R
Richard Heathfield
[Well, what an eye-opener. On the basis of his previous, helpful, reply, I
unplonked "Just Richard" on a whim, and look what I found...]
Richard said:
Believe it or not, I believe you. It was an honest correction to an honest
mistake.
And here you make a very reasonable point. It's better not to be hostile
(not something I always manage), but if you're determined to be hostile,
you'd better be very, very sure that you're right! It's a lot costlier
(blushes, etc) to apologise for an incorrect correction if that
"correction" was aggressive. (I am well aware of this from personal
experience, alas.)
I kind of agree with this. When someone who I *know* ought to know better
misinterprets a statement and issues a misguided rejoinder (and if there
are no other responses in the feed that have caught the misguidedness), I
will generally say something like "how sure are you about that?" or "read
it again, <name>", or whatever. If it's someone I don't recognise, or whom
I think is unlikely to spot on re-reading the reason that their
"correction" is wrong, I am more likely to give a detailed explanation.
Yes. In fact, this was particularly unfortunate, because I was rather
pleased with my answer - not because it was difficult to write (it wasn't,
except for the getting-it-right part!), but because after posting it I
downloaded another bunch of articles, and all the other replies I saw
were, I felt, leaning (and in some cases positively *bending*) in the
direction of unfriendliness and unhelpfulness. I think that's a shame.
Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.
Well, I'm less sure about this. I think the first sentence is, alas,
correct. The second, I'm less sure about. Newsfeeds are of course
asynchronous, and we don't actually know what kinds of delays are involved
in other people's feeds, except when it's mind-numbingly obvious (eg
Shaggy or Chuck). In fact, Chuck's is a curious case - he seems to manage
to get the wrong end of the stick several hours or even days after
everyone else considers the thread to be played out.
And this is the sad part. I know that you and I don't particularly see eye
to eye, but it strikes me that you could get a lot more out of clc if you
put a bit more /into/ it. If you could just increase the number of
articles you post where you actually contribute useful technical
information to those who seek it, I think it would make for a more
pleasant group for everyone. I am not so naive as to believe that this
would reduce the level of your "reg-baiting", which you seem to enjoy so
much, but it would increase the overall signal-noise ratio here, and that
can only be a good thing for everyone.
I know you might not believe this, but I'd actually like the group as a
whole to relax its topicality restrictions somewhat. Not *too* much - that
way lies chaos - but if we just dropped the bar a /little/, we would
perhaps be able to benefit from each other's platform-based experience.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of a shift in the group attitude
towards topicality - and I accept that (reluctantly, which is why I
sometimes cheat).
Bottom line: yes, this group /is/ too mean-spirited. Let's *all* try to
change that. Please?
unplonked "Just Richard" on a whim, and look what I found...]
Richard said:
santosh writes:
Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.
Yes.
There is no evil intent in my correction.
Believe it or not, I believe you. It was an honest correction to an honest
mistake.
Why you feel the need to confirm his
"mistake" is very strange. Possibly you should inform Robbie to be less
quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they should get
a new one?
And here you make a very reasonable point. It's better not to be hostile
(not something I always manage), but if you're determined to be hostile,
you'd better be very, very sure that you're right! It's a lot costlier
(blushes, etc) to apologise for an incorrect correction if that
"correction" was aggressive. (I am well aware of this from personal
experience, alas.)
Which leads to the question "Why didn't you explain why Heathfield was
wrong". And the answer is simple : I don't believe in treating people
like idiots. Let them look and think the problem over themselves. They
can always come back and say "you have me stumped", what is the issue?".
I kind of agree with this. When someone who I *know* ought to know better
misinterprets a statement and issues a misguided rejoinder (and if there
are no other responses in the feed that have caught the misguidedness), I
will generally say something like "how sure are you about that?" or "read
it again, <name>", or whatever. If it's someone I don't recognise, or whom
I think is unlikely to spot on re-reading the reason that their
"correction" is wrong, I am more likely to give a detailed explanation.
A good C programmer and "team player" thinks for themselves. RH had said
enough about the comparison expression for anyone with half a clue to
see why he had made a mistake in his final analysis.
Yes. In fact, this was particularly unfortunate, because I was rather
pleased with my answer - not because it was difficult to write (it wasn't,
except for the getting-it-right part!), but because after posting it I
downloaded another bunch of articles, and all the other replies I saw
were, I felt, leaning (and in some cases positively *bending*) in the
direction of unfriendliness and unhelpfulness. I think that's a shame.
But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is becoming a
rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF riding in on
their chargers at a moments notice.
Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.
People in clc are far too eager to see other people wrong so that they
can score some clique points by being rude and obnoxious at the first
possible point. See the races to post OT rejoinders for a good example -
when they KNOW that Default User or CBF have already beaten them to it.
Well, I'm less sure about this. I think the first sentence is, alas,
correct. The second, I'm less sure about. Newsfeeds are of course
asynchronous, and we don't actually know what kinds of delays are involved
in other people's feeds, except when it's mind-numbingly obvious (eg
Shaggy or Chuck). In fact, Chuck's is a curious case - he seems to manage
to get the wrong end of the stick several hours or even days after
everyone else considers the thread to be played out.
It's why I come here to be honest.
And this is the sad part. I know that you and I don't particularly see eye
to eye, but it strikes me that you could get a lot more out of clc if you
put a bit more /into/ it. If you could just increase the number of
articles you post where you actually contribute useful technical
information to those who seek it, I think it would make for a more
pleasant group for everyone. I am not so naive as to believe that this
would reduce the level of your "reg-baiting", which you seem to enjoy so
much, but it would increase the overall signal-noise ratio here, and that
can only be a good thing for everyone.
It's fun to watch and relieves the
boredom of a typical C programming day. And one learns something here -
not always standard C related either. Fortunately there are more posters
willing to "break topicality" and, err, talk about real C.
I know you might not believe this, but I'd actually like the group as a
whole to relax its topicality restrictions somewhat. Not *too* much - that
way lies chaos - but if we just dropped the bar a /little/, we would
perhaps be able to benefit from each other's platform-based experience.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of a shift in the group attitude
towards topicality - and I accept that (reluctantly, which is why I
sometimes cheat).
Bottom line: yes, this group /is/ too mean-spirited. Let's *all* try to
change that. Please?