FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[Default User]

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.

Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different? Certainly
nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.




Brian

 

[Default User]

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.

Ha. You call this a flame war? You've obviously never seen a real one.
This is a best a warm-blanket war.




Brian

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Gianni Mariani wrote: ....
Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different? Certainly
nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.

Try it and see. I did, why don't you ?

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

 

[Gianni Mariani]

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.

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

try reply.

... 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.

Obviously you have not tried this recently.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

[ 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.

Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it makes
sense.

... Compiling the code is rarely necessary. As
such, the trivial formatting problems you're trying "cure" rarely need
to be cured at all.

I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
tried to compile their code before posting it.

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.

What are you talking about ?

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.

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

Try reply.

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.

Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
alternative tools at times.

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.

Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?

 

[Andre Kostur]

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

try reply.

You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
thank-you.

Obviously you have not tried this recently.

If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.

 

[Andre Kostur]

[ 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.

Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it
makes sense.

If your code is that large, it may make more sense to post a link to the
code instead of attempting to attach it. Or the code hasn't been pared
down to a mimimal, compilable example. Plus the action of paring the
code down to a minimal, compilable example may cause the poster to
discover their own problem. Which in itself is a far better learning
experience (teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish thing).

I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
tried to compile their code before posting it.

Sure... but that's the poster. I can count on one hand the number of
times that I've even attempted to compile the code posted in here. The
vast majority of the times one can spot the problem simply by reading the
code.

What are you talking about ?

If the code is small, then it makes sense to post it directly in the
article. If the code is so large that it warrants (at least in your
opinion) attaching to the article, then the code is too large to examine
for virii, trojans, and the like. Thus it would be safest to attempt to
compile and execute that code in a virtual machine to minimize the risk
to your own machine.

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

Try reply.

(As mentioned in a different post) You're assuming that everyone is using
a web-based newsreader (or perhaps Google Groups specifically). What
about everyone else who may prefer to use nn, tin, or some other
newsreader?

Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
alternative tools at times.

If you're not commenting on the code, why bother re-attaching it? If you
are commenting on the code, then (to me) it makes far more sense to
interleave your commentary directly in the code.

Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?

Never (in this newsgroup). Even assuming that my news server (and every
news server between me and you) were willing to carry the attachments,
that would be a large enough barrier for me to bother answering whatever
question was there. Code inline I can scan through. Attached code would
mean I would have to take too many additional actions to examine the
code. Presumably as a poster you'd want to make diagnosing your problem
as easy as possible for as many readers as possible.

 

[Ian Collins]

If your code is that large, it may make more sense to post a link to the
code instead of attempting to attach it. Or the code hasn't been pared
down to a mimimal, compilable example. Plus the action of paring the
code down to a minimal, compilable example may cause the poster to
discover their own problem. Which in itself is a far better learning
experience (teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish thing).

I couldn't agree more, no one knows how many people have found the
solution to their problems while trimming down code in order to post it.

Don't forget Usenet is a write once, read many medium. As such, the
presentation should be for the benefit of the reader, not the poster.
Sure building a test case takes work, but it saves the reader's time.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

You're assuming that I'm using some sort of web-based newsreader. No
thank-you.

Oh - you did try it then.

....

If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.

If you use an outdated new reader.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

....
Don't forget Usenet is a write once, read many medium. As such, the
presentation should be for the benefit of the reader, not the poster.
Sure building a test case takes work, but it saves the reader's time.

I'm mostly a reader. I made a case where it benefits both.

 

[Andre Kostur]

Oh - you did try it then.

Not this specific instance. I briefly attempted to use a web-based news
reader before, but found that it simply got in the way far too often. I
find a standalone news reader far more usable to me.

If you use an outdated new reader.

Depends on your definition of "outdated news reader". Mine reads news
perfectly fine.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Not this specific instance. I briefly attempted to use a web-based news
reader before, but found that it simply got in the way far too often. I
find a standalone news reader far more usable to me.


Depends on your definition of "outdated news reader". Mine reads news
perfectly fine.

You've got a luddite newsreader then ...

There will be some newsreaders that don't handle attachments the way
they should be handled. However, if we all have to wait for everyone's
news reader to do the right thing nothing will ever improve.

 

[Mike Wahler]

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.

Browsers? I use an NNTP client to read Usenet. I use browsers
for the WWW.

-Mike

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

Fine - so _most_ problems don't need attachments. Your point being ?
My point is that they are useful and should be encouraged when it makes
sense.

You claim that they're useful, but you've yet to show anything of the
sort. You're starting out by taking for granted exactly what needs to be
proved. Unfortunately for your position, that's the only way to get
anywhere, because you can't really prove what's needed -- because it's
false.

I don't think it's rare. I'd like to encourage poster to have already
tried to compile their code before posting it.

Of course. Use of attachments, or lack thereof, has precisely NO effect
on what they've done before posting though.

What are you talking about ?

Which part did you have trouble reading? Nothing in that paragraph seems
particularly difficult to read or understand...

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

Try reply.

Thank you, but no. I've used Google's interface at times, and while it's
(barely) usable in a pinch, a real newsreader is clearly superior. It's
starting to sound to me like you're trying to warp the rest of the
newsroup to make up for its deficiencies.

Choose the best tool for the job. If you want to use inlining your
verbage, do so. I'm simply suggesting others (like me) prefer
alternative tools at times.

You're welcome to prefer what you like. Trying to change an entire
newsgroup because you don't understand how it works is something to
which you're consierably less welcome.

Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at. My news provider has
their server properly configured, so by the time I see them, none of the
posts is going to have an attachment in any case. If I ever have to put
up with a news server administered by some bozo who'd let such garbage
through, I'd have to make a decision about whether to continue
subscribing or not. My immediate guess is that I probably wouldn't, but
I'm certainly not going to try to make absolute and incontrovertible
predictions about the future.

 

[Jerry Coffin]

I'm mostly a reader. I made a case where it benefits both.

Rather the contrary -- so far, you haven't made a cast that it's really
a benefit to _anybody_. I'm relatively certain you won't be able to do
so either -- because unless you're hiding some entirely new and
different argument than any you've advanced so far, it's really NOT a
benefit.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Rather the contrary -- so far, you haven't made a cast that it's really
a benefit to _anybody_. I'm relatively certain you won't be able to do
so either -- because unless you're hiding some entirely new and
different argument than any you've advanced so far, it's really NOT a
benefit.

Do I have to write it again ?

Try the links I posted.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Jerry Coffin wrote:
.....

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.

Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Browsers? I use an NNTP client to read Usenet. I use browsers
for the WWW.

You're so '90's.

 

[Lionel B]

You're so '90's.

???

I use a dedicated news client to access Usenet because it does a far
better job than any browser interface I've come across. Right tool for
the job.

 

[stan]

Jerry Coffin wrote:
....

Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?

You seem to be missing the point that you have failed to convince anyone
that what you propose IS an improvement. As you already mentioned,
change != progress/improvement. USENET has been around awhile
now and the accepted rules are pretty much the result of eliminating
things thta didn't work well.

I have tried attachments and inline and I prefer inline. I guess in your
view that makes me luddite. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm
very familiar with the technology, I've used both, and I've arrived at
my own informed choice.

If you really feel that your way is better, why not just join the alt
side of the house and create a newsgroup, or try and start another group
similar to the binaries that embrace attachments?

The value of any newsgroup is largely in the quality of the information
which is proportional to the work volunteered by the regulars. Seems
most of the regulars here have pretty clearly stated that they consider
attachments to required more work for them. It takes time to participate
in a newsgroup regularly and your burden is to show attachments can be
used in a way that requires no more work/time than is currently required
and is as safe as the inline technique.

Your proprosal requires (some) administrators to change to allow
attachments, requires many to change newsreaders, and requires new
technology that could ensure that handles attachments in a provably safe
way.

I may be presuming here but your chief problem seems to be that some
code can't be easily cut and pasted in a manner that allows you to
compile the code. IF that is in fact correct, maybe you would be better
served by learning better ways to deal with text. The UNIX based command
line stuff can do magic in the hands of a skilled artisan. Or, possibly
you need a better editor. IF you don't succeed in changing c.l.c++ maybe
you could spend some time sollving your own problem. Just a thought.