On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:40:04 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I think you are
> defending Thorsten because you think that if you get Thorsten's favor that
> you'll be more important in the POV-ray community and meet your needs.

Warp doesn't need to defend Thorsten to be important in the POV-Ray community.
He is important in POV-Ray community already since years. Warp doesn't need
defence too so don't think I need to be more important in the POV-Ray
community with posting this. I just want to give you certificate that being
programmer for .... years I impressed by POV-Ray related teams loyalty. Being
humans they have human feelings and faults but they do their works permanently
with very good quality. Since this thread leads nowhere and is no more
on-topic I would suggest to finish it here.

ABX
-- 
  Acceptable use policy news.povray.org:
  "We also wish to remind you that this is a privately owned news server and
  as such you are considered an invited guest."

Post a reply to this message

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

"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

Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Oh, and by the way, I've
> never asked you guys to put me on a pedestal, although I can understand that
> you would feel I am because I don't cower in your omniscient presence.

> There is plenty of evidence that I'm not a troll on this board
> already.

> It must be so hard to live that way, needing so bad for people to say, "ooh,
> you're so smart."

> What I think is going on here is that Thorsten is jealous because I didn't
> say that about him.

> I do deserve apologies

> you perceive my success to be a threat to your self-esteem.

  I think I get it now: You are not serious; you can't be. You are just
joking around, amusing yourself with the responses you get. (Well, that's
the very definition of a troll.)
  Either that, or you desperately need professional help.

  For your sake, I hope it's just the former.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:40213f9a$1@news.povray.org...


> if something happens and fails
>   do something, like return.
>
> do something if it works

No, more like:

if something happens and fails
    Handle the error, If the error cannot be dealt with,
    Display a message to the user. (i.e. "Unable to open test.png, Please
check that
    the file exists and try again."), and return. If the error can be dealt
with without
    bothering the user, i.e. a situation such as opening the file, and
discovering it is not
    in the exact format as expected, try other formats. (See above if
correction fails).
   after dealing with the error successfully, continue.

Otherwise, just continue.


> where I must have done this

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

Essentially you have this:

if(operation_1 successful)
    [do stuff]
        if(operation_2 successful)
            [do stuff]
            .
            .
            .
        else
            [Print panic message, Bail Out]
else
    [Print panic message, Bail Out]

Instead of that, this makes more sense:

if(operation_1 failed)
    Handle Error, Drop out if necessary

[do stuff]

if(operation_2 failed)
     Handle Error, Drop out if necessary

[do stuff]

.
.
.

Really, which makes more sense?

> 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.

I was paying attention. I think my details above demonstrate this a bit more
clearly.

> > > 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.

> > 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.

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

Was that a necessary comment?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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'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.

> > 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.

> 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.

> 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'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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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'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.

> 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.

> 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.

> > 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.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:40214caa@news.povray.org...
> Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>   I think I get it now: You are not serious; you can't be. You are just
> joking around, amusing yourself with the responses you get. (Well, that's
> the very definition of a troll.)
>   Either that, or you desperately need professional help.
>
>   For your sake, I hope it's just the former.

I'll admit, I am amused by your responses, but that is why I continue to
post. It's actually a culture thing. Let me explain.

In my culture, the American culture, it is not customary for us to start
fights (although we sometimes break that custom, of course, just like any
custom anywhere) but to end them. We have a saying here: "Don't tread on
me". We don't back down when you insult us and if you want to exchange fire,
then we will return it with vigor and fight to the bitter end. If you trace
through this thread, you will see that I didn't start this fight. I don't
turn the other cheek and neither does my culture. I'm not Jesus. I offered,
just like my culture does, to be helpful. That doesn't mean I or my culture
is weak. Don't forget that and we'll get along just fine.

Now, if you want to keep firing away with your insults, you go ahead. But if
you are going to cry when they come back your way, you shouldn't pull the
trigger in the first place. If I am stupid and it is self-evident, as you
few keep saying, then you don't need to point it out, do you? Just let me
make an ass out of myself. Just ignore me and I'll go away, right? Or, deny
me access to the boards, if you really think this is trolling. But you know
it isn't. You know what is driving this thread and you know that this is
limited to this thread. So, if you want the thread to end, stop posting.

Learn not to tread on me and we'll be fine.

Post a reply to this message

"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

"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message

> 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.

True, but (in the real world) when faced with deadlines, and dealing with
code others have written, casting like this is dangerous. Eventually, it
will happen that you free a pointer that was never a pointer.

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

I didn't necessarily think you were meaning me specifically. Besides, you
have no idea what my programming abilities are, nor have I revealed such
abilities.

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

Hmm. I was a bit too subtle. No one writes perfect code. No code is
perfectly self-documenting. You were inferring in your statement that
everyone says your code is self documenting. This to me is an arrogant
statement.

> They have close buttons for that.

Yes, but sometimes, people want to slap other people in the back of the head
when they are acting obnoxious.

> 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.

What word would *you* have used?

> What, asking for it and thanking him for it?

Some way to thank him. Kind of like flipping off the person who let you on
to the freeway?

> Describe how one should act then when they do not know everything.

I guess the first step would be not to act like you know everything. Listen.
Ask questions.

> 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.

So, on the street, if you don't like how someone acts, or if they criticize
you, you're going to jump into a fist-fight, or at the very least a heated
hours-long debate?

> 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 think that's a load of crap. You asked for it by being argumentative to
anyone who criticizes you.

> 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.

You're right. I don't see any subtlety in what you're saying.

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

Hmm. you're right. someone told you you were wrong, and *that* was what
started the flame war. My mistake, boy do I feel foolish, now.

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

No. But hijacking a thread for your own personal enjoyment is considered
trollish. What was the original topic of this thread? True, Thorsten, Warp
and I are doing nothing but feeding the troll, in this case.

> > "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.

Whoops. I was paraphrasing. And-- I don't necessarily think you have
responded with grace, humility and appreciation.

> So, you're a troll then?

See above.

> 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.

So, you admit you're a coward?

OK.. now, slightly off topic, it seems to me in other places besides this
thread you're actually sane. My observation is someone has ruffled your
feathers here, and that's the reason for the storm of posts. That's why I
say it's usually a good idea to shrug and walk away.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:402164ae$1@news.povray.org...
> "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
>
> > 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.
>
> True, but (in the real world) when faced with deadlines, and dealing with
> code others have written, casting like this is dangerous. Eventually, it
> will happen that you free a pointer that was never a pointer.

Not you, but that other person, according to what you are saying. If they
don't put competent C/C++ programmers on projects, they'll have bigger
problems than that.

> > (Since I need to be so precise: The last sentence does not say you are
not
> a
> > disciplined programmer.)
>
> I didn't necessarily think you were meaning me specifically. Besides, you
> have no idea what my programming abilities are, nor have I revealed such
> abilities.

A very true fact. All I have to go on is that you're criticising mine. Now,
criticising, like ignorance, doesn't necessarily mean negative. I like
criticism. I learn from criticism. I learned that I don't have to flush
stdio. I learned that I shouldn't cast pointers to void when I free them.
Learning is what I like to do and this thread makes me happy.

> > If it is obvious, it doesn't require mention, does it?
>
> Hmm. I was a bit too subtle. No one writes perfect code. No code is
> perfectly self-documenting. You were inferring in your statement that
> everyone says your code is self documenting. This to me is an arrogant
> statement.

Everybody on my projects actually do say my code is self documenting. I've
never had a single exception, so I am not making a generalization at all. I
really do write perfectly self-documenting code when it is a real project
with other people and not just a little motion blur program I threw together
for myself that I shared with others (not part of a project context, but to
show how to average the pixels together). All I can do is make that claim,
however, it's up to you whether you believe it or not.

> > They have close buttons for that.
>
> Yes, but sometimes, people want to slap other people in the back of the
head
> when they are acting obnoxious.

You're only saying I'm obnoxious because I'm responding. Therefore, stop
responding and I'll stop being obnoxious.

> > 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.
>
> What word would *you* have used?

"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."

I would have said,

"Of course, as you said, you're perfect and would never make a mistake like
this."

But, that's just me. "You are the epitome" is technically not necessary in
your sentence, but I'm not one to nitpick about grammar either. I'm just
saying that, just like you take my sentences as arrogant, I take yours as
pretentious.

> > What, asking for it and thanking him for it?
>
> Some way to thank him. Kind of like flipping off the person who let you on
> to the freeway?

When TF decided to punch me in the mouth, he walked over and started
kicking. Everything was civil until that.

> > Describe how one should act then when they do not know everything.
>
> I guess the first step would be not to act like you know everything.
Listen.
> Ask questions.

Funny. That's what I was doing. I still don't think you've read my posts. At
least, not without a pre-judgment.

> > 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.
>
> So, on the street, if you don't like how someone acts, or if they
criticize
> you, you're going to jump into a fist-fight, or at the very least a heated
> hours-long debate?

If they don't like how I act, then that's fine. Until the punch me in the
face. Then I either get into the fist-fight or heated debate. Whatever I
need to do to remind influence that person not to punch me again.

> > 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 think that's a load of crap. You asked for it by being argumentative to
> anyone who criticizes you.

Telling people that I'm stupid and not to be listened to is not criticism,
it is abuse. Learn the difference.

> > 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.
>
> You're right. I don't see any subtlety in what you're saying.

Good.

> > I didn't start it. Go and read. Again, I'll wait.
>
> Hmm. you're right. someone told you you were wrong, and *that* was what
> started the flame war. My mistake, boy do I feel foolish, now.

Repeat how they said I was wrong.

> > By that definition, then, TF is a troll. After all, why does one bother
to
> > bait me unless they want a fight?
>
> No. But hijacking a thread for your own personal enjoyment is considered
> trollish. What was the original topic of this thread? True, Thorsten, Warp
> and I are doing nothing but feeding the troll, in this case.

That's not what I'm doing. That I happen to enjoy defending myself is an
after-effect. I'm not doing this for the enjoyment itself.

> > > "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.
>
> Whoops. I was paraphrasing. And-- I don't necessarily think you have
> responded with grace, humility and appreciation.

Don't put quotes around paraphrases. And, you're entitled to your opinion.
If you want to back that up with more quotes from that message -- from
before he kicked me -- feel free to do so.

> > So, you're a troll then?
>
> See above.

See above.

> > 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.
>
> So, you admit you're a coward?

...how do you get that from the paragraph? Do you mean to be courageous is
to take punches in the face? I suppose that might apply to boxing, but not
to this.

> OK.. now, slightly off topic, it seems to me in other places besides this
> thread you're actually sane. My observation is someone has ruffled your
> feathers here, and that's the reason for the storm of posts. That's why I
> say it's usually a good idea to shrug and walk away.

Yes. Thorsten ruffled my feathers by saying something disrespectful to me
and I responded in kind. Then the rest of you joined in. I'm responding in
kind. When you're respectful, I respond in kind. If you don't want
responses, stop responding because I'm going to respond in kind.

Post a reply to this message

In article <402125e4@news.povray.org>, dan### [at] yahoocom says...
> try
> {
>     Do something
> }
> catch (Exception ex)
> {
>     Failure
> }
> 
> Are you saying all these people are wrong?

Just my two cents here, but this isn't exactly the same things. 
However... If you opened the file, then tested to see if it worked and 
intentionally throw an exception, then it would be the same. What you are 
doing is manually handling an event that languages like Java can 
sometimes automatically generate an error event for. When this is the 
case, it is a real good idea to make sure things happen in the correct 
order. There are quite a few cases where checking after the fact can be 
flat out lethal to your program. In fact when dealing with Windows, the 
damn API is so flaky that it may actually appear to work and only crash 
your program, and the OS, *after* you try to shut down the program. 
Believe me, I have had it happen. lol

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message