Phlip said:
Ted, your first abuse was over-quoting. Always trim.
I mostly do. I'm probably better than the majority of people in that regard.
That thread seemed to need more context to remain so as to be clear of
the context so it was easier to just leave the conversation mostly there.
Your second mistake was arguing with Kanze. Don't. _Discuss_ things, with folks closer to your level, before engaging a
lifer on that hard-headed newsgroup.
I don't argue. I always discuss. I never bow though.
This is an exaggeration. Kanze didn't mean that,
Then why did he say it? It's his exaggeration then. I'm not the compiler writer.
If he says that all the C++ idioms are complex to implement, I tend to believe him.
But because the issue is so relevant and important to the topic, I wanted further
confirmation of the statement.
and someone more evenly tempered would allow Kanze to mean those features which make C++ harder than C to implement.
Even if the moderation system permits your slur (and it is indeed a slur), your sentence still adds no value.
That's not what he said. Not what he implied. The implication was clearly that the
features that C++ adds over C are all complex to implement. One reason I avoid
C++ templates is because of the implementation complexity in the compiler. I want
to know what other features are on that same order of complexity so I can decide
if I'll program around those also. So the follow up was very warranted and appropriate.
And this attitude is triggering our troll detector.
? I haven't used the optimization settings in my compiler for years.
The sentence adds no value,
It gives the other side of the story: that optimization isn't as required now that
memory and CPU performance is what it is today. Letting the statement stand
would be to allow the perception that optimization is key and always required
whereas today it is rarely needed. The statement does indeed add value: it
attempts to dispel a myth that is being attempted to justify "C++ templates".
and detracts from C++'s culture of performance.
That's a pardigmic statement that just wreaks of poor engineering judgment.
You are expected to be professional enough to know that C++ _does_ value performance.
The preceding statement applies.
Again, this is not enough to push the sentence over the edge. The attitude and the detraction does.
I sense someone on a high horse now.
"difficult for you" is a common technical flame. Sorry if you thought it was original (and, yes, I have been openly flamed
on news:comp.lang.c++.moderated before...)
He couldn't do it and I could. So apparently it is difficult or impossible for him
to do. No flame. I don't need C++ template features to implement containers.
If he does, so be it (but he won't be doing it for me, that's for sure).
The moderators also censor redundant threads. Objection: Asked and answered.
"don't say that anymore" and "you don't know how to do it" are simple flames. There were ways to say the same thing
politely, that lead the responder.
Sorry. I'm not buying your spiel. Is it 10 times more work or not? Is it just
10 times more work perhaps for YOU? Let's get to the bottom of this. You
can't go on making preposterous statements and then not backing them up.
Further, your attitude is rising thru the post. We admit it's Kanze having his way with your entry-level rhetoric. One
poster to clcm once said he'd rather box with Mike Tyson than argue C++ with Kanze. Part of learning to post is learning to
admit when someone is, indeed, teaching you something. Go back and read many posts there, and _never_ reply to a post
without reading the whole thing through first, and then giving yourself time to think (and sublimate, while thinking about
something else).
Apparently Kanze needs you to market him? Perhaps if he'd back up his
statements he wouldn't need you at all.
Many of the corresponders on that newsgroup are authors, and know how to walk through a topic, step by step. Never just
dive in at the top of a post and start gain-saying each element of their argument. You will lose each time you do that.
I didn't do that. I have to draw logical conclusion based on what is said. I have
nothing against Kanze. He's shown that he knows a lot about the C++ mechanics
and has answered questions for me in the past. So take your witch hunt elsewhere
please.
Saying "10 times more work" means that you either are exaggerating or that
you don't know how to do it. Which is it? This needs clarification because
it is being used as reason why preprocessor-based templates are deficient
compared to C++ templates. It's misinformation for the uninitiated coming
into the group and reading that. Back it up. Show me "10 times more work".
And by now the moderator has tuned out.
Get off your high horse.
Ted