[zepto]

> The claim is strictly that going from 0 to hello world is easier on a calculator than it is on an iPhone.

That just isn’t the claim made. Again you just have just made something up.

Let’s copy and paste the claim and take a look:

“I wish there was something akin to TI-Basic for smartphones. A built-in IDE with an interpreted language, with easy path to compilation.

It’s easier to program a TI-89 calculator than an iPhone. Why can’t this be better?”

It turns out that it isn’t what you said it was.

As for picking a fight, you seem to be the only one doing that here.

You chose to reply to a comment that wasn’t a reply to you to make a personal attack based on an inaccurate rendering of the context.

Prior to that we were discussing the merits of calculators and phones for programming.

You might not like the content, but there were no personal attacks before you brought them here.

[cxr]

This fight has now moved on to a dispute about what a hello world program is?

> I wish there was something akin to TI-Basic for smartphones. A built-in IDE with an interpreted language, with easy path to compilation.

Right. A "built-in IDE". To "write a minimal program".

> You chose to reply to a comment that wasn’t a reply to you to make a personal attack based on an inaccurate rendering of the context.

The lack of self-awareness here is staggering.

(What personal attack of mine is that, by the way? Be specific. Can you quote it?)

[zepto]

> This fight has now moved on to a dispute about what a hello world program is?

Nobody is talking about hello world programs except you. That’s the point.

> Right. A "built-in IDE". To "write a minimal program".

‘to write a minimal program’ was added in a later comment from the claim in response to my point about the iPhone being superior, as perhaps the one example of why the TI might be easier to program.

It doesn’t define the issue - it’s just one thing that the commenter was trying to argue was better about the TI.

I don’t even think it’s true. Firing up Pythonista and writing hello world is very straightforward. Doing the same on a TI-89 is not actually simpler. The process is in fact very similar.

> What personal attack of mine is that, by the way? Be specific. Can you quote it?

“…trying to argue your uncharitable take….”

“…Go pick a fight and declare that the pushback you encounter is "bullshit" somewhere else…”

“…This is stupid…”

“…The lack of self-awareness here is staggering…”

[cxr]

> Nobody is talking about hello world programs except you

Oh, they're not? When the person you replied to wrote, "It’s far easier to write a minimal program on a TI calculator", what did you understand that to mean?

Reading back the thread, it's clear that not only is hello world in scope, minimal programs are the only sort of program that anyone who isn't you even mentioned. What this is is a bizarre situation where you insisted on linking the topic of programming TI-89 calculators to general purpose computing while simultaneously trying to take up arms at the suggestion that anyone could think there could a relation between the two.

> that’s not a quote [...] just another thing you have made up just now

Oh, it's not? So the words "easier to write a minimal program" don't appear here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27906345>? And it's not true that you quote those words and then even use them yourself while engaging with the topic here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27906820>?

> You chose to reply to a comment that wasn’t a reply to you to make a personal attack based on an inaccurate rendering of the context.

Oh, I did? So those bits you're identifying didn't occur here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27912959>, in a reply to a comment that was a reply to me? (Or is it that they did occur there, but you're maintaining that the comment is a reply to another comment that was itself not a reply to me?)

Not only was this a stupid thing to pick a fight over, this has got to be the dumbest attempt to quarrel over the written record that I've seen since "I'm not using the word free" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23250829>

-----

Edit following your edit:

> ‘to write a minimal program’ was added in a later comment from the claim in response

Yeah, it's almost as if someone wrote down their thoughts to share them, and then after seeing your response they attempted for your sake to offer some clarification in a followup to eliminate the misunderstanding. And it's almost as if you can't seem to acknowledge that we're here because you misunderstood them, and you continue to insist on maintaining that the thing that came from your misreading them is the thing that they meant all along.

Here's a tip: if someone says something that sounds outrageous and your first thought is, "man, it's unbelievable that someone would say that!", then your second thought should be, "yeah, it IS unbelievable that someone would say that", and then reflect on why your first thought was to believe that that's what they were saying. Otherwise, what you end up doing instead of holding them responsible for their intent, the products of their mind, and so on, is attempting to hold them responsible for the products of your mind.

[zepto]

Is hello world’ a minimal program? Yes

Are all minimal programs ‘hello world’? No.

Hello world is a straw man introduced by you - not the commenter I was relying to.

As I pointed out, even if we consider hello world, the proposition is still not true - it’s not easier on a TI-89.

So what do we have in summary? You spoiled the discussion by introducing personal attacks, your argument is a straw man, and even the straw man version is simply not true.

[cxr]

You made several falsifiable claims that don't hold up, and you handled this by (a) editing your comment in a way that materially changed those claims (removed them and then in their place moved forward with a different argument that is necessarily at odds with what you originally wrote and removed), and (b) in the case of your most recent comment (when it was too late to edit the earlier), you ignored the straightforward questions put to you that, if answered, would refute concretely things you claimed about who said what when—an already ridiculous change of subject even more doomed than the original unnecessarily adversarial argument about the barriers that exist to write a program.

It's clear at this point that you don't actually stand behind anything—you are not committed to any actual position, or facts; you are only committed to the act of arguing. If there was any doubt about whether you were here to pick a fight, that has been erased. There is no reason to believe that you're responding in good faith, and there is no way to justify engaging with you further.

[zepto]

You responded to my edit previously. You are bringing it up again instead of responding to my comment.

This doesn’t change anything about the discussion or explain why you keep leveling personal attacks and accusations.

You can plainly see what’s written, and complaining about an edit has nothing to do with the points I made.

Let’s consider again what we have in summary: You spoiled the discussion by introducing personal attacks for reasons that are not clear, your argument is a straw man, and even the straw man version is simply not true.