> So people being rude and condescending to me is OK..
No, it isn't okay. Neither is misconstruing constructive criticism as rudeness and condescension, which is what you appear to be doing.
> but if I respond > hostily then I am wrong.
Yes, of course it's wrong; hostility is not what Usenet is for.
> ....interesting philosophy you have...
Do you not think that it is better to attribute good motives to people wherever that makes sense? You asked people for advice; they gave you their honest opinions; and you recoiled from those honest opinions, and saw in them a personal attack on you. I don't think that anyone intended to attack you, and thus you misconstrued their intent; hence your rather ridiculous response, which has done nothing to persuade people of your case.
Note that nobody here has doubted your good intentions. If you really want to help people to learn C++, why not go the extra mile and help them to learn it properly?
> > Also, after a lot of helpful suggestions, I have just finished > > drastically altering my Visual Basic encryption page, and would like > > to hear your opinions. > > I have changed the content, added links, and added appropriate caveas. > > http://www.geocities.com/~chuckeasttom/vb/Vb.htm
> It is finally clear that the page contains no real encryption information, > so it is no longer vomitous. Now it is just useless.
And its finally clear that you are still a pompous ass...
Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.net> wrote in message <news:i50gmu4bh13dji9vm7gr4u7ke8pu0skvas@4ax.com>... > On 24 Aug 2002 11:48:57 -0700, in comp.programming , > chuckeast...@yahoo.com (chuckeasttom) wrote:
> >> >> Then learn the > >> >> subject matter you want to put on your page before you > >> >> actually put it their and expose it to the public.
> >> > Oh I am so sorry you don't like itoa..however it is > >> > widely used and supported by a boatload of > >> > compilers...Now perhaps you learn what constructive > >> > criticism is,,,like several on this board have...or just > >> > keep being a rude asshole...
> >> Again... how widely? I've never used it.
> >I cannot believe you have never encountered itoa..
> why should anyone be surprised at that? its a nonstandard proprietary > extension to the language, available on a small miniority of > compilers, in a subsegment of the computing world. There's no reason > to assume that "all the world's a whateveritis"
> And by the way, your rude responses to criticism are puerile and > stupid. You asked for criticism, and then when you don't like it, you > hurl insults. Grow up.
You might try reading the thread before making hasty judgements. To anyone who gave me a civil reply I heartily thanked them, and even implemented most of their suggestions. I only gave rude responses to those who where snide and condescending...which is a very small minority of posters...
> > Secondly, is some of this my fault?? Of course it is. BUt read my > > posts. To those who simply gave me feed back in a civil tone, like > you > > just did, I thanked them for their input and I implemented most of > it. > > Some of it I asked for further clarification on. I only got rude > > with 3 or 4 who chose to be rude, snide, and condescending with me. > > My policy is simple: if someone gives me civil input, I consider it > > and thank them for it. If someone wishes to act uncivilly with me, > > then I will respond, usually much ruder than they where. I have > > discovered after 10 years of roaming usenet, that this is the only > way > > to deal with condescending people on the net.
> I haven't read the entire thread, but if this is the case, the better > is *to not answer* to those who insult you. I have been in similar > waters in the past in another newsgroup.
I have to admit that experience is showing you to be correct...
On 25 Aug 2002 06:09:27 -0700, in comp.programming ,
chuckeast...@yahoo.com (chuckeasttom) wrote: >Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.net> wrote in message <news:i50gmu4bh13dji9vm7gr4u7ke8pu0skvas@4ax.com>... >> On 24 Aug 2002 11:48:57 -0700, in comp.programming , >> chuckeast...@yahoo.com (chuckeasttom) wrote:
>> And by the way, your rude responses to criticism are puerile and >> stupid. You asked for criticism, and then when you don't like it, you >> hurl insults. Grow up.
>You might try reading the thread before making hasty judgements.
I've been following the thread with great distaste from the very beginning.
>To anyone who gave me a civil reply I heartily thanked them, and even >implemented most of their suggestions. I only gave rude responses to >those who where snide and condescending...
You gave rude responses to everyone who pointed out the gaping holes in your knowledge, ie anyone who clearly had much more knowledge than you. Your responses to them were without exception unpleasant and gratuitous but surprisingly the other posters did NOT in general respond in like, they showed rather more maturity.
If you're going to hang around in usenet, you'll have to get a _much_ thicker skin I'm afraid. You're also going to have to learn that if you post badly wrong ideas, and claim to be a teacher, then the serious gurus will respond rapidly in order to defend the innocents from "learning" your errors.
In article <3d68a...@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk>, Thomas Stegen CES2000 wrote: > Why, because you do not know when y will be incremented.
Actually, it's because y is modified twice before a sequence point. For the benefit of other posters in this thread, the following are sequence points:
, ; || && parentheses also count as a sequence point between a function call and its entry point. eg This is OK: void f(int& x) { x++; } ; f(x++);
> > 1) Compiler saves the value of x (8) in some temporary location > > 2) Compiler increments x (to 9) > > 3) Compiler assigns temporary location to y
> > john
> And clearly you don't get the practical side... it does not matter > what the "true order" is. The effect is the same. If you use the > increment operator before the variable: > y = ++ x;
> Then y = 9
> if not then y will still = 8 even thought x has been incremented...
So on the practical side, what will be the result of the following:
unless I'm missing something about sequence points those expressions are both undefined.
From the standard: "Between the previous and next sequence point an object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be read only to determine the value to be stored."
Both y = x++ + x++; and y = ++x + ++x;
Break that rule. Hence the language gives no guarantee what so ever about the result.
> > > Its not the case, and clearly you don't understand. y == 8 does not mean > > > that the increment happened after the assignment, all it means is that the > > > value of x++ is 8, therefore 8 gets assigned to y.
> > > This is the true order
> > > 1) Compiler saves the value of x (8) in some temporary location > > > 2) Compiler increments x (to 9) > > > 3) Compiler assigns temporary location to y
> > > john
> > And clearly you don't get the practical side... it does not matter > > what the "true order" is. The effect is the same. If you use the > > increment operator before the variable: > > y = ++ x;
> > Then y = 9
> > if not then y will still = 8 even thought x has been incremented...
> So on the practical side, what will be the result of the following:
In article <c87c1cfb.0208251008.1786e...@posting.google.com>, Bob Bell wrote: >> And clearly you don't get the practical side... it does not matter >> what the "true order" is. The effect is the same. If you use the >> increment operator before the variable: >> y = ++ x;
>> Then y = 9
>> if not then y will still = 8 even thought x has been incremented...
> So on the practical side, what will be the result of the following:
> int x, y;
> x = 8; > y = x++ + x++;
> vs.
> int x, y;
> x = 8; > y = ++x + ++x;
Both undefined because x is modified twice between sequence points.
But your point is a good one-- the simplistic explanation about order of operations doesn't generalise well to more complex expressions like this:
> So on the practical side, what will be the result of the following:
> int x, y;
> x = 8; > y = x++ + x++;
Well, the real answer is of course that the behaviour is undefined. But Chuck argues that the assignment happens first, so he expects this to be the same as:
y = x + x; x++; x++;
and that would mean y is 16, and x is 10.
I tried this on three compilers: MS, Borland, and gcc. As it happens, all three of them gave the answer Chuck would expect. (Undefined behaviour has an irritating habit of giving solid and consistent results when you don't want it to.) Therefore, it's easy to see why Chuck would be misled into thinking this behaviour is well-defined and that the assignment happens first. Nevertheless, we can easily prove that it does not, and indeed code has been posted to this thread which shows that it does not. All we need to do in order to make the proof complete is quote the following part of the language definition:
13.5 (6) says in part: "It is not possible to change the precedence, grouping, or number of operands of operators."
Consequently, the example shown elsethread must use the same grammar as the int version of the operators it overloads, and therefore Chuck is incorrect.
> vs.
> int x, y;
> x = 8; > y = ++x + ++x;
Here, again the real answer is that the behaviour is undefined, but if it *were* well-defined, I suspect Chuck would claim that the fact that the ++ is now a prefix operator would mean that the ++ happens first, so this example doesn't really further the debate IMHO.
> > So on the practical side, what will be the result of the following:
> > int x, y;
> > x = 8; > > y = x++ + x++;
> Well, the real answer is of course that the behaviour is undefined. But > Chuck argues that the assignment happens first, so he expects this to be > the same as:
> y = x + x; > x++; > x++;
> and that would mean y is 16, and x is 10.
> I tried this on three compilers: MS, Borland, and gcc. As it happens, > all three of them gave the answer Chuck would expect. (Undefined > behaviour has an irritating habit of giving solid and consistent results > when you don't want it to.) Therefore, it's easy to see why Chuck would > be misled into thinking this behaviour is well-defined and that the > assignment happens first. Nevertheless, we can easily prove that it does > not, and indeed code has been posted to this thread which shows that it > does not. All we need to do in order to make the proof complete is quote > the following part of the language definition:
> 13.5 (6) says in part: "It is not possible to change the precedence, > grouping, or number of operands of operators."
> Consequently, the example shown elsethread must use the same grammar as > the int version of the operators it overloads, and therefore Chuck is > incorrect.
> > vs.
> > int x, y;
> > x = 8; > > y = ++x + ++x;
> Here, again the real answer is that the behaviour is undefined, but if > it *were* well-defined, I suspect Chuck would claim that the fact that > the ++ is now a prefix operator would mean that the ++ happens first, so > this example doesn't really further the debate IMHO.
chuckeasttom wrote: > Not only do I agree with you, but even VB programmers journal does. > They did an editorial a few years back entitled "why VB gets no > respect" > However the poster I was responding to certainly seemed to be claiming > that one cannot do good programming with VB.
When I left VB it had major bugs in its editor regarding a module's requirements (all concocted to avoid the horrors of using an "import" statement), and these bugs made integration simply unscriptable. We had to integrate a huge project, manually, each time we tweaked something and needed to see the full results.
Nowadays I integrate continuously, using scripts. I obey the Liskov Substitution Principle, use hierarchical encapsulation, and do not define my normal control-flow using exceptions.
I consider all of these things important for good programming.
I, and others, have compiled a >very< long list of individual problems with VB here:
Learning such a list for any language would be very good for a programmer. Fortunately for us, this list for VB has the potential to teach us quite a lot!
Thomas Stegen CES2000 wrote: > "Phlip" wrote: >> Python, Ruby, Oberon, Caml, Haskell, or Intercal? > Yes, Intercal is surely the weapon of choice in many cases. I do not > tihnk one can use Intercal for anything but getting fired.
I spiked my sample to see if the lab would catch the analyte ;-)
> > > Python, Ruby, Oberon, Caml, Haskell, or Intercal? > > Yes, Intercal is surely the weapon of choice in many cases. I do not > > tihnk one can use Intercal for anything but getting fired. > I spiked my sample to see if the lab would catch the analyte ;-)
Yep, Intercal makes IOCCC entries look like plain English!
> Richard Heathfield is a c00l dud3. Do not insult him, he is a great > coder. If you feel you are insulted, do not reply to those messages. > Else the flame never ends.
> > Richard Heathfield is a c00l dud3. Do not insult him, he is a great > > coder. If you feel you are insulted, do not reply to those messages. > > Else the flame never ends.
> So one may insult and the other one must not?!
But I didn't actually insult him, or at least I don't recall doing so. He has reacted as if I had, but that's his problem, not mine. I certainly didn't use the kind of coarse language he's been slinging around.
I joined this newsgroup just recently and really had no chance to see a lot of useful posting here. I suppose that if I complain about the way you all people use this group (no reasonable discussing, just arguing) then I'll be advised not to read this newsgroup. Well, anyway, because I believe I'm not the only one here that thinks this is going too far, I'll try to appeal to all of you people who wants to participate in those never-ending fights to start your own newsgroup. Yes, there are "egroups" at Yahoo, where you can start your own chitchat group for free.
The second option is to stop replying to these threads. Well, I don't doubt that many of you people feel insulted after all this discussion, and that you still have so much comments you want to share with others, but I suggest that we all stop this, because it's getting really boring and, after all, nobody shows willingness to change his attitude.
Thank you, I hope you'll agree with me (which means you won't continuously reply to this)
p.s. Sorry if this was difficult to read, I'm not from the English-speaking part of the world.
Milan Gornik wrote: > I joined this newsgroup just recently and really had no chance to see a > lot of useful posting here.
Which newsgroup? Programming? C++? or Basic,Visual?
> I suppose that if I complain about the way you > all people use this group (no reasonable discussing, just arguing) then > I'll be advised not to read this newsgroup.
Not at all; you are right to complain.
The situation is not usual, and is caused by one of the techniques that "trolls" use. (A "troll" is a needy person with mental problems who feigns an opinion to attract negative attention and generally clog a forum with crap, but this diagnosis is not indicated here.) One of their favorite techniques is to cross-post between several groups that ought to have opposing advocacies. It happened last year between C++ and Java, for example, leading to weeks of useless spewage.
This present situation is caused by someone with an immature attitude who has mistook cross-posting for engaging in enlightened dialog.
It will die down as soon as the instigator stops taking offense at every request that it die down.
In general (and with the help of http://groups.google.com) you will find the technical quadrant of the USENET galaxy still healthy enough for one to learn much theory and philosophy in. Stick around and tough it out. (Or switch to a "moderated" group such as news:comp.lang.c++.moderated .)
> p.s. Sorry if this was difficult to read, I'm not from the > English-speaking part of the world.
> I joined this newsgroup just recently and really had no chance to see a lot > of useful posting here. I suppose that if I complain about the way you all > people use this group (no reasonable discussing, just arguing) then I'll be > advised not to read this newsgroup. Well, anyway, because I believe I'm not > the only one here that thinks this is going too far, I'll try to appeal to > all of you people who wants to participate in those never-ending fights to > start your own newsgroup. Yes, there are "egroups" at Yahoo, where you can > start your own chitchat group for free.
> The second option is to stop replying to these threads. Well, I don't doubt > that many of you people feel insulted after all this discussion, and that > you still have so much comments you want to share with others, but I suggest > that we all stop this, because it's getting really boring and, after all, > nobody shows willingness to change his attitude.
> Thank you, > I hope you'll agree with me (which means you won't continuously reply to > this)
> p.s. Sorry if this was difficult to read, I'm not from the English-speaking > part of the world.
Yes, the thread is rather stupid. But you can ignore this thread (most newsreaders support this functionality).
> > Richard Heathfield is a c00l dud3. Do not insult him, he is a great > > coder. If you feel you are insulted, do not reply to those messages. > > Else the flame never ends.
> So one may insult and the other one must not?!
Well Richard is rather harsh to his remarks, but he is an OK person. Just a bit aggressive. :)
