Skip to main content
news

Re: converting raw images f...

Eric Stevens
Google Google
SubjectRe: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
FromEric Stevens
Date12/10/2013 05:27 (12/10/2013 17:27)
Message-ID<qo2da9ld5km08af9aunkvj8mhp7baf4ejr@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (2h & 31m) > Eric Stevens
rOn 9 Dec 2013 22:31:39 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <6hbca990fruqr4rndjbpjkisqe5geqfuqh@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
I never claimed architects needed to learrn programming.

Sandman
Sorry, "understand" programming (how you come to understand programming without learning it is anyone's guess).

Eric Stevens
Go back and try again.

Sandman
You mean back to here:

Eric Stevens 12/01/2013 <a6ul99d0qg6ttigh1q2p9phkkcfci6lcca@4ax.com>

"If you are an architect or engineer who doesn't understand programming you can't direct those people who develop the computer programs which play an increasingly important part in what the professions do today."

Or back to here:

Eric Stevens 12/02/2013 <r1go99l7fu1oss6bc0kp8u0cn7o650rou5@4ax.com>

"That doesn't make you a programmer but hopefully you begin to understand programming."

Or did you mean back to this:

Eric Stevens 12/02/2013 <t3go99plrnd5rqrcrlur9chr7obdir7nma@4ax.com>

"They have to understand the programming."

Or perhaps back to this one:

Eric Stevens 12/03/2013 <u27r9917g31ginf6eai55tu1gble5efcek@4ax.com>

"You have to be able to understand programming"

I suggest you continue, starting with Message-ID: <3vaq99dhv2ui64c20a6smdu6b49manve37@4ax.com>of Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:55:55 +1300 in which I wrote:

"Anyway, I would rather describe it as computing."

I went on repeating words to this effect throughout the thread.

See, Eric - this is called *substantiation*. I.e. when I make a claim and you imply that it is incorrect, I provide support - often AMPLE support as in this case.

Still waiting for your support, Eric. You know, the twelve quotes from me using the word protocol incorrectly.

I don't know about twelve quotes, but these will do for a start:

Message-ID: <slrnl95tl4.ksa.mr@irc.sandman.net>25 Nov 2013 07:04:08 GMT:

"That's my interpretation of the term as well, that a "backup protocol" is something you execute manually.

Message-ID: <slrnl96rtj.ll6.mr@irc.sandman.net>Date: 25 Nov 2013 15:40:37 GMT in its entirety.

Message-ID: <slrnl98gue.u9i.mr@irc.sandman.net>Date: 26 Nov 2013 06:45:36 GMT

"I am pointing to the fact that you seem to be refering to both manual and automatic backup's as "protocols". Assuming you don't call it your "file copying protocol" when you copy a file, the term is valid and descriptive, but unsual to be used for an automatic process - which is why nospam assumed you were doing things "the hard way"; manually."

All subtly wrong and clearly understand that you have the wrong concept of protocol. There are others.

The crunch came when after I wrote in my Message-ID: <i35q99hq4evlt2q4cnieo9a6ug993cbq31@4ax.com>of Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:05:00 +1300

---------------------------------

"Well, there's your problem. You think a protocol determines what a program does... Maybe that's why you were talking about the totally unrelated FTP before? You think programs are filled with developer-enabled protocols or something like that.

The word "protocol" isn't tied to programs at all. In fact, few would use "protocol" to anything software related unless you are in reference to that alternate definition of "protocol" that deals with *communication between computers*, like FTP or HTTP, or NNTP - all protocols, but not a fixed set of steps.

"What a program does" is defined by the code, which few would consider to be a "protocol" by any stretch of the imagination. "

You then go on to discuss the execution of conditional code etc.

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.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460

None of these are the current protocols but they illustrate how the word 'protocol' is used in this context.

----------------------------------

... and you responded to four real world examples of protocols of which you are undoubtedly by writing - nothing at all. You completely ignored them.

You didn't know at the beginning and you refused to learn and understand at the end. You are a fool and a rogue. --

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Google
Sandman (2h & 31m) > Eric Stevens