unprovoked attack by James Kanze
Paul
attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had a personality
problem.
This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
As far as I was aware my latest Leigh argument, I had helped James who was
quickly losing the argument about negative array indexing prior to me
stepping in and proving Leigh wrong.
But then I remember the argument before where James attempted to argue that
non static member functions were members of a class but not an object, James
and Leigh were actually arguing together on the same side against me.
As I recall James ran away from that argument when he did not reply to my
posting ref:
"Ok well fair enough if thats how the progressive history of it all actually
was, I'll accept your word for it.
But with regard to the argument at hand , it doesn't change the fact that
the member function, virtual or not, is bound to the object in some way or
another. What other purpose does a member function have but to be part of an
object? That is simply the purpose of a member function.
Am I missing some other purpose a member function has?"
The fact that James cannot answer this proves as an admission of defeat. And
this deafeat is obviously praying on his mind , producing this hostile
attitude of unprovoked attacks towards me.
I guarantee you that none of these guys could correct me on any aspect of my
primary occupation. I am an amateur programmer who hasnt even looked at any
programming for over 5 years. If I can correct them on very basics of C++
programming, which seems to be their primary occupation, it hardly makes
them experts.
The blatant disregard for technical correctness in the C++ community seems
to be spreading like a plague and this is evident in the STL thread. This
enforces my choice to stop learning any further C++
*shrug*
Sherm Pendley
> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely
> unproved attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had
> a personality problem.
>
> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
An endless stream of threads such as this one, for starters. FFS man,
grow up already.
sherm--
--
Sherm Pendley
<http://camelbones.sourceforge.net>
Cocoa Developer
Paul
"Sherm Pendley" <sherm....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m2zkpsp...@sherm.shermpendley.com...
> "Paul" <pchr...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely
>> unproved attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had
>> a personality problem.
>>
>> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
>
> An endless stream of threads such as this one, for starters. FFS man,
> grow up already.
>
Why do you think you can insult me with the statement "grow up already",
whoever the fuck you are?
The argument I put forward was perfectly valid, if James wants to clarify
his positon the argument is still open for discussion.
If you think there is something childish about this thats your opinion, and
you should keep that to yourself as far as I am concerned.
SG
> "Sherm Pendley" <sherm.pend...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:m2zkpsp...@sherm.shermpendley.com...> "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely
> >> unproved attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had
> >> a personality problem.
>
> >> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
>
> > An endless stream of threads such as this one, for starters. FFS man,
> > grow up already.
>
> What is wrong with this thread?
> Why do you think you can insult me with the statement "grow up already",
> whoever the fuck you are?
For what it's worth he probably represents most of the readers here
who are tired of the noise you and Leigh have been generating lately.
> If you think there is something childish about this thats your opinion, and
> you should keep that to yourself as far as I am concerned.
Long live the hipocrisy! ;-)
Paul
"SG" <s.ges...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fbf188f-2438-45cd...@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Feb., 13:34, Paul wrote:
>> "Sherm Pendley" <sherm.pend...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:m2zkpsp...@sherm.shermpendley.com...> "Paul"
>> <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely
>> >> unproved attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had
>> >> a personality problem.
>>
>> >> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
>>
>> > An endless stream of threads such as this one, for starters. FFS man,
>> > grow up already.
>>
>> What is wrong with this thread?
>> Why do you think you can insult me with the statement "grow up already",
>> whoever the fuck you are?
>
> For what it's worth he probably represents most of the readers here
> who are tired of the noise you and Leigh have been generating lately.
>
If you don't like the diuscussion don't participate.
If you get tired with the flow of posts in this newsgroup, thats your
problem do not suggest that everyone wants a nice quiet newsgroup where you
get one post per week if your lucky.
I have been correcting Leigh recently , there is a big difference between
correcting someone and "creating noise". Do not label me in the same
category as Leigh.
The fact that I have to produce an obscene amount of repetative statements
to get the truth into some thick skulls is not my fault , but I certainly
don't intend to back down and allow these people to preach incorrectness.
SG
>
> If you don't like the diuscussion don't participate.
Sure, that's exactly what I'm doing most of the time. But I figured,
once in a while, you could use some feedback of how you come across.
That's about the only reason I responded to you. Is has nothing to do
with whether I like these "discussions" or not. I'm fine with ignoring
most of it. The only think that stuck from what I saw is that there's
a lot of miscommunication going on and that you are rather quick to
insult people who disagree with you.
(Examples for miscommunication: Many talked about "array indices" but
nobody cared to precisely define what they actually meant by it. So,
of course, there will be disagreements simply due to the fact that
participants attached different meanings to the technical terms. This
includes your "are methods part of the object" topic. If there is no
agreement on the shared terminology, it makes little sense to discuss
anything because it will look like the other person is just talking
nonsense.)
> The fact that I have to produce an obscene amount of repetative statements
> to get the truth into some thick skulls is not my fault ,
Actually, at this point, I wouldn't be surprized if nobody cared but
you. It seems like the time someone invests in arguing with you could
be spent on more useful things. So, when people stop responding it
doesn't automatically mean that you won the argument, it could also
mean that they don't see any value in continuing the discussion.
Cheers!
SG
James Kanze
> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely unproved
> attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had a personality
> problem.
> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
When you first started posting here, your postings were filled
with personal attacts on Francis (and others). People who
respond to technical issues with personal attacks have a
personality problem.
--
James Kanze
Leigh Johnston
They only have a personality problem if their behaviour translates from
the Internet to Real Life. This is the Internet; people tend to behave
differently on Internet forums such as this compared to Real Life. I
would never call you a troll in person; I might call you a troll in an
e-mail but that would be qualified with a smiley indicating
facetiousness; in a "public" forum such as this ad hominems are common
mainly because more or less everyone is doing it.
/Leigh
itaj sherman
I would consider that if they do that in a forum where most other
people don't, and especially, the most respected people in the forum
don't, then they might have a "real internet personality problem".
itaj
Leigh Johnston
Kanze said I had a personality problem; that is an ad hominem from
someone who I disagreed with on a technical point and others say is
"respected person". I refer you to the word "hypocrisy" in any dictionary.
/Leigh
Paavo Helde
> So, when people stop responding it
> doesn't automatically mean that you won the argument, it could also
> mean that they don't see any value in continuing the discussion.
In case of Paul, this may also mean that everybody has killfiled him. I
have done this long ago and suggest the same to you!
Cheers
Paavo
Sherm Pendley
> On 19 Feb., 13:34, Paul wrote:
>>
>> What is wrong with this thread?
>> Why do you think you can insult me with the statement "grow up already",
>> whoever the fuck you are?
>
> For what it's worth he probably represents most of the readers here
> who are tired of the noise you and Leigh have been generating lately.
I don't claim to represent that group, or speak for them. But I will
claim membership! :-)
Paul
"James Kanze" <james...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63ac3ba8-f639-482c...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
If you mean the post where I referred to Francis as a 'wanking idiot' then
that wasn't the first time I posted here.
The fact that I made a direct insult toward him does not change the fact
that he had previously made some insulting comments towards me, simply
because I challenged his opinion..
Paul
> On 19 Feb., 14:35, Paul wrote:
>>
>> If you don't like the diuscussion don't participate.
>
> Sure, that's exactly what I'm doing most of the time. But I figured,
> once in a while, you could use some feedback of how you come across.
> That's about the only reason I responded to you. Is has nothing to do
> with whether I like these "discussions" or not. I'm fine with ignoring
> most of it. The only think that stuck from what I saw is that there's
> a lot of miscommunication going on and that you are rather quick to
> insult people who disagree with you.
>
You think I have not been insulted? If I insult someone its probabably for a
reason and they probably deserve it. If I have inadvertently insuted you
then I aposlogise.
> (Examples for miscommunication: Many talked about "array indices" but
> nobody cared to precisely define what they actually meant by it.
An array index is an offset to the pointer to the array. There is no
miscommunication there is only misinterpretation.
> So,
> of course, there will be disagreements simply due to the fact that
> participants attached different meanings to the technical terms. This
> includes your "are methods part of the object" topic. If there is no
> agreement on the shared terminology, it makes little sense to discuss
> anything because it will look like the other person is just talking
> nonsense.)
No there are definitions of these technical terms. An object *does* contain
methods, this is defined in any reasonable OOP text you choose to read.
To suggest otherwise is IMO going against the grain and attempting to
unstabilise the common understanding.
>
>> The fact that I have to produce an obscene amount of repetative
>> statements
>> to get the truth into some thick skulls is not my fault ,
>
> Actually, at this point, I wouldn't be surprized if nobody cared but
> you.
Well sometimes it does seem nobody cares except me but this does me I will
lie down and take it. Because I still do actually care about being correct.
>It seems like the time someone invests in arguing with you could
> be spent on more useful things. So, when people stop responding it
> doesn't automatically mean that you won the argument, it could also
> mean that they don't see any value in continuing the discussion.
>
Well thats one opinion , but then why woud he suddenly stop arguing after I
have posted overwhelming evidence against him?
It's quite apparrent it's becuase he has lost the arguement, not because he
can't be bothered arguing anymore.
Jorgen Grahn
> On 19/02/2011 15:27, James Kanze wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 11:23 am, "Paul"<pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I refer to Leigh's troll thread where James Makes a completely unproved
>>> attack on my personality. Calling me a troll and saying i had a personality
>>> problem.
>>
>>> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
>>
>> When you first started posting here, your postings were filled
>> with personal attacts on Francis (and others). People who
>> respond to technical issues with personal attacks have a
>> personality problem.
>
> They only have a personality problem if their behaviour translates from
> the Internet to Real Life. This is the Internet; people tend to behave
> differently on Internet forums such as this compared to Real Life.
The internet *is* real life. You may behave differently when
interacting with people directly (most people probably do; I know *I*
certainly do) but whatever you do here, the real "you" is interacting
with real people.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
SG
>
> No there are definitions of these technical terms.
Yes, I'm sure. And sometimes there are multiple incompatible
definitions (hint hint).
> An object *does* contain
> methods, this is defined in any reasonable OOP text you choose to read.
Please check the C++ ISO standard.
Cheers!
SG
Dombo
> SG<s.ges...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 19 Feb., 13:34, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> What is wrong with this thread?
>>> Why do you think you can insult me with the statement "grow up already",
>>> whoever the fuck you are?
>>
>> For what it's worth he probably represents most of the readers here
>> who are tired of the noise you and Leigh have been generating lately.
>
> I don't claim to represent that group, or speak for them. But I will
> claim membership! :-)
Just put Leigh and Paul in your killfile; it will improve the
signal-to-noise level of this newsgroup significantly.
Leigh Johnston
Bullshit. Person + Computer + Keyboard + Internet = stream of
consciousness + enter + stream of consciousness + enter + stream of
consciousness + enter + ...
/Leigh
itaj sherman
Ever tried this in on-line job interviews?
I'd like to see how that goes.
itaj
Paul
object in a diferent context.
For what it's worth the ISO Std clarifies what I said, but is not the proper
documented authority on OOP IMHO.
K4 Monk
any good newsgroup/forum needs its share of drama and it keeps things
interesting. So Paul and Leigh, I support your dispute fully and maybe
we can get some C++ discussion in this thread as well, for example how
is the function calling convention different between C and C++? I
think this whole thing arose from a lea instruction which used ESP
directly, so I'd like to know your thoughts on this. (Although I'm
aware that implementation details are not a concern of standard C++)
Leigh Johnston
Like I said it is not compulsory for a compiler to setup a stack frame
pointer as illustrated by my example where the lea instruction emitted
by VC++ offset the stack pointer directly (in preparation for local
array subscripting).
For example in VS2008 the program:
int main()
{
int a[5] = { rand(), rand(), rand(), rand(), rand() };
std::cout << a[rand() % 5] << " ";
}
produces:
_TEXT SEGMENT
_a$ = -20 ; size = 20
_main PROC ; COMDAT
; 16 : {
00000 83 ec 14 sub esp, 20 ; 00000014H
00003 56 push esi
; 17 : int a[5] = { rand(), rand(), rand(), rand(), rand() };
00004 8b 35 00 00 00
00 mov esi, DWORD PTR __imp__rand
0000a ff d6 call esi
0000c 89 44 24 04 mov DWORD PTR _a$[esp+24], eax
00010 ff d6 call esi
00012 89 44 24 08 mov DWORD PTR _a$[esp+28], eax
00016 ff d6 call esi
00018 89 44 24 0c mov DWORD PTR _a$[esp+32], eax
0001c ff d6 call esi
0001e 89 44 24 10 mov DWORD PTR _a$[esp+36], eax
00022 ff d6 call esi
00024 89 44 24 14 mov DWORD PTR _a$[esp+40], eax
; 18 : std::cout << a[rand() % 5] << " ";
00028 ff d6 call esi
0002a 99 cdq
0002b b9 05 00 00 00 mov ecx, 5
00030 f7 f9 idiv ecx
00032 8b 0d 00 00 00
00 mov ecx, DWORD PTR
__imp_?cout@std@@3V?$basic_ostream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@1@A
00038 8b 54 94 04 mov edx, DWORD PTR _a$[esp+edx*4+24]
0003c 52 push edx
0003d ff 15 00 00 00
00 call DWORD PTR
__imp_??6?$basic_ostream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@std@@QAEAAV01@H@Z
00043 50 push eax
00044 e8 00 00 00 00 call
??$?6U?$char_traits@D@std@@@std@@YAAAV?$basic_ostream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@0@AAV10@PBD@Z
; std::operator<<<std::char_traits<char> >
00049 83 c4 04 add esp, 4
; 19 : }
0004c 33 c0 xor eax, eax
0004e 5e pop esi
0004f 83 c4 14 add esp, 20 ; 00000014H
00052 c3 ret 0
_main ENDP
_TEXT ENDS
Here you can plainly see that no stack frame pointer (EBP) is setup and
the array subscripting is offseting the stack pointer directly:
mov edx, DWORD PTR _a$[esp+edx*4+24]
No C++ pointer dereferences are emitted by compilation of the program as
the compiler knows the addresses of array elements as simple fixed
(constant) displacements relative to the stack pointer.
/Leigh
James Kanze
That's an interesting point of view. It's certain that a
newsgroup is different than a face to face discussion, and I too
behave differently in that context. But I do consider that in
both cases, the goal is communications; this means that I try to
use words with their usually accepted sense (when there is just
one), and I try to stick to strictly technical issues. (I
try---I've been known the get carried away too. In ways that
wouldn't happen in a personal discussion, where I could see the
other person's expression and reactions immediately.)
I also try not to forget that my postings will be read by many
people, including prospective employers. For a long time, I was
a contractor, and posting was part of my "advertising". An
effective part, I might add.
--
James Kanze
James Kanze
> "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The fact remains that you started a thread with an insult, and a
contentious point of view, which you knew most people disagreed
with.
I happen to feel strongly about SESE; I don't use return in the
middle of a function, and I don't use break except to end the
case of a switch. But I also recognize that most people,
including many experts, don't agree with me. So I won't make a
post starting a new thread with a statement along the lines that
anyone who doesn't use SESE is incompetent. In fact, if I
mention it at all, it will be very mildly, within the context of
an already running thread.
With regards to your argument, you can certainly define "object"
and "member of" in such a way that a function is a member of an
object, but this is *not* the way most people in the C++
community define them. Insisting on your definitions will not
improve communications, nor win any arguments, and using insults
while insisting on them will make you look bad. If you feel
strongly about your point of view; well, I feel strongly about
SESE too. But there's not much we can do about it: I've
presented my technical arguments, and they apparently weren't
convincing enough. And I don't think that the people who don't
agree with me are necessarily fools (except on this one
point---and in my case, it's not just a question of language).
--
James Kanze
Leigh Johnston
SESE is fine in C; in C++ it can be considered either meaningless (due
to exceptions) or unnecessary (due to RAII). :)
/Leigh
Juha Nieminen
> This raises the question, why and what have I done to deserve this?
The fact that you are asking that just proves he's right. (In other words,
that you are a troll. You know perfectly well what you have done to deserve
your fame here.)
(Ok, there are other possible alternatives, but they would be even more
insulting, so let's not go there.)
Paul
"K4 Monk" <k4m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e555a2e8-112a-41c6...@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I think calling conventions such as cdecl can be set with compiler options,
I don't know a heck of a lot about it TBH , Anytime I have made a mixed code
project I just hope my linker sorts it out.
Paul
"K4 Monk" <k4m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e555a2e8-112a-41c6...@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I just found a good article about this, is seems worthy of sharing:
http://www.newty.de/fpt/fpt.html#callconv
HTH
Paul
to a variable as in std::cin>>avariable.
The input here is input to the stream. It was not a POV argument it was a
point of fact. You don't input(verb) *to* anything. You can process
input(noun) and pass it *to* something.
> With regards to your argument, you can certainly define "object"
> and "member of" in such a way that a function is a member of an
> object, but this is *not* the way most people in the C++
> community define them.
Perhaps this is true but it was originally me who was claimed to be wrong
for saying a member function was part of an object. So the burden of proof
lies with the accuser.
I have provided lots of evidence to support why a a member function is a
member of an object, the other side of the argument has provided no
reasonable proof whatsoever.
> Insisting on your definitions will not
> improve communications, nor win any arguments, and using insults
> while insisting on them will make you look bad. If you feel
> strongly about your point of view; well, I feel strongly about
> SESE too. But there's not much we can do about it: I've
> presented my technical arguments, and they apparently weren't
> convincing enough. And I don't think that the people who don't
> agree with me are necessarily fools (except on this one
> point---and in my case, it's not just a question of language).
>
> --
I don't believe this second argument about member functions is comparable to
the SESE debate. SESE is a programming technique.
My argument about member functions is a matter of whether or not C++
supports OOP.
Yannick Tremblay
I'll also say that this is an interesting point of view. However, I
will go a step further and say that it is an interesting but incorrect
point of view that however highlight one of the causes of the problems
that besiege the internet and besiege internet users.
Far too many peoples unfortunately, like you, believe that internet is
totally different from real life and they do not have to behave on the
internet in any way that is remotely related to what most peoples
would consider a normal decent behaviour.
Yannick