Warp wrote:
> I was questioning
> your motives for writing such posts again and again.

To discuss computer language design.  If you don't want to talk about that, 
then cool, feel free not to.  I thought perhaps you'd look at it, say "this 
proposal is bad because X" or "you can already do that with clever technique 
Y" or "how do other languages deal with the same problem" or something like 
that.

The same as when you flame Java I sometimes can offer suggestions for 
getting around its problems, or pointers to (for example) actual studies of 
modern GC techniques to dispel some of the out of date myths.

>   We already know that you don't like the language, so there's nothing new.

In this case, it was merely a prime example of the sort of thinking that 
leads to the problem. It's not like I flame C++ a whole bunch any more. I 
just happened to run across a really good example of something. Had it been 
the same thing in some other language, I would have posted that too.

>   Some people post more or less regularly here about their hobbies, or
> about something funny they found on the net (such as an interesting
> article or video).

I do that too. You don't seem to notice or remember, perhaps.

> they are positive in tone and don't harm anyone.

Who did I harm by saying "here's an example of why I think C++ evolves 
poorly"?  I'm sorry you have such personal ego wrapped up in a programming 
language, but it's really not my intent to "harm" you by discussing 
shortcomings in various languages, even the ones you personally like.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message