FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[James Kanze]

Devon Null wrote:
...

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.

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.

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...

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.

Cast my vote for NO attachments!!

You want attachments because *you* are too lazy to copy/paste?

 

[Default User]

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 ?

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]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, 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.

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


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:

...




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]

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's time for me to move on.

First sensible thing you said.




Brian

 

[Gianni Mariani]

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.

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:



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 ?

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]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
....

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]

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.

h
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.

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.

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?

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

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.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

On 2007-06-04 21:31:18 -0700, Gianni Mariani <[email protected]> said: ....

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?

How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?

 

[Gianni Mariani]

[ ... ]

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]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
...

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:
....

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.

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.

 

[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]

[ ... ]

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.