Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation

On 3 mai, 21:04, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > On 3 mai, 18:45, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Bob Badour" <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > [Snipped]
> >> Maybe I cut him too much slack. If the past is any guide, optimizers
> >> will
> >> get better, and Brian won't. It's instructive that Both Cimode and Kevin
> >> provide actual data, while Brian merely states his claim.
> > For my defense, I am trying to trigge questions here. It would be
> > illusional ton my part to hope to get definite answers.
>
> >> But even if he wins this particular race, he will not convince me that
> >> cursors are the way to go. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.
> > You will soon realize that Brian mainly tries to convince himself.
> > Getting out of procedural mindset is nothing but *natural* instinct.
>
> Could you please elaborate? I don't need convincing. Sometimes I dip into
> waters that a bit too deep and end up chewing on my foot, but when I know
> I'm right, I don't need convincing, and I certainly don't try to convince
> myself.
You are in denial. Don't you realize that at least 4 people have told you the exact opposite of your claims and you are refusing to admit they may just be right. Is 'nt there a slight doubt in your mind that you may be missing something ? that some aspect of fundamental theory may have elluded you?

> Is it a crime to be flexible enough to attack a problem from more than one
> angle?
And what angle would that be ? So far, most of what you wrote does not adress the issues I pointed out. I am sorry but despite your efforts, you have not established anything that is refutable.

no offence intended

> > [Snipped]
Received on Thu May 03 2007 - 21:36:52 CEST