidden in his closet and not in the language base 
In general, I'd like
to have straightforward access to anything that can be called in the most
general sense of that word. That requires two things the ability to reasonably
describe the data to be sent and received without peeking and poking
everything(structures) and a more generalized and flexible calling procedure.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
