 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Do you seriously not see anything wrong with your behavioral pattern?
I don't know. I'm pretty grown up, I like to think. People discussing flaws
(or, in this case, design trade-offs) doesn't bother me.
> main reasons why he chooses to point out flaws precisely in POV-Ray is
> because of those few enthusiasts.
Kind of silly to talk about flaws in something where there's nobody to
disagree with you. It gets kind of boring to say "Hey, Erlang has some
interesting features, but this one sucks", and have everyone go "..."
> That kind of behavior would get old rather fast. What would be the point?
When's the last time (before this) I started a thread that was harsh to C++?
This really wasn't even about C++ as much as "pile on kludges to fix design
flaws", which holds for Linux and Windows and C++ and Perl and PHP and any
number of other systems. That link just happened to be discussing C++ and
was a good example of the sorts of systems that annoy me. I'm not bashing
C++. I'm bashing the design philosophy that leads to things like C++ being
as complicated as it is, like /usr not having users in it, system32 having
64-bit binaries in it, and so on.
If you don't want to address talking about the topic because the topic
covers C++ in addition to a bunch of other systems, that's fine.
> You might think that *I* am obsessed with such a thing as some programming
> language, but perhaps you should really look into the mirror sometime and
> ponder exactly why you are continuing to make these posts which you *know*
> are going to be inflammatory.
I know why I'm making the posts. Language design (and API design and OS
design) is of interest to me. If you don't want to discuss the designs of
languages that include C++, then don't. I'm not attacking you, and I'm not
attacking C++.
> Yes, I have bashed Java and Windows and a few other things really bad.
> However, I do not regularly start threads for the sole reason of pointing
> out flaws in those things (or at least I don't remember doing so in many,
> many years). When some discussion about the subject pops up, then I might
> express my strong opinion, but I'm not on a quest to belittle those things.
I'm not on a quest to belittle C++ either. That web page just happened to be
about C++. If it had been about (say) Perl, I would have said exactly the
same thing.
But I guess if what you're saying is that you don't want to talk about those
things... Andrew is really the only other person here who gets into that,
and he doesn't talk about the system languages.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Do you seriously not see anything wrong with your behavioral pattern?
>
> I don't know. I'm pretty grown up, I like to think. People discussing flaws
> (or, in this case, design trade-offs) doesn't bother me.
hmm, I pointed a "flaw" in The Incredibles's creator's behavior (not
acknowledging the obvious influences) and you resorted to a plain "f__k you".
I think you are bothered indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Do you seriously not see anything wrong with your behavioral pattern?
>> I don't know. I'm pretty grown up, I like to think. People discussing flaws
>> (or, in this case, design trade-offs) doesn't bother me.
>
> hmm, I pointed a "flaw" in The Incredibles's creator's behavior (not
> acknowledging the obvious influences) and you resorted to a plain "f__k you".
No, I didn't say that because you pointed out a flaw. I said that because
you said the only possible reason you could conceive of me disagreeing is
that I was too stupid to understand you.
> I think you are bothered indeed.
I'm (mildly) bothered by personal insults. Moreso from people who are smart
and reasonable. I'm not bothered by the fact that you saw similarities in
Incredibles that I didn't.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Assume that there was a forum somewhere about some subject, let's say
> for example about computer graphics, and that there was one or a few
> POV-Ray enthusiasts there who like from time to time express why they
> like POV-Ray so much. Then assume that there was someone who from time
> to time started threads about the flaws of POV-Ray and why it's such an
> inferior renderer compared to other more modern renderers, and one of the
> main reasons why he chooses to point out flaws precisely in POV-Ray is
> because of those few enthusiasts. He knows that he is going to taunt
> those enthusiasts, but nevertheless he continues making those posts,
> even though they really aren't all that relevant.
Taunt? You know, speaking totally generally and not about C++ (since I
couldn't care less about it), having fans of X every once in a while
posting to a forum about why they love X is as irritating as one who
posts once in a while pointing why X sucks. If I view one as a taunt,
I'd view the other one as well. From my perspective, both have an equal
ability in riling people up. I think one should either accept both kinds
of posts, or neither (I go for the former, since I control what I choose
to read).
Kind of like someone coming every once in a while and posting why he
likes intelligent design so much. I'd find it totally understandable if
someone else would show up once in a while and write why intelligent
design is such a bad theory. Ditto for evolution.
It's a forum, and the point is to discuss. If no one liked ID here, and
someone continually posted stuff flaming it, _that_ would get irritating
fast. On this forum, though, there are plenty of people who like
computers, programming languages, etc.
Note that I'm not saying both are doing something wrong. It's an off
topic forum and if I'm not interested in ones diatribe or love for X, I
just ignore the thread. What's the big deal?
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Taunt? You know, speaking totally generally and not about C++ (since I
> couldn't care less about it), having fans of X every once in a while
> posting to a forum about why they love X is as irritating as one who
> posts once in a while pointing why X sucks. If I view one as a taunt,
> I'd view the other one as well.
I honestly can't understand why.
Yes, if the post is of the type "my favorite thing X is so cool and
much better than yours", then it would be irritating. But why would a
"hey, I found out this really cool thing about my favorite thing X" be
irritating or taunting? You are simply showing enthusiasm about a hobby
of yours and sharing your findings with others. Maybe others will also
discover the wonders of that hobby as well that way. Why is that a bad
thing?
OTOH, what's the point in a "hey, look at yet another new flaw I found
in thing X, which is why I hate it even more" post, especially if you have
already made abundantly clear your dislike of that thing in the past? That
might make sense if the forum was full of people hating the same thing and
you want to laugh a bit with your buddies, but I don't think that's the
case here.
> Kind of like someone coming every once in a while and posting why he
> likes intelligent design so much.
Making posts praising ID is inherently inflammatory because there's
always an implied accusation that anyone who believes in science and the
theory of evolution is misguided and delusional. I count that as a "my
thing X is much better than yours" type of posting.
> It's a forum, and the point is to discuss.
Making posts which you know are inflammatory is not discussion. There's
a neologism for it.
> On this forum, though, there are plenty of people who like
> computers, programming languages, etc.
More the reason why people should take into account what others like
and practice as a hobby.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I honestly can't understand why.
>
> Yes, if the post is of the type "my favorite thing X is so cool and
> much better than yours", then it would be irritating. But why would a
> "hey, I found out this really cool thing about my favorite thing X" be
> irritating or taunting? You are simply showing enthusiasm about a hobby
> of yours and sharing your findings with others. Maybe others will also
> discover the wonders of that hobby as well that way. Why is that a bad
> thing?
Can't really say anything beyond "I disagree". The point is that this
isn't a science, and what may be irritating to one need not be to
others, nor need it imply intent to irritate. I prefer to give the
benefit of the doubt.
>> Kind of like someone coming every once in a while and posting why he
>> likes intelligent design so much.
>
> Making posts praising ID is inherently inflammatory because there's
> always an implied accusation that anyone who believes in science and the
> theory of evolution is misguided and delusional. I count that as a "my
> thing X is much better than yours" type of posting.
That's an assumption I don't share.
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:53:43 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> On this forum, though, there are plenty of people who like computers,
>> programming languages, etc.
>
> More the reason why people should take into account what others like
> and practice as a hobby.
Maybe if someone posts something that gets you angry, the best thing to
do is ignore it.
There may be others who want to discuss the shortcomings - and that
finding shortcomings in technologies (whatever they are) is some people's
hobby - as part of an effort to improve the technology. Discussion of
the problems with some technologies is healthy and promotes the
improvement of the technologies.
If we all pretend that everything is perfect about X (whatever X is), it
never gets improved.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> OTOH, what's the point in a "hey, look at yet another new flaw I found
> in thing X, which is why I hate it even more" post,
Good thing that wasn't what the post or the link said, then.
>> It's a forum, and the point is to discuss.
>
> Making posts which you know are inflammatory is not discussion. There's
> a neologism for it.
As one list I was on once said, "It's not always about you." The point was
to discuss it. That you don't want to discuss it yourself doesn't mean that
wasn't the point.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > OTOH, what's the point in a "hey, look at yet another new flaw I found
> > in thing X, which is why I hate it even more" post,
> Good thing that wasn't what the post or the link said, then.
Then exactly what does "a wonderful example of what I think is wrong with
the whole C++ language/library design methodology" mean, if it's not pointing
a flaw in the C++ language/library design methodology?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> OTOH, what's the point in a "hey, look at yet another new flaw I found
>>> in thing X, which is why I hate it even more" post,
>
>> Good thing that wasn't what the post or the link said, then.
>
> Then exactly what does "a wonderful example of what I think is wrong with
> the whole C++ language/library design methodology" mean, if it's not pointing
> a flaw in the C++ language/library design methodology?
Well, it's not a flaw in C++. It's a flaw in the design methodology. The
same design methodology is used in any number of places, including HTTP
(which I've griped here about before), HTML (which I've griped here about
before), Perl, Windows (which I've acknowledged here before), and Linux
(which I've acknowledged here before).
If you want to support the position that applying incremental unrelated
patches to a infrastructural system in order to fix one flaw at a time is
better than designing the thing up front to do what you need or at least be
cleanly extendable, I'd be interested in hearing that argument.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
