In article <40200575$1@news.povray.org> , "Dan P" 
<dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>> So, you can hardly claim more.  The term "other high-performance
> multimedia
>> applications" is a rubberband marketing phrase, so I am sure you are going
>> to be interpreting it in your favor no matter what I say, so I am just not
>> saying anything about it.
>
> Your own words demonstrate you know, deep down inside, that you're on shaky
> ground here because I'm making an "other high-performance multimedia

Exactly as I predicted...

> application". If you knew more about the DirectX API, you'd see that games
> is just one of the applications for it.

If I wouldn't know as much as I do about DirectX, I couldn't know what you
should, but don't, know about it.

> No, no, no, read it -- words have meanings -- I say SGI isn't clamoring, I'm
> not saying other people aren't. However, because there is so much
> on-the-line for Microsoft, I think DirectX will surpass OpenGL.

At this point in time you still assumed that SGI would be developing OpenGL
and you didn't know until I told you that you were wrong there.  So you
cannot come back later to say what you meant back then was something
different just because of facts you only learnt about later.

>> Hmm, lets see, earlier in this thread you claimed "to having that fflush
>> there might help us avoid future bugs. Also, even though the C standard
>> requires this, experience has shown me that not everybody keeps to the
>> standard when they write their C compilers (see Visual Studio). To me,
>> flushing the buffer is kindof like closing a file.".
>
> Still having to nitpick the details, eh?

No, just that your claim tells me something about your overall knowledge
about what you are talking about or doing.  What it tells me, that is up to
you to guess.

> STDOUT is buffered. I flushed a buffered stream. fflush is for flushing a
> buffered stream. Is it so hard to imagine I'd make that decision in that
> case, even if the compiler does it itself?

Not "even if".  It cannot not write everything o file upon closing a file.
Huge difference, at least if you would know what you initially implied by
claiming it was needed.

> You see, that's why I copy and paste what you say instead of summarizing it.
> What I consider "facts"... again, debunk these facts, Thorsten. Debunk what
> I have said.

You have demonstrated in this thread that you are either unwilling to
understand or incapable of understanding the subject being discussed at all.
For the same reason nobody would argue with a two year old child about the
time it has to go to bed, I am not going to argue with you about any of your
so-called "facts".  You just lack the ability to understand the arguments
because you obviously don't know enough about what I could be telling you.
Thus, arguing with you would only waste my time.

The sooner you realize you don't know what you are talking about the better.
Right now you are only making a bigger fool out of yourself with every new
post:  As you probably have noticed, I am not the only person telling you
this...

> I don't care about distributing it -- I care about making a
> patch editor, but if you're going to claim I'm wrong about the facts
> regarding DirectX, then debunk them. Since the best you can do is nitpick
> about fflush, something completely unrelated to the argument,

It is very much related to the argument: It is related to your knowledge
about programming and computer science in general, because it is such a
fundamental misconception.  To return the the metaphor of children, if you
cannot crawl first, it is unlikely would will be able to walk soon.  Much
less being able to talk about how to walk prior to having done it.  Since
you don't know the basics, you cannot understand the more complex concepts
(like DirectX, which is more complex and stdio), and consequently whatever
you have to say about them will be full of misconceptions.  This in turn
makes it pointless to argue about it with you.

> I think at
> this point you're just trying to save face. It must feel awful to have to
> grasp like that.

Why does a personal insult that is so out of context belong here?

> As if one misunderstanding (or even several) about a
> complex field like computer programming makes me incompetent and not to be
> listened to.

Because you misunderstand very basic aspects, not even about stdio, but
about how something like stdio would (not) have to been specified in order
to allow such arbitrary problems like you suggested would exist.  By pure
logical reasoning you should have been able to deduce that you claim cannot
be correct, and thus you would need to investigate.  That process is called
research, and as you didn't do it, the only conclusion can be that you were
never properly thought how to research in the field of computer science.
Consequently, the lack of your ability to deduce the obvious suggests you
are not competent enough to talk about what you are currently talking about.
This in turn makes it pointless for anybody who has proven him or herself
competent in the same subject area to argue with you about it.

> It must be tiring to be so perfect, Thorsten.

Again, what do these personal insults have to do with anything?

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message