I have to say that the first paragraphs, once again, sound like a (this
time) polite way to tell "shut up"...

The real (yes, real) problem is the number of warnings 3.5 generates. I just
tried to defend an easy way to get rid of some of them. It's up to you to
follow, or not follow suggestions, to respond or not respond at all; but
please do not get personal/offensive IF you do respond.

P.S. Although close to EPSILON, my input is not zero; Alan Kong may still
keep my posts describing several bug fixes to POV 3.02 that made it into the
official code. Plus ftp://ftp.ru.com/pub/gamos/povpro/. Not much. So what?
As Ron once wrote, "should I get a lawyer?"

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d99a644@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d999f1b$1@news.povray.org> , "Vadim Sytnikov"
<syt### [at] rucom>
> wrote:
>
> > If you do believe some/all of my points are not valid, I would be glad
to
> > hear from you. But PLEASE be more specific and less personal.
>
> Let me explain this first.  I do not and cannot know what you know or
don't
> know.  I can only judge from what I see here.  And that is simple.  There
is
> a list of known problem as <http://www.povray.org/download/3.5-bugs.php>.
I
> can tell that you have done nothing to fix any of those bugs and
contribute
> those fixes anywhere, so your contribution to the POV-Ray source code is
> zero.  There is nothing wrong with that, what you do with your free time
is
> your business.
>
> However, if a discussion, rather then focusing on what really needs to be
> fixed starts to go into "this code is no good and that code is no good and
I
> don't like this and I don't like that" and you waste time making it look
> like you like it, well, then you are definitely concentrating on the
*wrong*
> aspect of programming and contributing to POV-Ray.  What you do in your
code
> is your business, but maybe it occurred to you that bringing POV-Ray to
you
> requires some understanding of programming and I think all POV-Ray team
> members have proven the ability to make a cross-platform application.
>
> Then someone comes along and tells us what we should have done.  Now, what
> do you say if someone goes along your code, without actually looking into
> for what it does and what it is not even supposed to do and starts
> complaining despite there being no real problem.
>
> It is always easy to complain; it is much harder to create something.
>
> > I am becoming increasingly upset with you attiude towards other
programmers.
> > "Ignorance", "broken compilers", etc. is all I hear most of the time. I
have
> > been professionally programming for more than 12 years, and have
developed 2
> > commercial compilers among other stuff. So the word "ignorance" is not
what
> > I would like to hear in a responce to a viable suggestion.
>
> Well, I had explained for what the multicharacter constants are being
used,
> and if you had bothered to read the thread or check the source code you
> would have known that your argument simply misses the point completely.
>
> > Wake up, Thorsten. You're part of the POV-Ray community, but you're
starting
> > to ignore all but the most trivial inputs. And this starts to worry me a
> > lot, since the POV-Ray is seamingly completely in your hands.
>
> Well, why should I fix something that is not broken when there is a list
of
> things that are broken.  With your attitude of development we would still
be
> at POV-Ray 0.1 or be releasing buggy software with well-looking code.
>
> Neither is reasonable.  It is not my responsibility to defend anything in
> the POV-Ray source code unless you can show that in the way it *is* used
> will not work.  And there have been such problems like the "long" in the
> octree float trick code that really was not portable.
>
> I do not care for the tons of hypothetical or impractical or already known
> to be wrong examples given in the whole thread of discussion.
>
> Oh, and as a matter of fact, multicharacter character codes have worked
fine
> on Macs since 1984.  And they work well elsewhere, even Windows!  So you
> obviously have no broad foundation of experience with cross-platform code.
> You claim that what is used in millions of programs is not possible.  How
> could I possibly take you serious given this fact?
>
> > I can reword my point this way: if you use multi-character constants,
then
> > integer value of the constant depends upon BOTH character values and
> > endianness of the target machine.
>
> Well, I have been saying it is implementation defined all along.  So I am
> not sure why you repeat it.
>
> I can reword my point this way:  If you want to teach people what you
think
> is good coding style, feel free to do so, but don't dare to teach me
_your_
> coding style on _my_ turf ;-)
>
>
> So can we end this endless and useless complaining now and get back to
> fixing real problems...?
>
>
>     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