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]

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.

 

[Jack Klein]

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:
No.


Anyone disagree ?

Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows
would be very cautious opening attachments.

 

[GeekBoy]

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]

Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows
would be very cautious opening attachments.

My newsreader (Thunderbird) shows CPP files inline. There is no need to
open it. It's very convenient.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

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]

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:


Do not post "attachments."

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 ?

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).

 

[Zeppe]

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.

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

 

[Gianni Mariani]

James Kanze wrote:
....

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 ?

 

[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)

 

[Ian Collins]

James Kanze wrote:
....

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 ?

I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
paranoid about opening attachments.

 

[Devon Null]

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 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]

* Gianni Mariani:

James Kanze 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.

 

[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

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Devon Null wrote:
....

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]

[...]
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]

[...]
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?

V

 

[dave_mikesell]

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:
...

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.