FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[Gianni Mariani]

[ ... ]

I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.

Just be careful -- there's also a (semi-?) standard UNIX CSPLIT that
does something only vaguely related. Including "Fred Cole" (the author)
in the search may help sort things out.

You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
Explain what is so invasive to you.

It requires a substantial change on the part of anybody who wishes to
(for example) follow-up to anybody who encloses their code in an
attachment instead of where it belongs.

Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
opposite.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Sometimes, but I'd wager most attached code would have DOS line endings
I've have to filter out. I'd rather fix a small snippet than wade my
way through scores of lines of someone else's code.

The compilers and editors treat line endings of different types
transparently.

We should encourage posters to post the smallest example that shows
their problem, as others have said, this helps them find their own
solution.

Your inference is that attachments will change the current behaviour ? I
don't think so.

... If we accept attachments, I bet we'd get loads of "my program
doesn't work" postings with large code attachments.

We don't get those today ?

The main issue isn't technical, it is human.

You're a human and you're an issue ?

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
...

That is one of the goals.


Maybe short term, some lives will have a few issues, in the long run,
I think we will all be better for it.

I am not going to be better. Most of my replies do not require me to
use a compiler, even if code is posted. For those rare occurences
when I do need to compile something I don't necessarily use my local
compiler instance. I say benefits of having code inline with the rest
of the message outweigh potential improvements for your newsgroup
experience.

V

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
....

I am not going to be better. Most of my replies do not require me to
use a compiler, even if code is posted. For those rare occurences
when I do need to compile something I don't necessarily use my local
compiler instance. I say benefits of having code inline with the rest
of the message outweigh potential improvements for your newsgroup
experience.

Did you try it ?

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
...

Did you try it ?

I have. I've been reading lang newsgroups for some time now and have
tried it all, inline, attachments (zipped and not), links. *By far*
inline is more efficient than the others. Of course, my experience is
different from anybody else's, since everyone has his/her own ability
to read/understand code by just looking at it versus having to compile
it (and link it, and execute it, and profile it, etc.)

I'll explain my point of view: allowing attachments is not going to
make our lives more difficult as far as postings with code inline are
concerned. Those have been OK and will continue being OK. However,
a bunch of lazy-ass newbies will jump in and start posting attachments
of their homework assignments they can't figure out by themselves, and
we'll have a flood of binary postings that (a) don't reach all readers
in a proper way (some servers filter out attachments in comp.lang.*),
(b) take up much more space on everybody's hard drives, (c) take longer
to download from the server, (d) are more difficult to make comments
on, (e) slow down most users who actually are willing to take a look
at them (which means making the entire newsgroup less efficient), (f)
invite other binary postings of screen shots and other BS which is
definitely going to be disruptive to the rest of us.

Go ask why 'comp.lang.c++.moderated' doesn't accept attachments and
get them to accept them first, then I might change my mind.

V

 

[Default User]

It demonstrates that we have a very different perspective. I think I
see yours, I don't think you see mine.

I see yours, I just don't buy it.

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 ?

What you don't get is that the methods, while indeed old, are NOT
inefficient. You have and have had the attitude that we are all
hidebound luddites afraid to embrace change. That's wrong.




Brian

 

[Andre Kostur]

Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
opposite.

I am in the no attachments crowd. By far, the majority of the time that
I'm commenting on someone's posted code, I'll be interleaving my commnets
with their code. If the code was in a separate attachment, then I'd have
to launch the attachment in some other application and cut-n-paste the code
back into my newsreader, and add the quoting notation myself. Far easier
(for me) to simply hit "follow-up", the newsreader automatically copies the
original article and marks it properly for quotations, then I can lop off
all of the irrelevant parts, and interleave my comments with their text
and/or code.

 

[Clark Cox]

Clark Cox wrote:
...

Often it's important to compile the code yourself.

Yes, but I'd argue that it is more often important to be able to
respond to portions of the code *inline* in my response.

Here is a post I made a while back with an attachment.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en

I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I stated above.
Nothing in that post is made significantly easier by including the code
as an attachment.

 

[BobR]

Gianni Mariani wrote in message...

[snip] Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
rejected for excessive quotation.

Well, a little more 'trimming' in this NG would be nice. In the following
example, note that the posters are NOT newbies.

"
"

And I've noticed posts with at least twice that much 'over-quoting'.
[ 4k+ to say "I agree" is crazy! <G> ]
Can we all agree to try a little harder?
Thanks.

 

[Default User]

Gianni Mariani wrote in message...

[snip] Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
rejected for excessive quotation.

Well, a little more 'trimming' in this NG would be nice. In the
following example, note that the posters are NOT newbies.

"
"

This is bullshit. While there where several attribution lines, there
was only a total of 17 lines of quotes, of which 6 were attributions.
So only 11 of actual quotes for a 9-line reply (on my newsreader) from
James. That's pretty close to the 50/50 rule trn used to enforce.

And I've noticed posts with at least twice that much 'over-quoting'.
[ 4k+ to say "I agree" is crazy! <G> ]

That is true, but has nothing to do with the referenced post. A bit
more trimming could have been done, 'tis true, but for the most part
the quoted material was relevant to the discussion.

You can find examples, but that was a piss-poor one. Feel free to
retract and apologize.

Can we all agree to try a little harder?

I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
irrelevant material I can excise.




Brian

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Clark Cox wrote:
....

I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I stated above. Nothing
in that post is made significantly easier by including the code as an
attachment.

Try hitting reply.

 

[Ian Collins]

I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
irrelevant material I can excise.

Usenet would be a better place if everyone applied that standard to
their replies.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be
false. (wikipedia).

Mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments is more of a straw man argument
than intellectual dishonesty, but either one will fit.

You've accused people of being "luddites" because they've rejected what you
view as an "obvious" solution to a problem that everyone agrees upon. The
reality is that not everyone agrees that there's a problem, and that your
proposed alternative creates difficulties of its own.

I do believe that posting compileable code in a .cpp attachment is a
"Good Thingâ„¢".

I don't. This isn't just a place to trade source code files; it's also a
forum in which to discuss them. Posting code as attachments makes it harder
to mingle the discussion and the code. Even someone who had no intention of
compiling or running the code would need to save the attachment, edit it,
then re-post it.

Think of a book, where the example code was only included on a bundled CD.
How much more difficult would it be to relate the discussion with the code,
than it is with snippets of the code interspersed among the text?

This is, first and foremost, a discussion group. Proposals that make it
easier to post working examples are good - but not if they do so by making
it *more* of a hassle to discuss those examples. That trade-off just isn't
worth it.

sherm--

 

[BobR]

Default User wrote in message...

You can find examples, but that was a piss-poor one. Feel free to
retract and apologize.

Why are you getting all 'torque-jawed', it wasn't even *your* post!

Ok, have it your way:

I am sorry, Mr. Kanze.

I always try, and usually succeed. I basically go with the "no more
than one screen's worth of quotes without a reply" standard. In my
reply window that's 25 lines, and I try to do much better than that
when it's appropriate. If I go that far I figure there must be
irrelevant material I can excise.

I think people forget that you can go back and read the original post if
need be.

In case you feel offended, I will and do offer my apology, Brian.

[ I don't know why though, you sound more like an ally. <G> ]

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments is more of a straw man argument
than intellectual dishonesty, but either one will fit.

Accusation of mis characterization? Please be more specific.

You've accused people of being "luddites" because they've rejected what you
view as an "obvious" solution to a problem that everyone agrees upon. The
reality is that not everyone agrees that there's a problem, and that your
proposed alternative creates difficulties of its own.

Accusation of making an accusation without basis and is itself without
basis. Please reread.

I don't. This isn't just a place to trade source code files; it's also a
forum in which to discuss them. Posting code as attachments makes it harder
to mingle the discussion and the code. Even someone who had no intention of
compiling or running the code would need to save the attachment, edit it,
then re-post it.

I think you have a excessively narrow view of the uses of file
attachments in this NG.

Think of a book, where the example code was only included on a bundled CD.
How much more difficult would it be to relate the discussion with the code,
than it is with snippets of the code interspersed among the text?

Technologically inferior medium. Your example does not make the cut,
you're thinking is too linear. Try to come up with a good faith effort
to understand my position. Go ahead and actually try what I'm proposing
(if you can) and then make a comment.

This is, first and foremost, a discussion group. Proposals that make it
easier to post working examples are good - but not if they do so by making
it *more* of a hassle to discuss those examples. That trade-off just isn't
worth it.

I don't see a basis for your previous paragraph. Your perspective is
unfounded by being too narrow. It confuses a tool with a specific use
of that tool.

You previous post seems to make more unfounded accusations. I have made
a good faith description of my perspective and why I use the term
luddite. Your counter accusations are no better than the actual
accusations you make of my use of that terminology. Please be make a
more concerted effort not to make the same mistake you accuse me of making.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

I see yours, I just don't buy it.



What you don't get is that the methods, while indeed old, are NOT
inefficient. You have and have had the attitude that we are all
hidebound luddites afraid to embrace change. That's wrong.

It's great that you have such an assertive position without even
trying the alternative - recently. I linked to a couple of examples
in other posts.

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ why attachments require changes in viewing news... ]

Can you explain exactly why you say that. From my experience I see the
opposite.

Because _most_ problems can be diagnosed fairly quickly and easily
simply by _reading_ the code. Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely need
to be cured at all.

By contrast, if the code is in an attachment, (at least for a sensible
person) the first step is to start up a virtual machine, and re-start
the newsreader inside the virtual machine. Then (even for somebody who's
not cautious) the attachment has to be saved and opened in an editor.
Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code separately
from the question about the code. Finally, when the problem is
diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to dislike so
intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent line or two
of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.

Alternatively, you can settle for making the follow-up much less cogent
and readable, by enclosing the fixed code in an attachment, separate
from the commentary on what was wrong, how to fix it, etc.

I'm pretty sure the single day I spent the most time fixing line-
wrapping came out to less than I could plan on wasting _every_ day with
attachments -- unless of course, I just quit reading or posting here
completely. Quite frankly, the latter is far more likely -- I enjoy
reading and posting, but not enough to put up with the mess that would
make of things.

 

[Devon Null]

It's time for a change. I recommend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:

Anyone disagree ?

First off, on a personal note, I have to say that reading this thread
has been IMMENSELY entertaining, and even mildly enlightening. It is a
very good social experiment on how quickly otherwise extraordinarily
intelligent (from my pov) people can devolve into a flame war.

But on to the subject of my post. Gianni, you simply proposed a change
in the rules and regulations for this NG in way that would, from your
perspective, improve the group as a whole. I feel that that is an
admirable thing and one that is necessary. If no one proposed new ideas
then we would still be making fire with two sticks. I was completely
with you this far. I didn't agree, but I still supported original intent
of the post (from my understanding of it.)

You brought this subject forward for a vote from the "ranking" (aka
regular) members of this newsgroup. The outcome was a resounding
landslide. They, along with myself, rejected the idea. I can only speak
for myself when I say I voted not out of malice or spite, but simply my
opinion as I saw the issue.

But it was after this that things seemed to have fallen apart. Instead
of accepting defeat, you refused to accept that the idea was not
accepted. I can understand trying to change the minds of those who voted
against you, anything worth anything is something worth fighting for. To
you, this was worth something. It was after that that things began to
get personal. This was a matter of business, i.e. "Let's improve the
NG." Which side fired the first volley is a matter of opinion, and I
will not state mine. It was at this point that the subject should have
been terminated (for now.) Kinda reminiscent of the 2000 and 2004 US
presidential elections if you ask me.

It's not that the idea wasn't sound, just that the people here, the ones
who actually use the system day in and day out, don't feel that there
are enough pros to cause a change that sweeping. If they are happy with
it, what's wrong with that? Just because there is a better version of my
shoes, car, computer out there doesn't mean I should upgrade. Frankly I
like my shoes, car, computer. They are set up the way I like it and
broken in. Quite comfy IMO, and I see no reason to change if they still
fulfill all my needs and requirements.

In summary, you brought an idea. That is a good thing. You asked for a
vote. That was also a good thing. Many people voted. Another good thing.
People started making personal attacks. Bad thing. People kept going at
it. Also a bad thing.

The outcome of the vote and the votes that lead to it were nothing
personal, at least not from my understanding of the VERY first few
posts. It was simply what all votes are, the voter's opinion.

Yours with no animosity,
DN
--
[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.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Gianni Mariani wrote: .... nice stuff stripped

But it was after this that things seemed to have fallen apart. Instead
of accepting defeat, you refused to accept that the idea was not
accepted.

Oh I have given up at about the 3rd post. I think I said it twice.

... I can understand trying to change the minds of those who voted
against you,

I don't know if you mean "me" rather that the "proposal". I am not a
proposal. I don't take it personally.

... anything worth anything is something worth fighting for. To
you, this was worth something.

No, I gave up the fight. I was simply closing up loose threads.

... It was after that that things began to
get personal.

Really ? I think some people may have taken my luddite comment
personally but I tried to craft it as attacking the position not the
person. Reread the initial comment to James. I don't think I called
him a luddite - I think I said "I don't understand why you're being a
luddite abut *this*".

... This was a matter of business, i.e. "Let's improve the
NG." Which side fired the first volley is a matter of opinion, and I
will not state mine. It was at this point that the subject should have
been terminated (for now.) Kinda reminiscent of the 2000 and 2004 US
presidential elections if you ask me.

Just the 2000, 2004 ? Short memory or somthing ?

It's not that the idea wasn't sound, just that the people here, the ones
who actually use the system day in and day out, don't feel that there
are enough pros to cause a change that sweeping.

There;s the first rub. It does not have to be sweeping - again, I did a
poor job explaining the idea but I don't think it would have made much
difference in the outcome.

... If they are happy with
it, what's wrong with that?

Who said it was wrong ?

... Just because there is a better version of my
shoes, car, computer out there doesn't mean I should upgrade.

True. This is relevant how ? I see you statement a little like "I like
lemonade, why should I drink Sprite ?" I'm saying, please let me and or
others drink Sprite. Sure, there will be problems, let's fix em.

... Frankly I
like my shoes, car, computer. They are set up the way I like it and
broken in. Quite comfy IMO, and I see no reason to change if they still
fulfill all my needs and requirements.

What if you car spews too much GHG and your shoes are smelly and your
computer can't talk to mine but you're still comfortable and cushy ?
Why are you comp I have to choke on your GHG, smell your smelly shoes
and convert my computer to talk to yours ?

In summary, you brought an idea. That is a good thing. You asked for a
vote.

I asked for a discussion. Not even close to vote.

... That was also a good thing. Many people voted.

No votes were polled.

... Another good thing.
People started making personal attacks. Bad thing. People kept going at
it. Also a bad thing.

It is a little disappointing but there's nothing like a good 'ol bar
brawl to make friends !!!!

The outcome of the vote and the votes that lead to it were nothing
personal, at least not from my understanding of the VERY first few
posts. It was simply what all votes are, the voter's opinion.

I'm curious. Did you make an effort to substantiate the reasons for
your opinion ? What were the assumptions you made ? Are they valid ?

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote in message...

Why are you getting all 'torque-jawed', it wasn't even your post!

Because I was number two in there. Tarred with the same brush and all
that.

I think people forget that you can go back and read the original post
if need be.

Well, posts should be crafted so that it's not necessary. I personally
don't like fetching old ones, so I try to make sure that there's
adequate context, but no more than needed.

In case you feel offended, I will and do offer my apology, Brian.

[ I don't know why though, you sound more like an ally. <G> ]

I am, that's why I was distressed to see a poorly chosen example,
especially a thread I was involved with.

Believe me, there are regulars here who do a poor job of trimming, but
this wasn't such a case.




Brian