On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 12:25:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 06:11:20 UTC, Joakim wrote:
You claimed that my encoding was reinventing the wheel,
therefore the onus is on you to show which of the multiple
encodings CDRA uses that I'm reinventing. I'm not interested
in delving into the docs for some dead IBM format to prove
_your_ point.
It's your idea and project. Showing that it is original / doing
your research on previous efforts is probably something that
*you* should do, whether or not it's someone else's "point".
Sure, some research is necessary. However, software is littered
with past projects that never really got started or bureaucratic
efforts, like CDRA appears to be, that never went anywhere. I
can hardly be expected to go rummaging through all these efforts
in the hopes that what, someone else has already written the
code? If you have a brain, you can look at the currently popular
approaches, which CDRA isn't, and come up with something that
makes more sense. I don't much care if my idea is original, I
care that it is better.
More likely, you are just dead wrong and CDRA simply uses code
pages
Based on what?
Based on the fact that his link lists EBCDIC and several other
antiquated code page encodings in its list of proposed encodings.
If Marcin believes one of those is similar to my scheme, he
should say which one, otherwise his entire line of argument is
irrelevant. It's not up to me to prove _his_ point.
Without having looked any of the encodings in detail, I'm fairly
certain he's wrong. If he feels otherwise, he can pipe up with
which one he had in mind. The fact that he hasn't speaks volumes.
