Whee, I think I'll join the fray, now...

"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:402125e4@news.povray.org...

> Then why do programs like Java require you to write blocks of code like
> this?
>
> try
> {
>     Do something
> }
> catch (Exception ex)
> {
>     Failure
> }
>
> Are you saying all these people are wrong? I've never seen a person write
> code like you describe in my lengthy career of programming in many
different
> languages. The difference between you and I is that I'm not saying YOU are
> wrong for doing it that way. It's your thang... do whatchoowannado. As
long
> as you're consistent.

No. What saying is the paradigm your program was written under it makes no
sense to handle errors as if you were handling an exception. Not only that,
but you generally want to handle the error in the most localised manner
possible. (Of course, being the self-proclaimed expert you are, you already
know this.)

> If you write blocks as lengthy as you describe, then you're right. Every
> single person (without exception) who has read the... well, it's gotta be
> more than a million now... lines of code that I've written have all said
> that my code is so readable that they consider it "self-documenting".

Wow. You truly are arrogant! Anyway -- Nesting blocks deeper and deeper is
bound to cause problems with code readability. Try looking at a function
that has code nested 10 levels deep as opposed to a few function with code
nested maybe 3 levels deep. There's a huge difference in understanding the
flow of the program.


> Well, duh, Warp; a isn't a pointer. Why would you even do that?

Duh. What if you happened to declare a variable some where, lets say, for
argument's sake, p. Lets assume p is an int. Lets assume p indicates the
number of pixels.

Lets assume that on a later date, you change your program, and add the
following (forgetting that p is not representing a pointer...)

free( (void*)p);

whoops! crash.

Had you simply typed free(p), the compiler would have cought the error.
Casts are a bad thing, but a necessary evil. Use them sparingly.

Of course, as you have stated, you are the epitome of perfection, and would
never make a mistake like this, even if you are casting variables left and
right.

> However, without it, some compilers will report a warning that you are
using
> a pointer without cast because the free function prototype includes a
> pointer type of void. Given that you use EXIT_SUCCESS for your return
> values, I am assuming that you only program on one system, but that is
just
> an assumption; prove me wrong on that.

Granted, I haven't had a lot of experience with a multitude of compilers,
but this argument for using a cast to void is fallacious.

> No, I'm not.

"I'm right and you're wrong, I'm always right and you're always wrong" -- 
This is essentially what you are saying. I'm guessing that you know
everything there is to know about everything because you're always right
about everything. I'm sure you still believe the world is flat, and anyone
who thinks differently from you is wrong.

> Wait... doesn't it have no effect? You're saying that those clock cycles
NOT
> IN A LOOP that equate to no more than a few milliseconds is making my
> program slow? I've already admitted numerous times that I didn't know that
I
> didn't need to flush stdout and I've already said why I did; because it is
a
> buffered stream and I thought, because of that, it did.

It is a function call... you have that to worry about, and without really
wanting to take the time to study the source to fflush in detail, I coudn't
begin to describe how much overhead you are incurring. I think, by way of
the fact that you are using fflush in the context you are using it in only
strengthens everyone's point that you really don't know what you are talking
about, and you really don't know when to shut up.

> Go search the net for C programs and look for yourself. I'll wait. Some
> people even use exit(0) as well. Since you don't do that, write them
e-mails
> and tell them they're all wrong. They'll love that.

Many people to return 0 from main, but, that still doesn't make it an
acceptable standard for portability.

> >   You seem to have this odd arrogant attitude. Don't you understand that
> > by trying so badly to make yourself sound competent you are only making
> > a fool of yourself?
>
> ...huh? Again, you're arguing for my side against you.

As warp has stated, and I tend to see this pattern as well. I don't know how
Warp's comment is contradictory, but obviously, somewhere in your hopelessly
flawed stream of logic it makes sense to you.

> If they were running off a quick example like I did, they probably would
do
> the same thing because they understand the goal of the program was to
> demonstrate a concept.

Generally, sample code leaves some things out for readabilty's sake. I'm not
making an argument against a quickly hacked together example in this case. I
don't care about that.

> Unlike yourself, I'm not insecure about my code, so I don't worry about
> people like you picking it over.

I think by the amount of argument you have put forth, and the constant
attempts to justify everything you say as being corrected you are quite
insecure in general.

> >   As for my averager program, the code is crappy.
>
> Well, well, well. To use your own argument, that's no excuse to post it on
a
> public web-site! All those bad coding habits you have -- you're going to
> spread those, Warp!

At least Warp can own up to it and doesn't make a big deal when told said
code is "crappy"

> I see you realize my point now. You're not perfect and you're
pre-emptively
> defending yourself against my criticism about your code. You're so
arrogant
> that you think I actually: a. care enough about it to do so, and b. have
the
> time to bother.

Was there ever a point other than foaming at the mouth?

> All this and I STILL think you're talented and smart because you made the
> effort to demonstrate it instead of spending all your time on boards
telling
> everybody how stupid they are.

And what do you think *you* are doing?

I have to love the way you end each and every one of your diatribes with
some vague, empty quasi-patontheback just before delivering the last insult.

I've ignored this thread to this point, but seeing as it's the thread that
won't die I just had to inject my 2 cents worth into it. My opinion of you
is that you're a real smart-ass, who really doesn't know what he's talking
about and gets hurt and offended when someone tells him so.

I think we have found the new BDW.

Post a reply to this message