Skip to main content
news

Re: Paintshop and Corel

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: Paintshop and Corel
FromSandman
Date12/04/2013 10:01 (12/04/2013 10:01)
Message-ID<slrnl9trum.e9q.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsEric Stevens
In article <e6ns9997h5455moa69dqn1pqsasscccjmc@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman
Indeed he was, as I have substantiated:

Paintshop and Corel 11/25/2013 <m3o699lcu5nkmjftqpss3pdj3bvv0mfkfg@4ax.com>

"How do you think an "automatic" process comes to be? Someone first decides what the process will be, and then writes it into the system. The back-up protocol was determined by the developers of the Time Machine program and installed it to do the back-up automatically in the future. The "automatic" function is part of the protocol."

He is quite clearly talking about software development when referencing the developers of the Time Machine software.

Eric Stevens
It seems that way to only because you completely reject the idea of a backup protocol in this context. As I've several times tried to explain, a protocol does not entail software.

For christ sakes, Eric. You have a *reading disorder* that I can't circumvent or rectify. *TONY* started to talk about software then **I** told *HIM* that a *PROTOCOL DOES NOT MEAN SOFTWARE*.

I'm using caps here to help direct your gaze towards the parts of my sentence that I'm hoping that you will be able to read and, less likely, comprehend!

The protocol is not the code; it is not the logic of the particular block of code; it is not any part of the program at all. It is a statement, definition, of what the code must do. In exactly the same way the protocols for FTP, HTTP, NNTP and IP are statements of what the code must do. e.g.

Sandman
Not at all. The protocols of HTTP says exactly NOTHING about what the *code* must do - only in how the application must communicate with the service/server.

Eric Stevens
Isn't that a statement of what the code must do?

Of course not. It's a standard to which to application most adhere. You can "do" this many ways using code. The HTTP or FTP protocol says *nothing* about code, especially considering the very fact that you can use these protocols using pretty much any programming language.

You see, "code" doesn't "do" anything. Code is an instruction to a compiler, that creates applications. Applications are the ones that DO something. So the FTP protocol very much defines what an application must DO to adhere to it.

As a programmer, you can achieve this in a multitude of ways in your code.

It's a moot point, either way, since communication protocols between computer systems (FTP, HTTP) was never the topic, and is just a diversion on your part.

Sandman
No shit, Sherlock. That is exactly what I told him when he ignorantly started to talk about software development.

Eric Stevens
Do you mean on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:24 -0500 when at Message-ID: <m3o699lcu5nkmjftqpss3pdj3bvv0mfkfg@4ax.com>he started to discuss what was protocol and what was not after you introduced the "The old .Mac backup application"?

No, I mean when I told him that software development is rarely using the word "Protocol" when he ignorantly refered to software development.

I've already quoted the relevant parts in another post, but since you refuse to read and/or comprehend them, I won't bother doing it again. It's just a waste of time and effort. Once is enough.

Sandman
Sure, that's STILL not substantiation for your claim:

"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'.

Eric Stevens
And that was clear from your discussion of the time.

Which is a lie, given the fact that you have failed to support that it was "clear". FOr a million dollars, you couldn't quote me using the word "Protocol" in an incorrect way.

Sandman
That remains as unsubstantiated since the time you made the claim. You have NOT supported your claim that I (or nospam) "properly" understand the meaning of "protocol". That remains an empty claim to this day.

Eric still fails to substantiate his claim - now making it an outright lie.

Indeed.

Eric Stevens
Your use of the word protocol as meaning software is quite wrong.

Sandman
Ah, another claim from you! Now you have to quote me saying that "protocol means software"

Eric Stevens
I didn't say that you believed in protocol being software.

No, "meaning" software, like I said. Why don't you notice it yourself when you have to switch out words in order to claim you haven't said it.

But you seemed to believe that Tony meant that protocol meant software and went to some trouble to disprove it.

Look, what things "seem" to you is of no consequence to me. I have never claimed, believed or said that Tony meant that "protocol meant software"

And above you said that *I* used the word "Protocol" meaning software, and now you're saying I "believed" Tony used it that way. You are very very confused and you mix things up in every post and you can't keep anything straight even in one paragraph of your own text.

For example, on 26 Nov 2013 22:09:20 GMT in Message-ID: <slrnl9a72h.eo.mr@irc.sandman.net>you wrote an article of some length, including a code example. Your final paragraph was:

"Few, if any, developers would call this a protocol.

Which is proof that I don't use the word "protocol" meaning software.

From the way you continue digging around inside programs looking for Tony's 'protocol' it is clear that you have never understood what he was talking about.

But your incorrect claim wasn't that I didn't understand what Tony was talking about - it was that I didn't understand the word "protocol". A claim you have yet to support, of course.

I tried to use the 'black box' analogy to explain to you that the protocol lay outside the program, but you rejected that.

Your black box laymen analogies had no place in a thread where actual programmers post. It's your equivalent of saying "it does stuff"

I gave the real examples of FTP etc and you brushed them aside.

Since backup protocols was the topic, not inter-system communication protocols.

Sandman
No quote from Eric, since there is none. His claim is incorrect and he knows he can't support it, so he'll ignore this rather than admit to his error. Like a true troll.

Now run along, Eric. You have nothing but humiliation to gain from this thread.

Eric Stevens
Is that your objective?

It seems to be yours.

-- Sandman[.net]