 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P <dan### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> You are reading my statements wrong. I never said I
> preferred DirectX because it was an abstraction layer anywhere
If in a DirectX vs. OpenGL discussion you stress that "all I have said
is that DirectX is a hardware abstraction layer" you are making an
implication. Granted, you are not directly claiming anything about
OpenGL, but there's no other way of understanding it than that you are.
> No kidding OpenGL is also an abstraction layer -- that's a given and
> to assume I don't know that is pretty insulting.
I did not claim that you don't know what OpenGL is. I said that by
accentuating something about DirectX you are indirectly making the
claim that DirectX is better than OpenGL because of that thing.
If I'm not completely wrong, the main issue here was why use DirectX
which is Windows-only when you can use OpenGL which is cross-platform.
If you prefer DirectX you should presents arguments in its favor, and
"it's a hardware abstraction layer" is certainly not one.
> I was responding to
> Thronsten's claim that everything I say is false by listing the only
> assertions I made
I assume that Thorsten made the same assumption as I did: By presenting
a pro-DirectX argument you are indirectly claiming that OpenGL lacks that
feature.
> Don't assume what I say, read what I say.
It's the writer who is responsible of making his point clear to the
reader. If you write your point unclearly and in a way which can cause
confusion, it's your fault. Be careful about how you write things if
you want to avoid misunderstandings.
> You won't find many people who have hated Microsoft as much as I in the
> past. I have progressed to hating all corporations -- something opensource
> folks LIKE MYSELF should respect -- and have decided to exploit technologies
> based on which would be best for my target audience. That's my decision to
> make -- it doesn't make me stupid, it is a choice, and I never stated
> otherwise. I want to make a patch editor that uses everything that the
> newest video cards has to offer and I am targetting Windows. I haven't said
> that doing otherwise is a bad idea -- in fact, I said that I'm happy that
> people /were/ doing that so that there were alternatives to my software.
What it seems to me is that you made a suggestion to the community,
the community gave you feedback and you didn't like the feedback and
got angry.
You should be aware that if you make a suggestion like "hey, let's make
a very useful windows-only program for POV-Ray" you will most certainly
get answers of the type "why should it be windows-only?". That's only
normal and does not mean the community is despising your idea. It only
means that since POV-Ray is a multi-platform software enjoyed by a wide
variety of people using many different platforms, it's always nice to
get third-party utility programs which also work on those several
platforms.
If the reason why you are making it windows-only is questionable (for
example of the type "I will use DirectX because I like it more") people
are going to complain. That's also normal and should not be taken as a
personal offence. People are not saying "DirectX sucks" or "you are stupid"
by this, they are only complaining to the fact that you are limiting the
portability of your program and thus depriving other platform users from
the program for no good reason.
If you make such suggestion you should be aware of the response the
community will give you. Getting angry from the feedback is not wise.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:401f6e11@news.povray.org...
> Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > You are reading my statements wrong. I never said I
> > preferred DirectX because it was an abstraction layer anywhere
>
> If in a DirectX vs. OpenGL discussion you stress that "all I have said
> is that DirectX is a hardware abstraction layer" you are making an
> implication. Granted, you are not directly claiming anything about
> OpenGL, but there's no other way of understanding it than that you are.
No, Warp, I was responding to Thornsten saying everything I say is wrong.
Not that I have this burning, insecure need to be right, but I'm not Jesus
so don't punch me in the face. I listed out the few assertions I made that
weren't opinion and DirectX being an abstraction layer was one of many.
> > No kidding OpenGL is also an abstraction layer -- that's a given and
> > to assume I don't know that is pretty insulting.
>
> I did not claim that you don't know what OpenGL is. I said that by
> accentuating something about DirectX you are indirectly making the
> claim that DirectX is better than OpenGL because of that thing.
Then you misunderstood. "Seek first to understand," is what Steven Covey
rights. Don't just go off on me until you understand what I'm saying. I am
saying that DirectX is a hardware abstraction layer and, thus, is not just
for games. For example, I used Vegas Audio which uses DirectSound -- part of
DirectX. The fact that Thornsten says it is only for games shows his
ignorance about DirectX, but notice I didn't flame him because I have too
much tact.
> If I'm not completely wrong, the main issue here was why use DirectX
> which is Windows-only when you can use OpenGL which is cross-platform.
> If you prefer DirectX you should presents arguments in its favor, and
> "it's a hardware abstraction layer" is certainly not one.
It wasn't. See next paragraph:
> > I was responding to
> > Thronsten's claim that everything I say is false by listing the only
> > assertions I made
>
> I assume that Thorsten made the same assumption as I did: By presenting
> a pro-DirectX argument you are indirectly claiming that OpenGL lacks that
> feature.
No I'm not.
> > Don't assume what I say, read what I say.
>
> It's the writer who is responsible of making his point clear to the
> reader. If you write your point unclearly and in a way which can cause
> confusion, it's your fault. Be careful about how you write things if
> you want to avoid misunderstandings.
If you don't understand, ask. Don't just go off and flame. Do you really
want me to pick apart what people can misunderstand about your messages?
> > You won't find many people who have hated Microsoft as much as I in the
> > past. I have progressed to hating all corporations -- something
opensource
> > folks LIKE MYSELF should respect -- and have decided to exploit
technologies
> > based on which would be best for my target audience. That's my decision
to
> > make -- it doesn't make me stupid, it is a choice, and I never stated
> > otherwise. I want to make a patch editor that uses everything that the
> > newest video cards has to offer and I am targetting Windows. I haven't
said
> > that doing otherwise is a bad idea -- in fact, I said that I'm happy
that
> > people /were/ doing that so that there were alternatives to my software.
>
> What it seems to me is that you made a suggestion to the community,
> the community gave you feedback and you didn't like the feedback and
> got angry.
Oh, I got angry about somebody saying, "Everything this guy says is wrong,
don't listen to him." Imagine that. I'm not pro anything. I have no emotion
about hardware and software. I do have a bit of emotion when a certain prima
donna has to stroke his ego at my expense.
> You should be aware that if you make a suggestion like "hey, let's make
> a very useful windows-only program for POV-Ray" you will most certainly
> get answers of the type "why should it be windows-only?". That's only
> normal and does not mean the community is despising your idea. It only
> means that since POV-Ray is a multi-platform software enjoyed by a wide
> variety of people using many different platforms, it's always nice to
> get third-party utility programs which also work on those several
> platforms.
__READ__ my post. I didn't even mention POV-Ray. POV-Ray was just going to
be one of the output formats. Yes, yes, it's on a POV-Ray group, but guess
what -- POV-Ray is just one of the tools we all use.
> If the reason why you are making it windows-only is questionable (for
> example of the type "I will use DirectX because I like it more") people
> are going to complain. That's also normal and should not be taken as a
> personal offence. People are not saying "DirectX sucks" or "you are
stupid"
> by this, they are only complaining to the fact that you are limiting the
> portability of your program and thus depriving other platform users from
> the program for no good reason.
I didn't SAY I liked DirectX. DirectX is an ugly API. I just wanted to push
my hardware as far as possible and I can't generally do that with OpenGL.
And, I DID say I don't like SGI. Never said a thing about DirectX. I don't
in fact like SGI. That doesn't mean I like Microsoft. It's simple, simple
logic -- just because A is an apple doesn't mean B has to be an orange.
And, to your second point, "Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly
anything is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason
to respond to him. Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly anything
is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason to respond
to him." - Thornsten. Pretty hard to take that the right way. Talk about
your inferences!
Finally, I had said I was thrilled there was a cross-platform patch editor
out there because now I can make a platform-specific version without guilt.
I'm not depriving anybody: I'm looking for a niche. And, frankly, I don't
really care about depriving people of anything, particularly when they
wouldn't have what they would have been deprived of hadn't I written the
software in the first place. This isn't some evangelical journey I'm on to
get everybody to hug each other. I'm out to make a great piece of software
if my skills allow it.
> If you make such suggestion you should be aware of the response the
> community will give you. Getting angry from the feedback is not wise.
This is something that analytical-types tend to misunderstand. I don't have
to be angry to make an assertion. Just remember: before you judge, seek
first to understand. Don't assume a person is unknowledgable and plonk them.
If you don't care, just don't respond. And, if you are feeling insecure
about yourself and you need people to think you're smart, don't do it at the
expense of others. You should have learned that in high school, whether you
were the bully or the victim. Really, I'm only miffed at Thornsten here,
whom I feel must have issues. Yes, Thornsten, I am impressed that you are
one of the four who worked on 3.5, but you're not god; nobody is, and
everybody deserves a level of respect. If you can't get that respect without
putting others down in your group, you should take a hard look in the
mirror.
Now, if you want to respond to this, fine, but this is all I really have the
energy or time to say on this issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:401fd6db$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
> > I did not claim that you don't know what OpenGL is. I said that by
> > accentuating something about DirectX you are indirectly making the
> > claim that DirectX is better than OpenGL because of that thing.
>
> That's called PostModernist Deconstructionalism. :-)
Hey, that's true!
Freaky.
I guess he can be forgiven, then; it's just society :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <401fd1cb$1@news.povray.org> , "Dan P"
<dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I am
> saying that DirectX is a hardware abstraction layer and, thus, is not just
> for games. For example, I used Vegas Audio which uses DirectSound -- part of
> DirectX. The fact that Thorsten says it is only for games shows his
> ignorance about DirectX, but notice I didn't flame him because I have too
> much tact.
First, I did not say that it is only for games, I only pointed out that
there are other applications that use 3D graphics than just games. You were
the one who said "Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI
working it's tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to
do so because of their gaming franchise [...]". So, it was you who clearly
said that DirectX is only being heavily developed because of the market for
games.
But lets settle this once and for all, Microsoft is very clear about what
DirectX is for:
>>>
Where Applicable
DirectX is a set of low-level application programming interfaces (APIs) for
creating games and other high-performance multimedia applications. It
includes support for high-performance 2-D and 3-D graphics, sound and music,
input, force feedback, multimedia streaming, and network communication for
applications such as multiplayer games.
<<<
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/directx9cpp.asp>
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.
> Never said a thing about DirectX.
"Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI working it's
tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to do so because
of their gaming franchise [...]"
Which obviously says (not implies) that OpenGL is no being improved, but
Direct X is. So you clearly said something in favor of DirectX and in
disfavor of OpenGL. Anyway, your claim "Never said a thing about DirectX."
is plain wrong...
> And, to your second point, "Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly
> anything is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason
> to respond to him. Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly anything
> is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason to respond
> to him." - Thorsten. Pretty hard to take that the right way. Talk about
> your inferences!
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.".
Honestly, for me to say this isn't a "fact" is about the nicest thing to
say. The opposite of "fact" can be, depending on the context (law or common
speech) be an "opinion" or "fiction". However, your claim about fflush and
fclose is indeed best described as pure and indisputable "nonsense".
And the fact that you keep this discussion going also confirms my initial
point. You didn't want a serious discussion, just a forum to distribute
what you consider "facts". Yet, I would appreciate you stop making
incorrect claims about things I never said and instead reflect on the amount
of nonsense and irrelevant content compared to valuable content you have
produced or caused up until now in this thread.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I guess he can be forgiven, then
I suppose you know how arrogant that kind of expression sounds (no
matter how many smileys you put after it)...
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:401fff62@news.povray.org...
> In article <401fd1cb$1@news.povray.org> , "Dan P"
> <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> First, I did not say that it is only for games, I only pointed out that
> there are other applications that use 3D graphics than just games. You
were
> the one who said "Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI
> working it's tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to
> do so because of their gaming franchise [...]". So, it was you who
clearly
> said that DirectX is only being heavily developed because of the market
for
> games.
Yes, the gaming market is affecting how much effort Microsoft puts into it
because of how much money it is making them. It is their motivator for
making it good and it will eventually pass OpenGL... EVENTUALLY pass
OpenGL... because of this.
> But lets settle this once and for all, Microsoft is very clear about what
> DirectX is for:
>
> >>>
> Where Applicable
> DirectX is a set of low-level application programming interfaces (APIs)
for
> creating games and other high-performance multimedia applications. It
> includes support for high-performance 2-D and 3-D graphics, sound and
music,
> input, force feedback, multimedia streaming, and network communication for
> applications such as multiplayer games.
> <<<
>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/directx9cpp.asp>
>
> 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
application". If you knew more about the DirectX API, you'd see that games
is just one of the applications for it.
> > Never said a thing about DirectX.
>
> "Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI working it's
> tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to do so
because
> of their gaming franchise [...]"
>
> Which obviously says (not implies) that OpenGL is no being improved, but
> Direct X is. So you clearly said something in favor of DirectX and in
> disfavor of OpenGL. Anyway, your claim "Never said a thing about
DirectX."
> is plain wrong...
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.
> > And, to your second point, "Do not take anything he says for fact;
hardly
> > anything is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no
reason
> > to respond to him. Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly
anything
> > is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason to
respond
> > to him." - Thorsten. Pretty hard to take that the right way. Talk about
> > your inferences!
>
> 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?
> Honestly, for me to say this isn't a "fact" is about the nicest thing to
> say. The opposite of "fact" can be, depending on the context (law or
common
> speech) be an "opinion" or "fiction". However, your claim about fflush
and
> fclose is indeed best described as pure and indisputable "nonsense".
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?
> And the fact that you keep this discussion going also confirms my initial
> point. You didn't want a serious discussion, just a forum to distribute
> what you consider "facts". Yet, I would appreciate you stop making
> incorrect claims about things I never said and instead reflect on the
amount
> of nonsense and irrelevant content compared to valuable content you have
> produced or caused up until now in this thread.
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. 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, I think at
this point you're just trying to save face. It must feel awful to have to
grasp like that. As if one misunderstanding (or even several) about a
complex field like computer programming makes me incompetent and not to be
listened to. It must be tiring to be so perfect, Thorsten.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:402002b7@news.povray.org...
> Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > I guess he can be forgiven, then
>
> I suppose you know how arrogant that kind of expression sounds (no
> matter how many smileys you put after it)...
Yes, I do. Golden rule, Warp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
news:40200575$1@news.povray.org:
>
> 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.
>
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think we will see, DirectX
for Linux or Mac anytime soon. IMHO, the industry is shifting back to
multiple platforms and open standards. MS is a bit late for the party. A
few more quarters like the last few should bring them around.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:40201623@news.povray.org...
> 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...
Why thank you. I do make good points, don't I? I can understand why you
didn't want me to mention that point.
> > 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.
And that would be? Oh wait -- I forgot; you don't back up claims.
> > 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.
If they aren't developing it, why are they retaining the trademark? Keep in
mind that you don't matter; you're just cheap labor to them so you don't
count, a corporate tool, someone who isn't smart enough to use others like
they do. But, that's my OPINION.
> >> 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.
Okay...?
> > 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.
I think we're having a language barrier. I'm not perfect in my grammar
(hell, I used "right" for "write" in a past message), but this one has left
me stumped. Are you saying that the program can't write everything out to a
file upon closing a file? Huh?
> > 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.
I'm still WAITING for your to debunk the simple truths, regardless of how
much you don't like them.
> 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.
Uh huh. I don't understand baby-babbling either. Does that mean the baby is
competent? Or does that mean the baby doesn't know what he's babbling on
about? Hell, I'm not even asking you to argue; just acknowledge that you
were wrong in saying that most of what I say doesn't have worth. I'm not
perfect, but pal, neither are you, and I'm surprised you know anything at
all given how much you think you know everything already. Where was your
compulsion to learn?
> 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...
No, you are one of two people who are both arrogant (actually, three,
counting me). I happen to still respect Warp, however, since he knows how to
back up his claims instead of trying to deflect like a coward.
> > 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.
LOL -- you once again say that I have fundamental misconceptions and then go
on to some empty insult. Man, I'm starting to enjoy this little tiff; you
make me laugh. Unfortunately, since I haven't yet seen you back up your
insults to me, it's just amusing noise. You sure do have your insults down,
I have to say, and I'm not too surprised since when you can't walk the walk,
you gotta talk I guess.
> > 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?
Oh... oh you feel insulted by that sentence? Have you ever read your own
text as if you wrote it to yourself?
> > 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.
I just love it when people try to sound smart to cover up their
incompetence. Perhaps you can try out for a spot on Fraiser? First off, I
did NOT know that I did not have to fflush stdio and never said I did. In
fact, I thanked Warp for teaching me that. Now, Thorsten, this is called
learning from others and acknowledging their help. Appreciating them. This
is a tough concept for you, I can tell, since everything I say you get
defensive over. What are you hiding, Thorsten? Are you hiding that you don't
know everything either? Or are you worried that I might no something you
don't? So far, I see no evidence to the contrary; just lots of empty,
unsubstantiated claims that I'm some sort of child. But, it is funny though.
I haven't been on a newsgroup like this since the mid-nineties and I forgot
that there are people like you.
> > It must be tiring to be so perfect, Thorsten.
>
> Again, what do these personal insults have to do with anything?
Can you /imagine/ if I answered your postings like you are answering mine?
I'd be saying that every sentence! So, so very fragile you are. It is so
sad. I hope you get better and, although I'm sure nobody will believe this,
I really hope you get better. It must be very difficult and lonely being a
God of All That Is Computer, Thorsten.
If it helps, I forgive you, for I realize you have some growing to do and
when you're ready, I'm here for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
