Posted by Neredbojias on 10/14/53 11:45

To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97A8EFAF9A800httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> Admittedly I have a prejudice toward such editors, but maybe the best
>> answer is the following compromise. Let's say they're okay to learn
>> on but not as a day-in, day-out
>
> This is not the slightest bit relevant. The issue was about the
> competence, willingness and order of difficulty of making really
> good ones. Time to dust off that thinking cap, young man.

Of course it's relevant! Since there aren't any acceptable html (graphic)
editors out there, I offered a means of valuating the junk that is
available. It is naive to suppose that every software author in the scope
of the discussion is really incompetant, so the level of difficulty must be
excessive (-although _that_ isn't particularly relevant. The end user
doesn't especially care _why_ something doesn't work, just that it doesn't
work.) This is where marketing comes in, as I was trying to get across to
that Wiersch guy with the CSE whatchamahoogitz.

Had Microsoft and Dreamweaver contrived to produce an html _assistant_ that
wouldn't really have to do _everything_ perfectly (but still couldn't do
anything imperfectly,) they'd both be in a much better position regarding
their respective product today.

> But don't worry, Boji, fuzziness of this kind will not add to
> your (cough cough) treatment by Officer Bud White. He treats
> moral, rather than intellectual problems...

I suspect the Martian scirocco got to you.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

[Back to original message]