"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40215055$1@news.povray.org...
> "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> news:40213f9a$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>Helpful and informative stuff</snip>

> > > > 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!
> >
> > Why? I mean, I am, but why do you say that after that paragraph?
>
> Read the above quoted paragraph. something about "[they] have all said
> that my code is so readable that they consider it 'self-documenting'".
That
> is a truely arrogant thing to say.

Arrogance means a grandiose claim that is not warranted. To be arrogant, it
would have to be untrue. Since it is true, it is not arrogant. To assume it
is arrogant (untrue) is insulting.

> > > Anyway -- Nesting blocks deeper and deeper is
> > > bound to cause problems with code readability.
> >
> > ...yes, I agree, that's why I said you should seperate things out into
> > methods if it gets too nested.
>
> I needed mentioning due to your example of If's and Elses scattered
> everywhere to handle error conditions.

Okay, I respect your opinion.

> > People who write code 10 nested ten levels deep are not good coders.
>
> Was that a necessary comment?

Yes. It is something they teach in programming 101 and needed repeating in
this context.

> > Listen, if you guys don't understand your code enough to free freeing
> > something that isn't a pointer, then you really ought to be using Visual
> > Basic or something. C isn't for the timid or for those who don't pay
> > attention.
>
> It's not about not understanding one's own code. It's more along the lines
> of returning to a significantly large code-base and adding changes
(perhaps
> in the example given to resolve memory leaks). Getting into the habit of
> casting something for the sake of casting it gains nothing and can cause
> major headaches.

If you free a pointer, you must make sure it is a pointer first. This
statement stands on its own. Yes, I agree that it isn't necessary to cast to
void * to free a pointer and yes I can see all kinds of reasons not to.
Because you might fumble and free something that isn't a pointer isn't one
of them. A disciplined programmer doesn't do that.

(Since I need to be so precise: The last sentence does not say you are not a
disciplined programmer.)

> > that would be arrogant; a word you are misusing anyway, since arrogant
> means
> > having a higher opinion of oneself than generally warranted and when I
say
>
> Obviously.

If it is obvious, it doesn't require mention, does it?

> > I'm arrogant I'm tongue-and-cheek because more times than I can count
now
> > I've said: a. I don't know everything, b. I'm here to learn more, and c.
> You
> > guys know a lot! But, you're not reacting to what I say, but you're
> reacting
> > out of defensiveness (probably because I use the word "you" a lot or
> > something). No, I don't fit with people like you and I never have
because
> I
> > confront. I'm sure you even took the /last sentence/ as an offense
because
> > of the "like you" part. You are probably imaging tone in the sentence
just
> > to support your perception of me because you've made up your mind.
>
> I don't necessarily think it's defensiveness. I think some of it is sheer
> irritation.

They have close buttons for that.

> > If you're going to make a claim like that, you'd better support it.
Plus,
> I
> > don't use words like epitome. I'm not trying to make people think I'm
> smart
> > by using pretentious words. I aim to communicate not obfuscate.
>
> I'm not trying to "look" smart by using the words I use. If I wanted to
> "look" smart, then I would have used a spelling and grammar checker before
> sending the post. If you don't understand the word, look it up.
> http://www.dictionary.com is a good place to start. In this case, I would
> say that epitome was an appropriate word:
>
> [From Dictionary.com]
>

> 1.  A representative or example of a class or type: "He is seen... as the
> epitome of the hawkish, right-of-center intellectual" (Paul Kennedy).
>
> 2.  A brief summary, as of a book or article; an abstract.

I didn't say I didn't know what epitome meant. I said that it is pretentious
to use it. Since we're so free with our unsoliticted criticism here, I get
to criticise too. Goose and gander.

> > I'm sorry, I mean to write "No, it's not." And how many times can I
write
> > that I don't know everything and admit to things I'm wrong about until
you
> > stop having this internalized perception about me? 10? 20? No,
seriously,
> > I'm askin'.
>
> <sigh> My perception of you is borne out of the way you've missandled
> constructive criticism on your code.

What, asking for it and thanking him for it?

> > > 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.
> >
> > Talk about fallacious arguments. This is a standard one, actually, where
> by
> > saying that one fact is true, then all other facts are true. You're
saying
> > that because I misunderstood how fflush works that, therefore, I don't
> know
> > what I'm talking about and should shut up. So, since I'm upfront, I'll
> tell
> > you why I continue this thread:
>
> No. I'm saying your arguments are full of logical flaws because you do not
> understand everything, but act as if you do. And I didn't say you should
> shut up. Re-read the above quoted sentence. You do not know WHEN to shut
up.
> At some point you have to shrug and walk away.

Describe how one should act then when they do not know everything.
I understand why you'd want me to shrug and walk away. After all, when we
punch somebody in the face, we generally don't like it when they get back up
and punch you back.

> > 1. It amuses me. You'll take that as arrogant. Go ahead, but if you look
> it
> > up, it isn't.
>
> This thread amuses me, as well. You amuse me.

And here I thought you were going to go all Joe Peschi on me.

> > 2. On usenet, if you flame somebody like you have, you reap what you
sow.
> > You want a flame war, you got one; I don't mind a battle. You don't want
> > one, then you need to learn when to shut up yourself.
>
> I'd say you asked for it... but, then what do I know?

I asked for it by admitting I'm not all knowing. It's like throwing steak to
a pack of hounds. "Here's a guy we can stroke our egos over." You picked the
wrong guy.

> > I'll map it out. Warp is continuing to bash my coding abilities to make
> > himself sound competent. Whether he is making a fool out of himself is
> just
> > a matter of perspective.
>
> I think you're twisting what people are saying to you in your head, I'm
sure
> I'll be soon arguing against myself, just like Warp.

Actually, that happens to be my same assertion about you as well. By reading
in insults in sentences that aren't insults, you're twisting what I'm saying
to you in your head. In fact, you're hearing what you want to hear. THAT'S
what I find so amusing... to see people get so defensive about things that
have no implied meanings. And when I don't mean to imply, I am pretty
upfront about it.

> > If you read the posts, I'm the guy on the defense here, not you. When
you
> > say somebody isn't worth listening to, you're asking for a fight. Oh no;
> now
> > you got one, and you're complaining?
>
> Er, I think you were asking for the fight. Defensiveness is usually caused
> by a lack of confidence.

Yes, as you guys clearly demonstrate.

> > Where have I not owned up... wait, wait, you haven't read the previous
> > postings, have you? This is a long thread. I'll give you time to catch
up.
> > I'll wait.
>
> Ok. So you have "owned-up", after having it driven into your head that
what
> you were doing wasn't necessarily the best way to go about it.

You didn't read it. Go and read it.

> > Yes. The point is, if you can't take the heat, don't burn the kitchen.
Or,
> a
> > more biblical reference, he who is without programming sin cast the
first
> > stone. For clarity, he did not cast stones until after TF's comment. I
> > really enjoyed his critique of my code and I value it.
>
> Did anybody come here and ask you to start a flame-war?

I didn't start it. Go and read. Again, I'll wait.

> > I've never said you were stupid. I'm responding to people saying I'm
> stupid.
> > I guess I do care because I keep writing. But, again, it's not a sign of
> > insecurity, but instead, the joy of a good fight.
>
> This seems to be trollish behavior.

By that definition, then, TF is a troll. After all, why does one bother to
bait me unless they want a fight?

> > What you don't know is that those aren't quasi. If you want proof of
that,
> > look earlier in the thread where I patted Warp on the back way before
this
> > flame ever started. But, I can understand your perception if you're just
> > jumping-in now.
>
> "I think you're a great person, but you're such an impudent jerk for
> correcting my code when I posted it publically" -- Essentially what I said
> you're doing you're doing.

I sure don't remember witing that sentence that you are claiming to quote
from me. Please provide the date so I can look that up and apologize if I
did. From what I remember, I asked him for his guidance because I respect
him and when he gave it, I responded with grace, humility, and appreciation.
I like it when these things are in writing. You can always just go and read
it for proof.

> > Okay. You're entitled to that opinion. Injecting your 2 cents worth
> doesn't
> > kill threads, though, so don't try and pretend you're interested in it
> > stopping.
>
> Never said I was interested in it stopping, I just wanted to join in the
> fun.

So, you're a troll then?

> > > I think we have found the new BDW.
>
> > Uh oh, another acronym like plonk. I'm cowering. Really. If you want
this
> > thread to die, stop responding to it. You see, I'm obligated to persue
the
> > last word because I'm the one defending myself against TF. You aren't
> > obligated to continue it.
>
> Nothing like plonk. If you hadn't been living under a rock, you'd know
what
> it meant, but enough of that. Since when was it an *obligation* to
continue
> the argument? No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to continue
> this.

You can also argue that a person isn't obligated to smack you back when you
punch them in the face. That isn't how I operate, however. Go punch someone
else if you need to feel big.

Post a reply to this message