Re: text editors
I try to quote the text I am referring to when I post here.
The blob • below is meaningless without the quotation where I placed
it. Here's the quotation (not your post) and what I wrote in reply:
✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁✁
> Don't [•] secretaries, i've seen a lot that would make better programmers
> than whom they work looking at the macros they use.
[I assume that you meant to write some derogatory verb at • or else
it got lost, as did your entire comment in the other two versions
I've received from you.]
✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃✃
On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 08:10:49 (+0000), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> >>>>> "DW" == David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> DW> I assume that you meant to write some derogatory verb at • or
> DW> else it got lost, as did your entire comment in the other two
> DW> versions I've received from you.
>
> I think that the original tale referred to their secretaries, and no,
> it was never meant to be derogatory,
The reason I wrote the comment above in square brackets was because it
referred to the [•], also in square brackets, rather than the thread,
and not because of your writing "… even secretaries …" in the anecdote.
> anyone who understand what
> happens around in the workplace KNOWS how fundamental is their
> co-operation.
Sure. But I haven't seen the article in question and what it claims.
Perhaps it indeed shows that they metamorphosed into fully-fledged
programmers without so much as a course or text. If it does, then
it undermines the case of those who write "learning emacs means
learning lisp" as a reason not to learn emacs.
Secretaries do amazing things given the right tools, or after finding
them, or without them. The amazement is of course in the eye of the
beholder, or the writer of articles, or anecdotes. They just *do*
things, like the rest of us.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: