FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?
Gianni Mariani
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4
from:
Do not post "attachments."
to:
Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
....
Anyone disagree ?
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>
> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
> antiquated rules.
The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jack Klein
<gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in comp.lang.c++:
>
> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
> antiquated rules.
>
> It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
No, it's not.
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4
>
> from:
>
> Do not post "attachments."
>
> to:
>
> Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
> extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
> Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
> context of the question.
> ....
>
>
> Anyone disagree ?
I do. In addition to agreeing with Jerry's response, I don't open
attachments from strangers. Even though I don't use a web browser as
a newsreader.
Besides, once the camel's nose is in the tent, you'll start seeing a
lot of attachments that aren't just source code files.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Ian Collins
>
> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
> antiquated rules.
>
> It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
>
>
> Anyone disagree ?
Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows
would be very cautious opening attachments.
--
Ian Collins.
GeekBoy
"Jerry Coffin" <jco...@taeus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20ce977ee...@news.sunsite.dk...
> In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>>
>> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
>> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
>> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
>> antiquated rules.
>
> The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
> strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
> As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
> we'd never see the attachments at all.
In some cases, servers will not even post messages containing attachments.
Gianni Mariani
My newsreader (Thunderbird) shows CPP files inline. There is no need to
open it. It's very convenient.
Gianni Mariani
> In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
>> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
>> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
>> antiquated rules.
>
> The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
> strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
> As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
> we'd never see the attachments at all.
>
Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
James Kanze
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4
> from:
> Do not post "attachments."
> to:
> Anyone disagree ?
Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
Zeppe
Well, I think it's not a matter of fixing... many servers are just free
services, like the one that I'm using, and either include the access to
binary newsgroups for a fee, or prevent it at all. It also a matter of
traffic, not handling the binary newsgroups the server can reduce a lot
the workload.
Unfortunately, usenet it''s a quite old technology and it has got some
technical limitations in it.
Regards,
Zeppe
Gennaro Prota
>
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
>from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
>reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
>antiquated rules.
>
>It's time for a change.
Well, I'll not disagree any more than others already did :-) But I'm
curious: why do you find that easier? (I may sort of understand the
"extract" part, but as to posting... any decent newsreader will offer
you to chose whether you want to attach the file or paste its contents
inline)
--
Gennaro Prota -- C++ Developer, For Hire
https://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/
(replace 'address' with 'name.surname' to mail)
Gianni Mariani
...
>> Anyone disagree ?
>
> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>
> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
> newsreading interface in the world).
>
Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).
I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
There is nothing different in this argument. NOTHING. We'll need to
rally an ISP or two to get them to fix a few settings, but this is not a
big deal.
So what's the deal ?
Ian Collins
> James Kanze wrote:
> ....
paranoid about opening attachments.
--
Ian Collins.
Devon Null
I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code
inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there,
simple as can be.
I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but
this one? What is source code? Plain text. What is this message? Plain
text. I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
will do.
It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of
need. Why fix what ain't broke? To get an extra feature or three most
won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two
cents.
--
[there are no x's in my email]
I have the right to remain silent
(and should probably use it as much as possible)
Anything I type can and will be used against me
in a court of idiocy
I have the right to be wrong
(and probably am)
If I can not furnish my own wrongness
I'm sure someone will provide it for me.
Alf P. Steinbach
> James Kanze wrote:
> ...
>>> Anyone disagree ?
>>
>> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
>> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>>
>> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
>> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
>> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
>> newsreading interface in the world).
>>
>
> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
> was old and crusty...)
I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Victor Bazarov
> [...]
> Anyone disagree ?
Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
you really need that?
Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
message] is an important part of getting the problem solved. Often
the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting.
We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as
C++ programmers.
BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't...
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Gianni Mariani
...
> I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code
> inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there,
> simple as can be.
Here is a posting I made a while back that shows the code even though it
is an attachment. Thunderbird also shows it as an attachment.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/c73876b9716f3add?&hl=en
> I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but
> this one? What is source code? Plain text.
often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is
attached.
> ... What is this message? Plain
> text.
Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting. It's
properly justified.
> ... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
> send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
> will do.
One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are
plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code
and all.
> It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of
> need. Why fix what ain't broke?
IMHO it is broke. Anything I spend doing where a computer can do for me
is a waste of time. If I can click on your attachment and auto-compile
it I would. It would lower my threshold in terms of checking other
people's code.
Many of the features that go unused, were put there for good reasons.
Refusing to use them or at least suggesting improvements is being a luddite.
> ... To get an extra feature or three most
> won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two
> cents.
I remember the first time I saw people use a browser. "Aw - heck, I can
use ftp to problem, why would I need to use html".
I can see this is going to be a miracle.
Go reread your previous post and tell me that this system is the best
thing since sliced bread. Having to reassemble broken lines because it
broke a string or a comment. Every second I do that is time I don't
spend helping the poster.
Jeez fellas, are you really all crustier than I ?
Maybe it's time I stop wasting my time altogether.
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anyone disagree ?
>
> Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
> will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
> which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
> you really need that?
I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I
copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on.
>
> Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
> message] is an important part of getting the problem solved.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try to
compile the file before posting. Posting a file as an attachment kind
of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file. Otherwise
we get what we see here, either code edited in the message, missing
important detail. We still get the monster posts of code anyway.
> ... Often
> the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting.
> We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as
> C++ programmers.
>
> BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't...
I obviously need lots more.
Victor Bazarov
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
>> Gianni Mariani wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Anyone disagree ?
>>
>> Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
>> will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
>> which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
>> you really need that?
>
> I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I
> copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on.
You either take up answering questions that are too tough, or those
that have not been prepared well enough (code not distilled or the
error messages have not been spelled out or lines with errors have
not been indicated), or something else (I'd rather not elaborate on
that one).
>> Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
>> message] is an important part of getting the problem solved.
>
> Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try
> to compile the file before posting.
That's a given. But there is no relationship between compiling and
the form of posting (inline vs attachment).
> Posting a file as an attachment
> kind of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file.
Yes, but does it force them to try compiling it afterwards? No.
The fact that people ask about their code means that they have at
least tried compiling it [in its original form]. Many will actually
remove something they don't want others to see before they attach
files, which means more work for them. Making those files will not
force them to compile, it will just create more problems for
everybody: posters need to make copies of files, readers will have
to copy them into temporary directories to look at them, etc.
> Otherwise we get what we see here, either code edited in the message,
> missing important detail. We still get the monster posts of code
> anyway.
And we will, still. Those who want and are able to provide decent
information, have, do, and will. Those who [most likely] are unable
(incapable) haven't, don't, and won't, regardless whether it's in
an attachment or inline with their post.
It sounds like you're looking for a better solution to your problem
of having to reassemble the code when answering questions here. Do
you really think it should be done by making everybody else's lives
more difficult?
dave_m...@fastmail.fm
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
> > The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
> > strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
> > As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
> > we'd never see the attachments at all.
>
> Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
>
> It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
> hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
I wish my friends and relatives didn't make use of attachment
technology so well - love getting huge emails with pictures/videos :-(
Linking should always be preferred to attaching. Can't you put the
code on an ftp or web site somewhere and link to it?
James Kanze
> James Kanze wrote:
> ...
> >> Anyone disagree ?
> > Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
> > know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
> > And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
> > embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
> > posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
> > newsreading interface in the world).
> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
> was old and crusty...)
Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.
There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
justify changing anything.
> Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
> justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
> now (mostly available).
You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
to change.
> I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
> and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
> because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
> emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
> also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
> There is nothing different in this argument.
There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.
James Kanze
> > this one? What is source code? Plain text.
> often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is
> attached.
So change the reader. A news reader shouldn't munge text.
> > ... What is this message? Plain
> > text.
> Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting.
It shouldn't be. Google Groups had this misfeature for a very
short time, but dropped it quickly, because it makes technical
groups unusable. In practice, a newsreader reads news---any
editing should be passed off to your favorite editor. (Unless,
of course, it is your favorite editor which is reading the
news---GNUS doesn't have much "passing off" to do if your
favorite editor is emacs:-).)
I don't know about Thunderbird, but Firefox certainly allows
using other editors for the post boxed Google sends---I
regularly use gvim for all of my posting.
> It's properly justified.
You probably mean improperly justified:-). If that's the case,
change newsreaders to something decent.
> > ... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
> > send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
> > will do.
> One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are
> plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code
> and all.
Just a nit, but that's not a feature of NNTP. NNTP is mainly a
question of transport, and normally, messages will "expire"
after a relatively short time. But some sites have always tried
to archive, and of course, today, there's Google.
BobR
Gianni Mariani wrote in message...
Cast my vote for NO attachments!!
You want attachments because *you* are too lazy to copy/paste?
--
Bob R
POVrookie
Default User
Yeah, it's fairly dumb. Modern technology makes it easy to copy and
paste whatever text needs to go in a message. Code that is posted here
needs to be reduced to a minimal state anyway.
Attachments just encourage people to send big source files that no one
will bother with anyway.
I have my newsreader set to NOT render attachments.
Brian
David Harmon
<gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote,
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
>from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
>reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
>antiquated rules.
File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a
newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text
of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post
will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with
the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule
that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may
reply.
If your purpose in posting is posting and extracting files instead of
discussion, use a group with ".binaries." in the name.
Gianni Mariani
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani
> <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote,
>> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
>>from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
>> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
>> antiquated rules.
>
> File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a
> newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text
> of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post
> will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with
> the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule
> that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may
> reply.
How can I possibly control the news reader that other posters use ?
Most of my posts are in response to other OP.
OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and inefficient
methods because they see no reason to improve, I will cede the argument.
It's time for me to move on.
Owen Jacobson
> James Kanze wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Anyone disagree ?
>
> > Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
> > know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>
> > And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
> > embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
> > posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
> > newsreading interface in the world).
>
> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
> was old and crusty...)
Gianni,
I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.
Default User
> OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and
> inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will
> cede the argument.
Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.
> It's time for me to move on.
First sensible thing you said.
Brian
Gianni Mariani
...
>
> Gianni,
>
> I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
> not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
> dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
> opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
> insults.
Owen,
Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.
If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in you, then
this is something you need to deal with. Good luck with that.
In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
this news group when it comes to attaching code. I have made
references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve". If we all have
that kind of attitude, no progress will be made.
I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Maybe I could do a
better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
think. My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
posting on this NG.
I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.
Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
been fraudulent in some way. Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest".
G
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
>
>> OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and
>> inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will
>> cede the argument.
>
> Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.
It demonstrates that we have a very different perspective. I think I
see yours, I don't think you see mine.
When I look at both perspectives, I see the balance of the merits in the
perspective I advocate.
What exactly don't you think I get ?
>
>> It's time for me to move on.
>
> First sensible thing you said.
Probably.
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
...
>>
> I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
> paranoid about opening attachments.
Most of the reasons to be paranoid are not justified with attachments of
source code. Most browsers will show the code (without line breaks)
without needing explicitly open the attachments.
Gianni Mariani
...
>> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
>> was old and crusty...)
>
> I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
> some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
> totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
> likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
> majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
> then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
> attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.
Is your argument that the volume of nonsense posts will go up ? We
already have a large quantity of nonsense posts because this is not a
moderated group we have bought into explaining the rules to newcomers.
I don't think the volume of nonsense posts will be any different to what
it is today.
Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.
I'm no longer trying to convince you because I have given up on the
cause, however, I do think you need to rethink your position since it
makes little sense to me.
Gianni Mariani
> On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.ws> wrote:
>> James Kanze wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Anyone disagree ?
>
>>> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
>>> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>
>>> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
>>> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
>>> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
>>> newsreading interface in the world).
>
>> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
>> was old and crusty...)
>
> Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
> any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
> propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.
OK. I think this may be our difference in opinion. I do think there
are many good reasons to have source code attachments.
a) One click - save file - compile is simpler than open file, copy,
paste, correct the justification mangling etc.
b) Posting back a response is simply select drag-drop.
c) Attached code is more easily identified in the archives making it
easier (theoretically in the future) to search for.
>
> There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
> might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
> when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
> however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
> justify changing anything.
I'd like to see how you justify that statement.
>
>> Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
>> justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
>> now (mostly available).
>
> You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
> to change.
I think it's obvious but maybe my earlier comments give you a better idea.
>
>> I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
>> and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
>> because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
>> emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
>> also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
>
>> There is nothing different in this argument.
>
> There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.
The inference being file attachments are not ? Go figure.
Clark Cox
>
> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract
> code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any
> news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such
> old antiquated rules.
>
> It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
>
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4
>
> from:
>
> Do not post "attachments."
>
> to:
>
> Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
> extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
> Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
> context of the question.
> ....
>
>
> Anyone disagree ?
I disagree. Anything that could be valid to post here as an attachment
is plain text (i.e. source code, excerpts from the standard), anything
else couldn't possibly be on topic. And, if anything you could possibly
need to post as an attachment is plain text, then why not just post it
as plain text?
--
Clark S. Cox III
clar...@gmail.com
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
[ ... ]
> Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
They _are_ fixed.
> It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
> hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
In this case, we choose not to use the technology at hand because the
technology would serve little useful purpose under the circumstances. In
fact, my own opinion is that allowing attachments in this newsgroup (or
essentially any other I frequent) would be highly detrimental.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Gianni Mariani
How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?
Gianni Mariani
> In article <46650fef$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
>
> They _are_ fixed.
>
>> It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
>> hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
>
> In this case, we choose not to use the technology at hand because the
> technology would serve little useful purpose under the circumstances. In
> fact, my own opinion is that allowing attachments in this newsgroup (or
> essentially any other I frequent) would be highly detrimental.
You opine without basis in fact. Please elaborate. Surely one who is
enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
simple issue.
Jack Klein
<gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in comp.lang.c++:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> ...
> >> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
> >> was old and crusty...)
> >
> > I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
> > some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
> > totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
> > likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
> > majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
> > then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
> > attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.
>
> Is your argument that the volume of nonsense posts will go up ? We
> already have a large quantity of nonsense posts because this is not a
> moderated group we have bought into explaining the rules to newcomers.
> I don't think the volume of nonsense posts will be any different to what
> it is today.
>
> Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
> because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.
Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
commitment for them?
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Ian Collins
> Owen Jacobson wrote:
> ....
>>
>> Gianni,
>>
>> I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
>> not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
>> dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
>> opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
>> insults.
>
> Owen,
>
> Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
> progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
> definition of the term.
>
looks pretty clear form the responses to this thread that those who care
don't see any advantage and some see potential risks.
As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
open editor than save a file and open it.
--
Ian Collins.
Old Wolf
> Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
> progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
> definition of the term.
Hyperlinking is more technologically progressive than
attachments. Yet you insist on attachments. You luddite!
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
[ ... ]
> You opine without basis in fact.
Not true. I didn't express the facts, but that's different from claiming
that there IS not factual basis.
> Please elaborate. Surely one who is
> enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
> simple issue.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but the argument is quite
simple: this is a _discussion_ newsgroup. Attachments are not
discussion.
Yes, attachments can/could reduce some problems due to lines in source
code being wrapped by various poorly configured editors/readers, etc.
While true as far as it goes, this has little relevance. First of all,
as has already been pointed out, many of us wouldn't open attachments
from unknown sources. Second, many (most?) newsreaders assume that
attachments are binaries and treat them in a manner suitable for
binaries, not as part of the message body where it belongs (given that
this IS a discussion group, so nothing really belongs outside the body).
If you really want to ensure against munging of posted source code,
there are better ways. Years ago, on Fidonet, a number of people noted
roughly the same problem. One of the solutions that was posted was a
program called csplit.c. This had a number of advantages over
attachments. First and foremost, the source code stayed in the body of
the message, and remained in a reasonably readable format. Second, since
it was still simple text, there was no way for anybody to hide something
people really don't want, as is trivial with an attachment. Third, it
actually did other "cleanup" on the code to make it ready for posting
(e.g. it automatically expanded tabs to a specified number of spaces,
since readers often don't display tabs quite the same as a programming
editor).
The method you're advocating is quite invasive and accomplishes little.
Other methods can minimize the invasiveness while accomplishing
considerably more.
Clark Cox
Many times. Why is that relevant?
Gianni Mariani
Yeah - I thought of linking, however it does not follow the message
and when my server goes down, the message becomes useless. Much
better to have it as part of the message, i.e. an attachment.
Gianni Mariani
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:21:52 +1000,GianniMariani
...
>
> > Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
> > because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.
>
> Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
> the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
> commitment for them?
I think you can easily auto filter inappropriate attachments.
I often have my responses auto filtered saying I've quoted too much of
the original message. That's one of the reasons (not the only one) I
don't use c.l.c++.mod...
Gianni Mariani
> GianniMariani wrote:
> > Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > ....
>
> >>Gianni,
>
> >> I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
> >> not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
> >> dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
> >> opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
> >> insults.
>
> > Owen,
>
> > Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
> > progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
> > definition of the term.
>
> That argument assumes there is technological progress to oppose. It
> looks pretty clear form the responses to this thread that those who care
> don't see any advantage and some see potential risks.
All the responses so far have not addressed the issues I raised.
>
> As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
> open editor than save a file and open it.
Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?
Alf P. Steinbach
Sorry, that's incorrect.
Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
cross-posting to unsupported groups.
However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
the loop* if you don't think of the readers...
Cheers,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Gianni Mariani
...
>
> Sorry, that's incorrect.
>
> Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
> cross-posting to unsupported groups.
>
> However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
> statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
> clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
> try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
> the loop* if you don't think of the readers...
Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
for some lamo reason.
There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.
Moderation is a nice concept, I don't see it working other than in low
traffic NG's like comp.std.c++ which (for whatever reason) I expect to
have more in depth discussions.
Gianni Mariani
> In article <466609b4$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.
You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
Explain what is so invasive to you.
Ian Collins
I've have to filter out. I'd rather fix a small snippet than wade my
way through scores of lines of someone else's code.
We should encourage posters to post the smallest example that shows
their problem, as others have said, this helps them find their own
solution. If we accept attachments, I bet we'd get loads of "my program
doesn't work" postings with large code attachments.
The main issue isn't technical, it is human.
--
Ian Collins.
Gianni Mariani
>>
>> How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?
>
> Many times. Why is that relevant?
I almost never find code a simple cut-n-paste.
Here is a very recent classic example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en
James Kanze
> James Kanze wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.ws> wrote:
> >> James Kanze wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Anyone disagree ?
> >>> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
> >>> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
> >>> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
> >>> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
> >>> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
> >>> newsreading interface in the world).
> >> Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
> >> was old and crusty...)
> > Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
> > any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
> > propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.
> OK. I think this may be our difference in opinion. I do think there
> are many good reasons to have source code attachments.
> a) One click - save file - compile is simpler than open file, copy,
> paste, correct the justification mangling etc.
If I'm going to reply, I've already got the original posting in
vim. So I don't even have to click to get a window up with the
original code, and prepare it for compilation.
> b) Posting back a response is simply select drag-drop.
??? Posting back a response means writing something, no?
> c) Attached code is more easily identified in the archives making it
> easier (theoretically in the future) to search for.
Except that this isn't the right group for that. The goal here
isn't to post code that someone might find useful; it is to
answer questions, and otherwise discuss issues concerning the
language.
> > There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
> > might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
> > when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
> > however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
> > justify changing anything.
> I'd like to see how you justify that statement.
What is there to justify? It's certainly easier to follow class
diagrams, etc., in some sort of graphic representation than in
ASCII art. But since, once again, this group is concerned with
the language, and not more general software design issues, it's
not that important.
> >> Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
> >> justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
> >> now (mostly available).
> > You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
> > to change.
> I think it's obvious but maybe my earlier comments give you a
> better idea.
I've not seen any reason as to why it would be better. Either
you're newsreader isn't up to par, or you don't know how to
configure it, so you want everyone else to suffer.
> >> I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
> >> and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
> >> because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
> >> emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
> >> also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
> >> There is nothing different in this argument.
> > There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.
> The inference being file attachments are not ?
Correct. I don't see any real utility for them in this group.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze
> Owen Jacobson wrote:
> ...
> > I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
> > not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
> > dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
> > opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
> > insults.
People typically resort to such personal insinuations when they
don't have technical arguments to support their point of view.
> Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes
> technological progress with no substantive reasoning is a
> luddite by the very (modern) definition of the term.
> If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in
> you, then this is something you need to deal with. Good luck
> with that.
In other words, you have the right to insult people, but they
don't have the right to argue back.
> In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
> this news group when it comes to attaching code.
Such as? The current situation seems close to ideal to me.
Putting the code in a separate attachment causes no end of extra
work if I want to look at it and comment it.
Note that according to the charter of this group, the goal of
posted code isn't that I copy it on to my machine to use it as
third party library. The goal is discussion---I want that code
right there in my editor with the rest of the message, so that I
can comment it.
> I have made
> references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
> form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve".
I haven't heard anyone say that there's no need to improve.
What I've heard is people saying that allowing attachments would
not be an improvement. Which is certainly true with regards to
the charter of the group.
[...]
> I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest.
You never do, do you?
> Maybe I could do a
> better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
> think.
And not listening to what other people thing.
> My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
> posting on this NG.
> I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
> qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.
Somehow, I doubt that you've posted anywhere near as much as I
have over the years:-).
> Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
> dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
> been fraudulent in some way.
I don't think he meant it quite that strongly. At least as I
understand it, "intellectual dishonesty" isn't quite the same
thing as fraud, and is often used to cover the idea that you're
not considering the arguments of others fairly.
> Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
> clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
> you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest".
I think it's a particular use of English; I don't think anyone
is accusing you of misrepresenting your ideas.
Alf P. Steinbach
> On Jun 6, 5:19 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.no> wrote:
> ...
>> Sorry, that's incorrect.
>>
>> Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
>> cross-posting to unsupported groups.
>>
>> However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
>> statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
>> clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
>> try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
>> the loop* if you don't think of the readers...
>
> Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
> couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
> portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
> times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
> the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
> is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
> for some lamo reason.
Just talk to the moderators. Communicate. Nothing gets fixed without
communication. I mean, there's an address to write to, and if one
moderator makes a bad decision, which of course happens, he'll (we're
all male: girls, where are you?) be told so by the others, and amend his
decision. As for me -- currently I'm the most likely to process your
articles, but I've only been doing this since last fall so I wasn't the
mod you encountered -- you can take that discussion in public if you
want, because I'm all for communication and Doing Things Right. ;-)
> There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
> causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
> of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.
Yes and no. We have an [already stated] rejection reason, but we
haven't been applying it much, so there are many threads, mostly basic
questions, where a large number of almost identical answers are posted
and appear roughly at the same time. However, that also serves as a
quality check and provides some confidence that the answers are correct.
[snip]
dave_m...@fastmail.fm
So use a source code formatter, like SourceFormatX.
Jerry Coffin
gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
[ ... ]
> I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.
Just be careful -- there's also a (semi-?) standard UNIX CSPLIT that
does something only vaguely related. Including "Fred Cole" (the author)
in the search may help sort things out.
> You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
> Explain what is so invasive to you.
It requires a substantial change on the part of anybody who wishes to
(for example) follow-up to anybody who encloses their code in an
attachment instead of where it belongs.
Clark Cox
In-line
Pro: Immediately visible (I can comment on the code without leaving my
newsreader)
Pro: Most compatible (I can read it in *any* newsreader; even a in a
raw "telnet newsserver 119")
Attachment
Pro: No formatting issues
Con: Must save to a file, then open in a text editor to even *see* the code
Con: If I want to comment on the code, I have to copy the code into my
response anyway (if it were in-line in the OP, then I would get this
"for free" by quoting)
Gianni Mariani
> * Gianni Mariani:
...
>>
>> Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
>> couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
>> portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
>> times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
>> the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
>> is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
>> for some lamo reason.
>
> Just talk to the moderators. Communicate. Nothing gets fixed without
> communication. I mean, there's an address to write to, and if one
> moderator makes a bad decision, which of course happens, he'll (we're
> all male: girls, where are you?) be told so by the others, and amend his
> decision. As for me -- currently I'm the most likely to process your
> articles, but I've only been doing this since last fall so I wasn't the
> mod you encountered -- you can take that discussion in public if you
> want, because I'm all for communication and Doing Things Right. ;-)
IIRC I had a strong suspicion it was an auto reject and so I didn't
think at the time I was going to get anywhere nor did I feel compelled
at the time to bother since I was simply dabbling in clc++mod. If this
was the only reason I may have pursued it further.
>
>
>> There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
>> causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
>> of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.
>
> Yes and no. We have an [already stated] rejection reason, but we
> haven't been applying it much, so there are many threads, mostly basic
> questions, where a large number of almost identical answers are posted
> and appear roughly at the same time. However, that also serves as a
> quality check and provides some confidence that the answers are correct.
If anyone would moderate with a reject of "[already stated]" I'd be
pretty annoyed. If I spend any time pushing out an answer just to have
a moderator reject because of propagation delay, it would likely be the
last time I would post there. Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
rejected for excessive quotation.
I'm quite happy with my own filter on clc++. I find the answers are
faster and generally the same quality on clc++. Between the regulars
on clc++, I think most post with merit are replied to with an adequate
answer in minutes.
Gianni Mariani
>
> So use a source code formatter, like SourceFormatX.
Do a brainless cut-n-paste of the code from this recent post and push it
through your formatter and post what it produces.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en
Gianni Mariani
> On Jun 6, 1:09 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.ws> wrote:
>> Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> ...
>>> I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
>>> not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
>>> dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
>>> opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
>>> insults.
>
> People typically resort to such personal insinuations when they
> don't have technical arguments to support their point of view.
Now who is being dishonest? Can you really tell me you don't know why I
think your opinion is as a result of an unreasonable fear of adopting a
better "techonology" and hence by definition luddite ? If after reading
my posts on this thread you still don't understand, I'll spell it out
again, maybe I'll use simpler words.
I don't think I'm beating around the bush here, I'm being bluntly
honest. If you're offended, don't be, I don't mean it as an insult,
just my observation. As I see it, in my perspective, in my opinion,
it's pretty black and white, y'all just don't get it yet. Yep, I've
often been on one side of the table, alone, with 20 very bright people
on the other side, while I am explaining what will happen or what
they're doing in a very different perspective than what they see. The
result is I'm having everyone yell at me that I must be too short
sighted. Very seldom have I been wrong. Maybe I'm wrong on this one,
so what ? It's not the end of the world. Please, don't think I'm
putting myself under scrutiny because I like it. I really thought this
was going to be a no brainer.
"Guys, let's use attachments - DUH!" I say. "Are you off your brain?" is
not a response I expected. I thought the evidence was going to be too
compelling.
Everyone has given an opinion but I seem to be the only one who ever
tried it recently.
>
>> Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes
>> technological progress with no substantive reasoning is a
>> luddite by the very (modern) definition of the term.
>
>> If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in
>> you, then this is something you need to deal with. Good luck
>> with that.
>
> In other words, you have the right to insult people, but they
> don't have the right to argue back.
Can I assume you're insulted ? Sad, very sad. I don't think you need
me to explain "self confidence".
>
>> In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
>> this news group when it comes to attaching code.
>
> Such as? The current situation seems close to ideal to me.
> Putting the code in a separate attachment causes no end of extra
> work if I want to look at it and comment it.
Try the alternative and get back to me.
>
> Note that according to the charter of this group, the goal of
> posted code isn't that I copy it on to my machine to use it as
> third party library. The goal is discussion---I want that code
> right there in my editor with the rest of the message, so that I
> can comment it.
Re-read the FAQ. Esp.
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.8
"compileable" code. I often cut-paste-compile-check errors.
>
>> I have made
>> references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
>> form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve".
>
> I haven't heard anyone say that there's no need to improve.
Huh ? Reread your posts and tell me what you're saying is not "I like
it the way it is - warts? - what warts? - and all". That's how I
interpret sentences like: '...I have absolutly no problem "extracting"
bits of source code...'. (see your previous post). Something like this
was going through the brains of the people in 1811. "... I have
absolutely no problem making stockings by hand ...".
I seldom am accused of change for the sake of change so don't try that
guilt trip. Won't work. Try the alternative and tell me it's worse
with good facts.
> What I've heard is people saying that allowing attachments would
> not be an improvement. Which is certainly true with regards to
> the charter of the group.
Refer back to FAQ.
>
> [...]
>> I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest.
>
> You never do, do you?
It took me a couple of ticks but I got it. Funny. Seeing you as a
comedian does give me new insight.
>
>> Maybe I could do a
>> better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
>> think.
>
> And not listening to what other people thing.
That's a classic accusation from a bad listener. Dripping with irony
today are we?
>
>> My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
>> posting on this NG.
>
>> I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
>> qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.
>
> Somehow, I doubt that you've posted anywhere near as much as I
> have over the years:-).
I don't want to start a tit-for-tat. The argument was simply that I
think I have a valid opinion and I've seen more fertile pastures.
>
>> Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
>> dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
>> been fraudulent in some way.
>
> I don't think he meant it quite that strongly. At least as I
> understand it, "intellectual dishonesty" isn't quite the same
> thing as fraud, and is often used to cover the idea that you're
> not considering the arguments of others fairly.
You have yet to give me anything to change my opinion other than
asserting yours. This arrangement usually does not bear fruit.
>
>> Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
>> clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
>> you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest".
>
> I think it's a particular use of English; I don't think anyone
> is accusing you of misrepresenting your ideas.
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false.
(wikipedia).
Where are we unclear here ?
I do believe that posting compileable code in a .cpp attachment is a
"Good Thing™".
I've tried it, I like it way better than cut-n-paste.
Gianni Mariani
...
>>
>> Here is a very recent classic example:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en
>
> In-line
> Pro: Immediately visible (I can comment on the code without leaving my
> newsreader)
> Pro: Most compatible (I can read it in *any* newsreader; even a in a raw
> "telnet newsserver 119")
Often it's important to compile the code yourself.
>
> Attachment
> Pro: No formatting issues
> Con: Must save to a file, then open in a text editor to even *see* the code
> Con: If I want to comment on the code, I have to copy the code into my
> response anyway (if it were in-line in the OP, then I would get this
> "for free" by quoting)
Here is a post I made a while back with an attachment.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
Your comments are not all supported by the evidence.
Maybe we need better features in a newsreader but we certainly won't get
there without moving off the mark.
Gianni Mariani
...
>
> It sounds like you're looking for a better solution to your problem
> of having to reassemble the code when answering questions here.
That is one of the goals.
> ... Do
> you really think it should be done by making everybody else's lives
> more difficult?
Maybe short term, some lives will have a few issues, in the long run, I
think we will all be better for it.
Gianni Mariani
Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
opposite.
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 12:21 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
>>> open editor than save a file and open it.
>> Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
>> code?
>>
> Sometimes, but I'd wager most attached code would have DOS line endings
> I've have to filter out. I'd rather fix a small snippet than wade my
> way through scores of lines of someone else's code.
The compilers and editors treat line endings of different types
transparently.
>
> We should encourage posters to post the smallest example that shows
> their problem, as others have said, this helps them find their own
> solution.
Your inference is that attachments will change the current behaviour ? I
don't think so.
> ... If we accept attachments, I bet we'd get loads of "my program
> doesn't work" postings with large code attachments.
We don't get those today ?
>
> The main issue isn't technical, it is human.
You're a human and you're an issue ?
Victor Bazarov
I am not going to be better. Most of my replies do not require me to
use a compiler, even if code is posted. For those rare occurences
when I do need to compile something I don't necessarily use my local
compiler instance. I say benefits of having code inline with the rest
of the message outweigh potential improvements for your newsgroup
experience.
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Gianni Mariani
...
>
> I am not going to be better. Most of my replies do not require me to
> use a compiler, even if code is posted. For those rare occurences
> when I do need to compile something I don't necessarily use my local
> compiler instance. I say benefits of having code inline with the rest
> of the message outweigh potential improvements for your newsgroup
> experience.
Did you try it ?
Victor Bazarov
I have. I've been reading lang newsgroups for some time now and have
tried it all, inline, attachments (zipped and not), links. *By far*
inline is more efficient than the others. Of course, my experience is
different from anybody else's, since everyone has his/her own ability
to read/understand code by just looking at it versus having to compile
it (and link it, and execute it, and profile it, etc.)
I'll explain my point of view: allowing attachments is not going to
make our lives more difficult as far as postings with code inline are
concerned. Those have been OK and will continue being OK. However,
a bunch of lazy-ass newbies will jump in and start posting attachments
of their homework assignments they can't figure out by themselves, and
we'll have a flood of binary postings that (a) don't reach all readers
in a proper way (some servers filter out attachments in comp.lang.*),
(b) take up much more space on everybody's hard drives, (c) take longer
to download from the server, (d) are more difficult to make comments
on, (e) slow down most users who actually are willing to take a look
at them (which means making the entire newsgroup less efficient), (f)
invite other binary postings of screen shots and other BS which is
definitely going to be disruptive to the rest of us.
Go ask why 'comp.lang.c++.moderated' doesn't accept attachments and
get them to accept them first, then I might change my mind.
Default User
> Default User wrote:
> > Gianni Mariani wrote:
> >
> >
> > > OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and
> > > inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will
> > > cede the argument.
> >
> > Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.
>
> It demonstrates that we have a very different perspective. I think I
> see yours, I don't think you see mine.
I see yours, I just don't buy it.
> When I look at both perspectives, I see the balance of the merits in
> the perspective I advocate.
>
> What exactly don't you think I get ?
What you don't get is that the methods, while indeed old, are NOT
inefficient. You have and have had the attitude that we are all
hidebound luddites afraid to embrace change. That's wrong.
Brian
Andre Kostur
$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>> In article <1181115688.1...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>> gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>>
>>> You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
>>> Explain what is so invasive to you.
>>
>> It requires a substantial change on the part of anybody who wishes to
>> (for example) follow-up to anybody who encloses their code in an
>> attachment instead of where it belongs.
>
> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
> opposite.
>
I am in the no attachments crowd. By far, the majority of the time that
I'm commenting on someone's posted code, I'll be interleaving my commnets
with their code. If the code was in a separate attachment, then I'd have
to launch the attachment in some other application and cut-n-paste the code
back into my newsreader, and add the quoting notation myself. Far easier
(for me) to simply hit "follow-up", the newsreader automatically copies the
original article and marks it properly for quotations, then I can lop off
all of the irrelevant parts, and interleave my comments with their text
and/or code.
Clark Cox
> Clark Cox wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Here is a very recent classic example:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en
>>
>> In-line
>> Pro: Immediately visible (I can comment on the code without leaving my
>> newsreader)
>> Pro: Most compatible (I can read it in *any* newsreader; even a in a
>> raw "telnet newsserver 119")
>
> Often it's important to compile the code yourself.
Yes, but I'd argue that it is more often important to be able to
respond to portions of the code *inline* in my response.
>
>>
>> Attachment
>> Pro: No formatting issues
>> Con: Must save to a file, then open in a text editor to even *see* the code
>> Con: If I want to comment on the code, I have to copy the code into my
>> response anyway (if it were in-line in the OP, then I would get this
>> "for free" by quoting)
>
> Here is a post I made a while back with an attachment.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I stated above.
Nothing in that post is made significantly easier by including the code
as an attachment.
> Your comments are not all supported by the evidence.
>
> Maybe we need better features in a newsreader but we certainly won't
> get there without moving off the mark.
BobR
Gianni Mariani wrote in message...
>
> [snip] Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
> rejected for excessive quotation.
Well, a little more 'trimming' in this NG would be nice. In the following
example, note that the posters are NOT newbies.
"
On Jun 4, 6:38 am, "Default User" wrote:
> Rolf Magnus wrote:
> > Default User wrote:
> > > Ian Collins wrote:
> > >> James Kanze wrote:
> > >> > On Jun 3, 12:36 am, Ian Collins wrote:
"
And I've noticed posts with at least twice that much 'over-quoting'.
[ 4k+ to say "I agree" is crazy! <G> ]
Can we all agree to try a little harder?
Thanks.
--
Bob R
POVrookie
Default User
>
> Gianni Mariani wrote in message...
> >
> > [snip] Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
> > rejected for excessive quotation.
>
> Well, a little more 'trimming' in this NG would be nice. In the
> following example, note that the posters are NOT newbies.
>
> "
> On Jun 4, 6:38 am, "Default User" wrote:
> > Rolf Magnus wrote:
> > > Default User wrote:
> > > > Ian Collins wrote:
> > > >> James Kanze wrote:
> > > >> > On Jun 3, 12:36 am, Ian Collins wrote:
> "
This is bullshit. While there where several attribution lines, there
was only a total of 17 lines of quotes, of which 6 were attributions.
So only 11 of actual quotes for a 9-line reply (on my newsreader) from
James. That's pretty close to the 50/50 rule trn used to enforce.
> And I've noticed posts with at least twice that much 'over-quoting'.
> [ 4k+ to say "I agree" is crazy! <G> ]
That is true, but has nothing to do with the referenced post. A bit
more trimming could have been done, 'tis true, but for the most part
the quoted material was relevant to the discussion.
You can find examples, but that was a piss-poor one. Feel free to
retract and apologize.
> Can we all agree to try a little harder?
I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
irrelevant material I can excise.
Brian
Gianni Mariani
...
>> Here is a post I made a while back with an attachment.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
>
> I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I stated above. Nothing
> in that post is made significantly easier by including the code as an
> attachment.
Try hitting reply.
Ian Collins
>
> I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
> than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
> reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
> when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
> irrelevant material I can excise.
>
their replies.
--
Ian Collins.
Sherm Pendley
> Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be
> false. (wikipedia).
Mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments is more of a straw man argument
than intellectual dishonesty, but either one will fit.
You've accused people of being "luddites" because they've rejected what you
view as an "obvious" solution to a problem that everyone agrees upon. The
reality is that not everyone agrees that there's a problem, and that your
proposed alternative creates difficulties of its own.
> I do believe that posting compileable code in a .cpp attachment is a
> "Good Thing™".
I don't. This isn't just a place to trade source code files; it's also a
forum in which to discuss them. Posting code as attachments makes it harder
to mingle the discussion and the code. Even someone who had no intention of
compiling or running the code would need to save the attachment, edit it,
then re-post it.
Think of a book, where the example code was only included on a bundled CD.
How much more difficult would it be to relate the discussion with the code,
than it is with snippets of the code interspersed among the text?
This is, first and foremost, a discussion group. Proposals that make it
easier to post working examples are good - but not if they do so by making
it *more* of a hassle to discuss those examples. That trade-off just isn't
worth it.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
BobR
Default User wrote in message...
>
> You can find examples, but that was a piss-poor one. Feel free to
> retract and apologize.
Why are you getting all 'torque-jawed', it wasn't even *your* post!
Ok, have it your way:
I am sorry, Mr. Kanze.
<G>
>
> > Can we all agree to try a little harder?
>
> I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
> than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
> reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
> when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
> irrelevant material I can excise.
I think people forget that you can go back and read the original post if
need be.
In case you feel offended, I will and do offer my apology, Brian.
[ I don't know why though, you sound more like an ally. <G> ]
--
Bob R
POVrookie
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> writes:
>
>> Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be
>> false. (wikipedia).
>
> Mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments is more of a straw man argument
> than intellectual dishonesty, but either one will fit.
Accusation of mis characterization? Please be more specific.
>
> You've accused people of being "luddites" because they've rejected what you
> view as an "obvious" solution to a problem that everyone agrees upon. The
> reality is that not everyone agrees that there's a problem, and that your
> proposed alternative creates difficulties of its own.
Accusation of making an accusation without basis and is itself without
basis. Please reread.
>
>> I do believe that posting compileable code in a .cpp attachment is a
>> "Good Thing™".
>
> I don't. This isn't just a place to trade source code files; it's also a
> forum in which to discuss them. Posting code as attachments makes it harder
> to mingle the discussion and the code. Even someone who had no intention of
> compiling or running the code would need to save the attachment, edit it,
> then re-post it.
I think you have a excessively narrow view of the uses of file
attachments in this NG.
>
> Think of a book, where the example code was only included on a bundled CD.
> How much more difficult would it be to relate the discussion with the code,
> than it is with snippets of the code interspersed among the text?
Technologically inferior medium. Your example does not make the cut,
you're thinking is too linear. Try to come up with a good faith effort
to understand my position. Go ahead and actually try what I'm proposing
(if you can) and then make a comment.
>
> This is, first and foremost, a discussion group. Proposals that make it
> easier to post working examples are good - but not if they do so by making
> it *more* of a hassle to discuss those examples. That trade-off just isn't
> worth it.
I don't see a basis for your previous paragraph. Your perspective is
unfounded by being too narrow. It confuses a tool with a specific use
of that tool.
You previous post seems to make more unfounded accusations. I have made
a good faith description of my perspective and why I use the term
luddite. Your counter accusations are no better than the actual
accusations you make of my use of that terminology. Please be make a
more concerted effort not to make the same mistake you accuse me of making.
Gianni Mariani
It's great that you have such an assertive position without even
trying the alternative - recently. I linked to a couple of examples
in other posts.
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
[ why attachments require changes in viewing news... ]
> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
> opposite.
Because _most_ problems can be diagnosed fairly quickly and easily
simply by _reading_ the code. Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely need
to be cured at all.
By contrast, if the code is in an attachment, (at least for a sensible
person) the first step is to start up a virtual machine, and re-start
the newsreader inside the virtual machine. Then (even for somebody who's
not cautious) the attachment has to be saved and opened in an editor.
Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code separately
from the question about the code. Finally, when the problem is
diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to dislike so
intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent line or two
of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
Alternatively, you can settle for making the follow-up much less cogent
and readable, by enclosing the fixed code in an attachment, separate
from the commentary on what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
I'm pretty sure the single day I spent the most time fixing line-
wrapping came out to less than I could plan on wasting _every_ day with
attachments -- unless of course, I just quit reading or posting here
completely. Quite frankly, the latter is far more likely -- I enjoy
reading and posting, but not enough to put up with the mess that would
make of things.
Devon Null
> It's time for a change. I recommend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
>
> Anyone disagree ?
First off, on a personal note, I have to say that reading this thread
has been IMMENSELY entertaining, and even mildly enlightening. It is a
very good social experiment on how quickly otherwise extraordinarily
intelligent (from my pov) people can devolve into a flame war.
But on to the subject of my post. Gianni, you simply proposed a change
in the rules and regulations for this NG in way that would, from your
perspective, improve the group as a whole. I feel that that is an
admirable thing and one that is necessary. If no one proposed new ideas
then we would still be making fire with two sticks. I was completely
with you this far. I didn't agree, but I still supported original intent
of the post (from my understanding of it.)
You brought this subject forward for a vote from the "ranking" (aka
regular) members of this newsgroup. The outcome was a resounding
landslide. They, along with myself, rejected the idea. I can only speak
for myself when I say I voted not out of malice or spite, but simply my
opinion as I saw the issue.
But it was after this that things seemed to have fallen apart. Instead
of accepting defeat, you refused to accept that the idea was not
accepted. I can understand trying to change the minds of those who voted
against you, anything worth anything is something worth fighting for. To
you, this was worth something. It was after that that things began to
get personal. This was a matter of business, i.e. "Let's improve the
NG." Which side fired the first volley is a matter of opinion, and I
will not state mine. It was at this point that the subject should have
been terminated (for now.) Kinda reminiscent of the 2000 and 2004 US
presidential elections if you ask me.
It's not that the idea wasn't sound, just that the people here, the ones
who actually use the system day in and day out, don't feel that there
are enough pros to cause a change that sweeping. If they are happy with
it, what's wrong with that? Just because there is a better version of my
shoes, car, computer out there doesn't mean I should upgrade. Frankly I
like my shoes, car, computer. They are set up the way I like it and
broken in. Quite comfy IMO, and I see no reason to change if they still
fulfill all my needs and requirements.
In summary, you brought an idea. That is a good thing. You asked for a
vote. That was also a good thing. Many people voted. Another good thing.
People started making personal attacks. Bad thing. People kept going at
it. Also a bad thing.
The outcome of the vote and the votes that lead to it were nothing
personal, at least not from my understanding of the VERY first few
posts. It was simply what all votes are, the voter's opinion.
Yours with no animosity,
DN
--
[there are no x's in my email]
I have the right to remain silent
(and should probably use it as much as possible)
Anything I type can and will be used against me
in a court of idiocy
I have the right to be wrong
(and probably am)
If I can not furnish my own wrongness
I'm sure someone will provide it for me.
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
... nice stuff stripped
>
> But it was after this that things seemed to have fallen apart. Instead
> of accepting defeat, you refused to accept that the idea was not
> accepted.
Oh I have given up at about the 3rd post. I think I said it twice.
> ... I can understand trying to change the minds of those who voted
> against you,
I don't know if you mean "me" rather that the "proposal". I am not a
proposal. I don't take it personally.
> ... anything worth anything is something worth fighting for. To
> you, this was worth something.
No, I gave up the fight. I was simply closing up loose threads.
> ... It was after that that things began to
> get personal.
Really ? I think some people may have taken my luddite comment
personally but I tried to craft it as attacking the position not the
person. Reread the initial comment to James. I don't think I called
him a luddite - I think I said "I don't understand why you're being a
luddite abut *this*".
> ... This was a matter of business, i.e. "Let's improve the
> NG." Which side fired the first volley is a matter of opinion, and I
> will not state mine. It was at this point that the subject should have
> been terminated (for now.) Kinda reminiscent of the 2000 and 2004 US
> presidential elections if you ask me.
Just the 2000, 2004 ? Short memory or somthing ?
>
> It's not that the idea wasn't sound, just that the people here, the ones
> who actually use the system day in and day out, don't feel that there
> are enough pros to cause a change that sweeping.
There;s the first rub. It does not have to be sweeping - again, I did a
poor job explaining the idea but I don't think it would have made much
difference in the outcome.
> ... If they are happy with
> it, what's wrong with that?
Who said it was wrong ?
> ... Just because there is a better version of my
> shoes, car, computer out there doesn't mean I should upgrade.
True. This is relevant how ? I see you statement a little like "I like
lemonade, why should I drink Sprite ?" I'm saying, please let me and or
others drink Sprite. Sure, there will be problems, let's fix em.
> ... Frankly I
> like my shoes, car, computer. They are set up the way I like it and
> broken in. Quite comfy IMO, and I see no reason to change if they still
> fulfill all my needs and requirements.
What if you car spews too much GHG and your shoes are smelly and your
computer can't talk to mine but you're still comfortable and cushy ?
Why are you comp I have to choke on your GHG, smell your smelly shoes
and convert my computer to talk to yours ?
>
> In summary, you brought an idea. That is a good thing. You asked for a
> vote.
I asked for a discussion. Not even close to vote.
> ... That was also a good thing. Many people voted.
No votes were polled.
> ... Another good thing.
> People started making personal attacks. Bad thing. People kept going at
> it. Also a bad thing.
It is a little disappointing but there's nothing like a good 'ol bar
brawl to make friends !!!!
>
> The outcome of the vote and the votes that lead to it were nothing
> personal, at least not from my understanding of the VERY first few
> posts. It was simply what all votes are, the voter's opinion.
I'm curious. Did you make an effort to substantiate the reasons for
your opinion ? What were the assumptions you made ? Are they valid ?
Default User
>
> Default User wrote in message...
> >
> > You can find examples, but that was a piss-poor one. Feel free to
> > retract and apologize.
>
> Why are you getting all 'torque-jawed', it wasn't even your post!
Because I was number two in there. Tarred with the same brush and all
that.
> > > Can we all agree to try a little harder?
> >
> > I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
> > than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard.
> I think people forget that you can go back and read the original post
> if need be.
Well, posts should be crafted so that it's not necessary. I personally
don't like fetching old ones, so I try to make sure that there's
adequate context, but no more than needed.
> In case you feel offended, I will and do offer my apology, Brian.
>
> [ I don't know why though, you sound more like an ally. <G> ]
I am, that's why I was distressed to see a poorly chosen example,
especially a thread I was involved with.
Believe me, there are regulars here who do a poor job of trimming, but
this wasn't such a case.
Brian
Default User
Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different? Certainly
nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.
Brian
Default User
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
> > It's time for a change. I recommend that the faq-5.4 bullet be
> > changed:
> >
> > Anyone disagree ?
>
> First off, on a personal note, I have to say that reading this thread
> has been IMMENSELY entertaining, and even mildly enlightening. It is a
> very good social experiment on how quickly otherwise extraordinarily
> intelligent (from my pov) people can devolve into a flame war.
Ha. You call this a flame war? You've obviously never seen a real one.
This is a best a warm-blanket war.
Brian
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
> Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different? Certainly
> nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.
>
Try it and see. I did, why don't you ?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
Gianni Mariani
>> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
>> opposite.
>>
>
> I am in the no attachments crowd. By far, the majority of the time that
> I'm commenting on someone's posted code, I'll be interleaving my commnets
> with their code.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
try reply.
> ... If the code was in a separate attachment, then I'd have
> to launch the attachment in some other application and cut-n-paste the code
> back into my newsreader, and add the quoting notation myself.
Obviously you have not tried this recently.
Gianni Mariani
> In article <4666ce98$0$22434$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>
> [ why attachments require changes in viewing news... ]
>
>> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
>> opposite.
>
> Because _most_ problems can be diagnosed fairly quickly and easily
> simply by _reading_ the code.
Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it makes
sense.
> ... Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
> such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely need
> to be cured at all.
I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
tried to compile their code before posting it.
>
> By contrast, if the code is in an attachment, (at least for a sensible
> person) the first step is to start up a virtual machine, and re-start
> the newsreader inside the virtual machine. Then (even for somebody who's
> not cautious) the attachment has to be saved and opened in an editor.
What are you talking about ?
> Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code separately
> from the question about the code. Finally, when the problem is
> diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to dislike so
> intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent line or two
> of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
Try reply.
>
> Alternatively, you can settle for making the follow-up much less cogent
> and readable, by enclosing the fixed code in an attachment, separate
> from the commentary on what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
alternative tools at times.
>
> I'm pretty sure the single day I spent the most time fixing line-
> wrapping came out to less than I could plan on wasting _every_ day with
> attachments -- unless of course, I just quit reading or posting here
> completely. Quite frankly, the latter is far more likely -- I enjoy
> reading and posting, but not enough to put up with the mess that would
> make of things.
Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
Andre Kostur
> Andre Kostur wrote:
>> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in news:4666ce98$0$22434
> ...
>>> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see
>>> the opposite.
>>>
>>
>> I am in the no attachments crowd. By far, the majority of the time
>> that I'm commenting on someone's posted code, I'll be interleaving my
>> commnets with their code.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=e
> n
>
> try reply.
You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
thank-you.
>> ... If the code was in a separate attachment, then I'd have
>> to launch the attachment in some other application and cut-n-paste
>> the code back into my newsreader, and add the quoting notation
>> myself.
>
> Obviously you have not tried this recently.
If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.
Andre Kostur
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>> In article <4666ce98$0$22434$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
>>
>> [ why attachments require changes in viewing news... ]
>>
>>> Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see
>>> the opposite.
>>
>> Because _most_ problems can be diagnosed fairly quickly and easily
>> simply by _reading_ the code.
>
> Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
> My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it
> makes sense.
If your code is that large, it may make more sense to post a link to the
code instead of attempting to attach it. Or the code hasn't been pared
down to a mimimal, compilable example. Plus the action of paring the
code down to a minimal, compilable example may cause the poster to
discover their own problem. Which in itself is a far better learning
experience (teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish thing).
>> ... Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
>> such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely
>> need to be cured at all.
>
> I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
> tried to compile their code before posting it.
Sure... but that's the poster. I can count on one hand the number of
times that I've even attempted to compile the code posted in here. The
vast majority of the times one can spot the problem simply by reading the
code.
>> By contrast, if the code is in an attachment, (at least for a
>> sensible person) the first step is to start up a virtual machine, and
>> re-start the newsreader inside the virtual machine. Then (even for
>> somebody who's not cautious) the attachment has to be saved and
>> opened in an editor.
>
> What are you talking about ?
If the code is small, then it makes sense to post it directly in the
article. If the code is so large that it warrants (at least in your
opinion) attaching to the article, then the code is too large to examine
for virii, trojans, and the like. Thus it would be safest to attempt to
compile and execute that code in a virtual machine to minimize the risk
to your own machine.
>> Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code
>> separately from the question about the code. Finally, when the
>> problem is diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to
>> dislike so intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent
>> line or two of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix
>> it, etc.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=e
> n
>
> Try reply.
(As mentioned in a different post) You're assuming that everyone is using
a web-based newsreader (or perhaps Google Groups specifically). What
about everyone else who may prefer to use nn, tin, or some other
newsreader?
>> Alternatively, you can settle for making the follow-up much less
>> cogent and readable, by enclosing the fixed code in an attachment,
>> separate from the commentary on what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
>
> Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
> verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
> alternative tools at times.
If you're not commenting on the code, why bother re-attaching it? If you
are commenting on the code, then (to me) it makes far more sense to
interleave your commentary directly in the code.
>> I'm pretty sure the single day I spent the most time fixing line-
>> wrapping came out to less than I could plan on wasting _every_ day
>> with attachments -- unless of course, I just quit reading or posting
>> here completely. Quite frankly, the latter is far more likely -- I
>> enjoy reading and posting, but not enough to put up with the mess
>> that would make of things.
>
> Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
Never (in this newsgroup). Even assuming that my news server (and every
news server between me and you) were willing to carry the attachments,
that would be a large enough barrier for me to bother answering whatever
question was there. Code inline I can scan through. Attached code would
mean I would have to take too many additional actions to examine the
code. Presumably as a poster you'd want to make diagnosing your problem
as easy as possible for as many readers as possible.
Ian Collins
> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote:
>> Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
>> My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it
>> makes sense.
>
> If your code is that large, it may make more sense to post a link to the
> code instead of attempting to attach it. Or the code hasn't been pared
> down to a mimimal, compilable example. Plus the action of paring the
> code down to a minimal, compilable example may cause the poster to
> discover their own problem. Which in itself is a far better learning
> experience (teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish thing).
>
I couldn't agree more, no one knows how many people have found the
solution to their problems while trimming down code in order to post it.
Don't forget Usenet is a write once, read many medium. As such, the
presentation should be for the benefit of the reader, not the poster.
Sure building a test case takes work, but it saves the reader's time.
--
Ian Collins.
Gianni Mariani
...
>> try reply.
>
> You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
> thank-you.
Oh - you did try it then.
>
...
>
> If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.
If you use an outdated new reader.
Gianni Mariani
> Don't forget Usenet is a write once, read many medium. As such, the
> presentation should be for the benefit of the reader, not the poster.
> Sure building a test case takes work, but it saves the reader's time.
I'm mostly a reader. I made a case where it benefits both.
Andre Kostur
$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> Andre Kostur wrote:
>> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in
>> news:46688b7b$0$22416$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> ...
>>> try reply.
>>
>> You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
>> thank-you.
>
> Oh - you did try it then.
Not this specific instance. I briefly attempted to use a web-based news
reader before, but found that it simply got in the way far too often. I
find a standalone news reader far more usable to me.
>>
>> If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.
>
> If you use an outdated new reader.
Depends on your definition of "outdated news reader". Mine reads news
perfectly fine.
Gianni Mariani
> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in news:4668a37c$0$22417
> $5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>> Andre Kostur wrote:
>>> Gianni Mariani <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in
>>> news:46688b7b$0$22416$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>> ...
>>>> try reply.
>>> You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
>>> thank-you.
>> Oh - you did try it then.
>
> Not this specific instance. I briefly attempted to use a web-based news
> reader before, but found that it simply got in the way far too often. I
> find a standalone news reader far more usable to me.
>
>>> If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.
>> If you use an outdated new reader.
>
> Depends on your definition of "outdated news reader". Mine reads news
> perfectly fine.
You've got a luddite newsreader then ... :-)
There will be some newsreaders that don't handle attachments the way
they should be handled. However, if we all have to wait for everyone's
news reader to do the right thing nothing will ever improve.
Mike Wahler
"Gianni Mariani" <gi3n...@mariani.ws> wrote in message
news:4665ee7d$0$22449$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Gianni Mariani wrote:
> ...
>>>
>> I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
>> paranoid about opening attachments.
>
> Most of the reasons to be paranoid are not justified with attachments of
> source code. Most browsers will show the code (without line breaks)
> without needing explicitly open the attachments.
Browsers? I use an NNTP client to read Usenet. I use browsers
for the WWW.
-Mike
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
[ ... ]
> Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
> My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it makes
> sense.
You claim that they're useful, but you've yet to show anything of the
sort. You're starting out by taking for granted exactly what needs to be
proved. Unfortunately for your position, that's the only way to get
anywhere, because you can't really prove what's needed -- because it's
false.
> > ... Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
> > such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely need
> > to be cured at all.
>
> I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
> tried to compile their code before posting it.
Of course. Use of attachments, or lack thereof, has precisely NO effect
on what they've done before posting though.
> > By contrast, if the code is in an attachment, (at least for a sensible
> > person) the first step is to start up a virtual machine, and re-start
> > the newsreader inside the virtual machine. Then (even for somebody who's
> > not cautious) the attachment has to be saved and opened in an editor.
>
> What are you talking about ?
Which part did you have trouble reading? Nothing in that paragraph seems
particularly difficult to read or understand...
> > Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code separately
> > from the question about the code. Finally, when the problem is
> > diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to dislike so
> > intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent line or two
> > of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en
>
> Try reply.
Thank you, but no. I've used Google's interface at times, and while it's
(barely) usable in a pinch, a real newsreader is clearly superior. It's
starting to sound to me like you're trying to warp the rest of the
newsroup to make up for its deficiencies.
> > Alternatively, you can settle for making the follow-up much less cogent
> > and readable, by enclosing the fixed code in an attachment, separate
> > from the commentary on what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.
>
> Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
> verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
> alternative tools at times.
You're welcome to prefer what you like. Trying to change an entire
newsgroup because you don't understand how it works is something to
which you're consierably less welcome.
> > I'm pretty sure the single day I spent the most time fixing line-
> > wrapping came out to less than I could plan on wasting _every_ day with
> > attachments -- unless of course, I just quit reading or posting here
> > completely. Quite frankly, the latter is far more likely -- I enjoy
> > reading and posting, but not enough to put up with the mess that would
> > make of things.
>
> Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at. My news provider has
their server properly configured, so by the time I see them, none of the
posts is going to have an attachment in any case. If I ever have to put
up with a news server administered by some bozo who'd let such garbage
through, I'd have to make a decision about whether to continue
subscribing or not. My immediate guess is that I probably wouldn't, but
I'm certainly not going to try to make absolute and incontrovertible
predictions about the future.
Jerry Coffin
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3n...@mariani.ws says...
Rather the contrary -- so far, you haven't made a cast that it's really
a benefit to _anybody_. I'm relatively certain you won't be able to do
so either -- because unless you're hiding some entirely new and
different argument than any you've advanced so far, it's really NOT a
benefit.
Gianni Mariani
....
>> Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.
Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?
Gianni Mariani
Do I have to write it again ?
Try the links I posted.
Gianni Mariani
You're so '90's.
Lionel B
???
I use a dedicated news client to access Usenet because it does a far
better job than any browser interface I've come across. Right tool for
the job.
--
Lionel B
stan
You seem to be missing the point that you have failed to convince anyone
that what you propose IS an improvement. As you already mentioned,
change != progress/improvement. USENET has been around awhile
now and the accepted rules are pretty much the result of eliminating
things thta didn't work well.
I have tried attachments and inline and I prefer inline. I guess in your
view that makes me luddite. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm
very familiar with the technology, I've used both, and I've arrived at
my own informed choice.
If you really feel that your way is better, why not just join the alt
side of the house and create a newsgroup, or try and start another group
similar to the binaries that embrace attachments?
The value of any newsgroup is largely in the quality of the information
which is proportional to the work volunteered by the regulars. Seems
most of the regulars here have pretty clearly stated that they consider
attachments to required more work for them. It takes time to participate
in a newsgroup regularly and your burden is to show attachments can be
used in a way that requires no more work/time than is currently required
and is as safe as the inline technique.
Your proprosal requires (some) administrators to change to allow
attachments, requires many to change newsreaders, and requires new
technology that could ensure that handles attachments in a provably safe
way.
I may be presuming here but your chief problem seems to be that some
code can't be easily cut and pasted in a manner that allows you to
compile the code. IF that is in fact correct, maybe you would be better
served by learning better ways to deal with text. The UNIX based command
line stuff can do magic in the hands of a skilled artisan. Or, possibly
you need a better editor. IF you don't succeed in changing c.l.c++ maybe
you could spend some time sollving your own problem. Just a thought.