"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40213121$1@news.povray.org...
> Whee, I think I'll join the fray, now...
>
> "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> news:402125e4@news.povray.org...
> 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.)

I think this is a case of misunderstanding when entering a conversation
half-way. Never, at any point, from post one, had I claimed to be an expert.
You guys are criticizing me for doing something that you do in your own
sentences. Let's take the high road, yet you get the digs in. This is called
passive-aggressive. I'm not saying I didn't do that (gotta what out for your
absolute black-and-white logic -- btw, that's an example of what I'm talking
about), I'm saying that we're more alike than different.

I think I understand what the misunderstanding is on this point, however.
You're saying that I should do this:

if something happens and fails
  do something, like return.

do something if it works


where I must have done this

if something happens and it works
   do something
else
   handle the error


Now PAY ATTENTION. Like all the other points, I'm not saying your WRONG for
doing it your way. Nor am I say I'm RIGHT for doing it my way. I'm saying it
is a matter of style and they're both RIGHT. Or both WRONG if you're a cup
is half-empty kind of guy.

> > 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!

Why? I mean, I am, but why do you say that after that paragraph?

> 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.

> 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.

People who write code 10 nested ten levels deep are not good coders.

> > 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.

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.

> 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.

Yes, that's true. Because of this thread, I'm going to stop casting using
(void *). I'm sure the paragraph before somehow translated into, "This guy
is going to just cast to void * now out of some sort of spite," but you see,
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
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.

> 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.

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.

> > 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.

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'.

> > 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.

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:

1. It amuses me. You'll take that as arrogant. Go ahead, but if you look it
up, it isn't.
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.
3. If I don't respond to such claims by people like TF, then you're gonna
continue to be abusive to me. That's human nature. You're not objectifying
me as some body to bolster your ego off of. Do that with other people if you
want.

> > 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.

I agree. That is a proper response. No cuts, not put-downs; just  pure
reason. I like that.

> > >   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.

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.

> > 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.

We're in agreement on 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.

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?

> > >   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"

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.

> > 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?

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.

> > 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'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.

> 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.

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'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.

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.

> 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.

Post a reply to this message