Sandman
In article <i35q99hq4evlt2q4cnieo9a6ug993cbq31@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Well, since we're being literal - you used "software development", I used "software developing" - so where does that leave us?

As I said - the trolls last resort - nitpicking details instead of staying on topic. You have to take my words literally since that's the only way for you to create an argument. This is what I said:

"something he doesn't understand (software developing)"

I never claimed that Tony had said the word "software developing" verbatim since that's not my claim. I said he talked about software developing (which is true) and he didn't understand it (which is also true).

Eric Stevens
You insisted he was talking about software developing. He wasn't.

Sandman
Indeed he was, as I have substantiated:

Tony Cooper Re: 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.

Once again I have proven you to be incorrect.

Eric Stevens
You started going off the rails when on 26 Nov 2013 22:09:20 GMT in

Message-ID: <slrnl9a72h.eo.mr@irc.sandman.net>you wrote:

"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.

Sandman
That was me agreeing with your notion that "protocol" is rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with software development.

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

Sandman
Indeed. I.e. not a protocol.

Eric Stevens
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
Tony's hypothetical backup protocol would not be as large or as complex but it would define what the backup procedure would have to achieve. The details are left to the programmer but the program is not the protocol.

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

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'.

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.

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"

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.