* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | This isn't going to compensate for it, you know.
I said I was going to stop calling you a "moron". YOUR WISH HAS BEEN GRANTED! so why do you continue with the same behavior that caused the label you do not want attached yourself? we have already established that the best you think you can do in a debate is to count words, for instance. do as you were told to in the very beginning: try something better, or face the consequences: people will _know_ you can't do better.
this is not going to stop until you start to behave smart. this may take a while, but the only goal I have with someone like you in this newsgroup is to make them stop acting in certain ways. if you are impervious to any sort of outside signal to improve your behavior, it doesn't help what I say or not -- it may in fact hurt you that I don't state my conclusion.
* Jon S Anthony <j...@synquiry.com> | The amazing thing about this whole discussion is that this should be even | a remotely interesting point, let alone one capable of generating all | this irrelevant heat.
not at all. some people will forever refuse to listen to the truth, if a notion they have is from a source regarded as somehow "superior" to those they would have to listen to to hear the truth. these are non-technical people, incapable of dealing with technical issues without dealing with people, in the shape of trusting other people's conclusions before they think on their own. what other people say to such people is immensely important to them, but you have to be the right person to say the right thing before they will accept it. refusing to think in this particular way is always a source of heat, because to the people who do not want to listen to the truth, it's a people issue, not a technical issue at all, and to those who want to explain the truth, it never could be a people issue to begin with.
> > the object by value thing in CORBA goes back before Jave even existed > > (or at least before it meant anything to anybody). I know it was > > being discussed (and there were even various incompatible > > implementations of this sort of thing) 6-7 years ago.
> A friend of mine who's fairly heavily into the whole CORBA thing (he > was our head link up with the Visibroker folks) says that Sun was > behind OBV very strongly, lobbying in particular for an > implementation compatible with the way RMI does things.
The problem is that with Sun, the evidence available strongly suggests that the right hand doesn't even know the left hand exists, let alone knows what it may be doing. Back there in '93 or so, the Sun folk (at the OMG meetings and elsewhere) made all sorts of noise about how they were going to be a C++ only shop. The ORB folk at Sun went blithely on their way with this view. Along came the Java folk and RMI (yet another incompatible distributed method invocation scheme). The two sides finally noticed one another. There was much heat. One thing that came out of this was that RMI was supposed to become layered on CORBA (or at least IIOP).
Of course, there was yet another group that decided to do another ORB altogether, just for JDK. This ORB sucked, was not part of 1.1, but at least it was free. OTOH RMI was available in 1.1 and, since the industry is rife with incompetence and the browser folk could never agree on any sort of "standard ORB" to include, and, for unknown(able) "reasons" have never included Java 1.2 in their offerings or any current ORB, it (RMI) is still there in its original form and, in the "web world", the only game in town.
Go figure.
/Jon
-- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari
>Are all Lisper's f***ing belligerent ass*****? ;-)
At least one is. (Of course, I read the perl newsgroups for a while. I found it easier to live with Erik afterwards.)
>I still don't understand what the problem is. If you consider a completey >generic one-size fits all deepCopy to be useless, I'd have to strongly >disagree.
Obviously not useless, although not as useful as a reliable infinite loop detector. The question is whether it's more possible.
In Smalltalk I do what I consider "true" deep copies all the
>time, and I get a lot of use out of them.
I do them too, in Lisp. Generally, I write a method saying what the particular copy I'm writing should do for each applicable class. This doesn't mean that a general solution exists.
There even exists this tool
>called a DeepCopyArbiter that generically traverses any arbitrary graph of >objects, and allows you to add rulesets to define at what point the deep
Stop right there.
How is this different from what I do, except that all the copying rules are in one place? I don't think it would be difficult to write a deep-copy-arbiter macro that would write methods to do deep copies while stopping at specified classes. (OK, it would need a bit of the MOP to find out what the members of classes are.)
If this sort of macro doesn't exist, it's because nobody's bothered to write it.
Courageous wrote: > Well, you never know how much someone has screwed with the MOP, > but disregarding that, isn't it possible to check to see if the > object is 'standard-object? Perhaps I don't know what you mean > by "what an object is", unless of course you're referring to the > fact that it's quite possible to build objects with the MOP that > *don't* derive from 'standard-object.
> I wonder how frequently this degenerate case ever really occurs?
You still have not read the paper by Tim Bradshaw? His queue class is neither a non-standard metaobject nor something that a "default" deep copier can properly duplicate. It is impolite to pursue a thread without investing at least as much time understanding responses as responding.
> You still have not read the paper by Tim Bradshaw? His queue class is > neither a non-standard metaobject nor something that a "default" deep > copier can properly duplicate. It is impolite to pursue a thread > without investing at least as much time understanding responses as > responding.
I completely understand that you can't just deep copy every type of object blithely.
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | One simply ceases.
I'm waiting for you to stop behaving in a way that needs correction.
as you have so succinctly stated, "you can't stop, can you, Joe Kraska"? I think we have all the proof we need. it's up to you. in fact, it has been up to you for a very long time, but your insistence on proving your case has been a barrier to progress. I draw my conclusions, but I have promised to stop stating them, so won't.
> > Possibly. I suspect there is some (small) benefit to be > > had from having elements of objects which themselves > > aren't referenceable; possibly removing the reference > > traversing overhead as well as the necessity of > > checking for dynamic dispatch. However, I'm not expert > > at what compilers can or cannot optimize away in this > > regard.
> I think the answer to this is that they can optimize everything. > Certainly good Lisp compilers are capable of doing an extremely good > job, with relatively small effort expended on them.
I'm pretty sure they just wanted to have real 32 and 64 bit ints instead of having to use either boxing or type dispatch bits, and this overrode the programmer-friendliness consideration of making all types equal citizens.
In article <38FDE838.313FD...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 12:06 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> I'm waiting for you to stop behaving in a way that needs correction.
> One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
So who's blaming whom here? STOP IT ALREADY! If you simply accepted that the perceptions you got from C++'s "auto-copy" were completely wrong, NONE of this nonsense would have happened. In fact, the whole issue of whether deep copy is possible has NOTHING to do with C++, Smalltalk, or Lisp. I understood the problem when the only languages I knew were BASIC, C, and HyperTalk. So save yourself what little pride you might have left and move on. We all make mistakes, it's the smart ones who can learn from them and benefit from the knowledge they've gained.
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
In article <38FE5FEE.C6505...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:37 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> > One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
>> So who's blaming whom here?
> Do you feel I'm being "abusive" to Erik? Do tell.
No, I'm just pointing out that you're BOTH participaring in the argument, and that you BOTH should stop. Erik is a very smart guy, and if you get over his vehmence and try to UNDERSTAND what he's saying, you'll end up GAINING from communicating with him, instead of LOSING, like you are now.
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
In article <38FE5C10.43021...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:20 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> If you simply accepted that the perceptions you got from C++'s >> "auto-copy" were completely wrong, NONE of this nonsense would >> have happened.
> C++ doesn't have an auto copy that I know of.
It automatically makes some sort of copy constructor that I've never dared to use, since I know that it's most likely wrong.
> I've never thought that such a deep copier would work in all > circumstances, only that it's useful to use it when you know > it will work.
> A general purpose deep copier is useful for those cases in > which you deep copy will function properly. These number of > cases are, in fact, quite large.
What exactly would a "general purpose" deep copier DO? Where would it stop?
> I never asked for advice on whether or not such a deep copier > would work in all cases, and don't care to hear any. I'm sorry > that bothers you, but all I wanted to know is if there was > some built in feature that I could make use of. Hearing > the rationale for why it doesn't exist as a built in feature > is interesting, but not relevant to what I'm trying to > achieve in my software project.
Languages don't provide situation-specific tools. They are the tools you USE to make situation-specifc tools from generic ones. If reality isn't relevant to your project, I suggest you find something to do that's somewhat practical. In theory, if we had perfect AI, we could just sit around and let computers take over the planet. It's not something I'd plan a project to depend on, however.
> If this last bothers you, well... tough.
No, it's just stupid and wasteful. I suggest you stop and get on with your life.
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
In article <38FE5FEE.C6505...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:37 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> > One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
>> So who's blaming whom here?
> Do you feel I'm being "abusive" to Erik? Do tell.
No, you're the one who blamed Erik for being an abuser. Ironically, that makes him the victim and you the abuser by your OWN twisted logic.
You're ARE, however being abusive to the concept I have in my brain that people are smart. But don't feel you're alone, there are plenty of others who contribute to that abuse, too. I just figured that I wouldn't see too much of it here.
Oh well. The internet is free and open, and I'll have to deal with it.
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
> In article <38FDE838.313FD...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, > April 19, 2000 12:06 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I'm waiting for you to stop behaving in a way that needs correction.
> > One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
> So who's blaming whom here? > STOP IT ALREADY! > If you simply accepted that the perceptions you got from C++'s > "auto-copy" were completely wrong, NONE of this nonsense would > have happened. In fact, the whole issue of whether deep copy is > possible has NOTHING to do with C++, Smalltalk, or Lisp. I > understood the problem when the only languages I knew were BASIC, > C, and HyperTalk. So save yourself what little pride you might > have left and move on. We all make mistakes, it's the smart ones > who can learn from them and benefit from the knowledge they've > gained.
I think that part of the thread ended quite some time ago.
If people would act in a mature and civil manner, none of this would happen.
> In article <38FE5FEE.C6505...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, > April 19, 2000 8:37 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
> >> So who's blaming whom here?
> > Do you feel I'm being "abusive" to Erik? Do tell.
> No, I'm just pointing out that you're BOTH participaring in the > argument, and that you BOTH should stop.
hear hear.
> Erik is a very smart > guy, and if you get over his vehmence and try to UNDERSTAND > what he's saying, you'll end up GAINING from communicating with > him, instead of LOSING, like you are now.
Erik's useful contribution to this thread ended ages ago. And it is a sad fact that his intelligent technical information is so often drowned in a soup of childish abuse.
> If you simply accepted that the perceptions you got from C++'s > "auto-copy" were completely wrong, NONE of this nonsense would > have happened.
C++ doesn't have an auto copy that I know of.
I've never thought that such a deep copier would work in all circumstances, only that it's useful to use it when you know it will work.
A general purpose deep copier is useful for those cases in which you deep copy will function properly. These number of cases are, in fact, quite large.
I never asked for advice on whether or not such a deep copier would work in all cases, and don't care to hear any. I'm sorry that bothers you, but all I wanted to know is if there was some built in feature that I could make use of. Hearing the rationale for why it doesn't exist as a built in feature is interesting, but not relevant to what I'm trying to achieve in my software project.
> It automatically makes some sort of copy constructor that I've > never dared to use, since I know that it's most likely wrong.
It's shallow copy. If you want deep copy, you have to go to a code generator which implements what you want in terms of specific primitives designed so that they even *can* be deep copied. Which isn't to say that some- one using said system couldn't shoot themselves in the foot. Because they could, of course.
> > I've never thought that such a deep copier would work in all > > circumstances, only that it's useful to use it when you know > > it will work.
> > A general purpose deep copier is useful for those cases in > > which you deep copy will function properly. These number of > > cases are, in fact, quite large.
> What exactly would a "general purpose" deep copier DO?
In the wrong situations, the wrong thing, no doubt.
> > I never asked for advice on whether or not such a deep copier > > would work in all cases... > Languages don't provide situation-specific tools.
They do sometimes, however, provide general purpose tools which are only useful in specific situations.
> They are the tools > you USE to make situation-specifc tools from generic ones. If reality > isn't relevant to your project, I suggest you find something to do > that's somewhat practical.
> No, you're the one who blamed Erik for being an abuser. Ironically, > that makes him the victim and you the abuser by your OWN twisted > logic.
Truly? So, by my "twisted logic," if I refer to what's written below as "abuse," I am an abuser? Please go on...
... you're a village idiot who.. behave like a fucking moron... ... with a moronic nick... you walk around in very small circles... ... like the other morons... try some non-moronic behavior ... obviously impossible for you to fathom... keep acting the moron ... your moronic ways... I have said "moron", and you _are_ a moron ....you can't run your own miserable life... you pitiful "Courageous" ....moron
