Use of the {@code } tag

[Dave Searles]

On 10/01/2009 08:58 PM, Dave Searles wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

[says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

I was just asking:

[says I'm a liar]

[asks something, and then says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

Since I'm not a native speaker I could have missed something. I do not
know why you chose to translate that as "says I'm a liar". I did not
call you a liar - I did not even want to insinuate that you are.

Yet, you did. At best, your statement beginning "I cannot see ..."
implied that what I claimed to have seen wasn't real, i.e. that either I
was lying or I'm crazy.

Neither is the case.

 

[Dave Searles]

He claimed he could not see something I claimed to have seen, thus
strongly implying at best that I hallucinate wildly, if not that I
outright lie. (In a situation where "the other guy's blind" does not
seem to be a viable explanation.)

[personal attack deleted]

Go **** yourself.

 

[Dave Searles]

I was just asking:

[says I'm a liar]
Where do you take that from? [says I'm a liar]

I am not.

Your English is fine. Better than most, even. What you are missing is
that the individual to whom you're replying [personal attack deleted]
Wrong.

the most innocuous of disagreements.

Asserting, in public, that I either hallucinated or lied about something
is hardly innocuous.

He posts here using a wide variety of aliases (Jerry Gerrone, Twisted,
to name a couple of others).

I do not. I post here using my *name*, Dave Searles, and that's it.

[raging paranoia and other nonsense deleted]

Seek help.

[personal attacks deleted]

Go **** yourself.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

He posts here using a wide variety of aliases (Jerry Gerrone,Twisted, to  
name a couple of others).  "Dave Searles" just happens to be the most  
recent.

That is incorrect. I always use a gmail address when I post.

[insults, paranoid twitterings, and much other nonsense deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

You seem to think that everyone not only should read the documentation,
but that they should reread it rather frequently.

It is a damn good idea to reread the docs before asking someone
else for assistance.

Most of us have jobs that kinda require us to spend a lot of time
actually coding, or doing other things, rather than reading, and so tend
to read something only once, and maybe again if we get a clear
indication that it may have changed since the last time.

It seems very obvious to me to want to check before asking
"Is that a new one not yet documented?".

Deciding not to do so is arrogant because it assumes
that ones own time is more valuable than other peoples.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

Where do you take that from? I cannot see anything like this in Arne's
posting.

No, you are.

Last time I heard something like this I must have been 13 or so. It's
sad to see a community decline that way.

It is not the community as such - just one particular person.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Why are you even bothering to respond to this?

Why not.

You are not seriously expecting him to go away just because
people do not reply.

We have seen numerous times that this is not the case.

So it is either in this thread or in some other unfortunate
thread.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Lew wrote:
It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read the
documentation.
How rude.
[personal attacks deleted]

How rude.

I 100% considered Lew's reply as rude too.
Here you go again.

This is rude. And sad.

Lew, I honnestly think you should shill out.

This newsgroup is about helping people, not about showing of
one's JavaDoc search/grep'ing skills and then bragging about
it in a rude way.

And it's certainly not about insulting people pointing out
how rude they think your answers are.

Last time I looked at the calendar it said 2009 not 1909.

The language in 2009 especially on the internet is "direct".

If posting a question to usenet and being told that it is
in the docs (and being supplied the relevant link) and that
one should RTFM before posting is too rude, then I don't
think one is suited for the internet anno 2009.

"RTFM" is just being direct.

"RTFM you fucking imbecile moron" would be rude.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 10/01/2009 08:58 PM, Dave Searles wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

[says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

I was just asking:

[says I'm a liar]

Where do you take that from? I cannot see anything like this in
Arne's posting.

Since I'm not a native speaker I could have missed something. I do not
know why you chose to translate that as "says I'm a liar". I did not
call you a liar - I did not even want to insinuate that you are. I am
sorry if my wording caused such a perception.

No need to apologize.

This particular person has the paranoid idea that disagreeing
with him is calling him a liar, attacking him etc.etc.etc..

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Robert Klemme wrote:
On 10/01/2009 08:58 PM, Dave Searles wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc
API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a
new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

[says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

I was just asking:

[says I'm a liar]

[asks something, and then says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

Since I'm not a native speaker I could have missed something. I do
not know why you chose to translate that as "says I'm a liar". I did
not call you a liar - I did not even want to insinuate that you are.

Yet, you did. At best, your statement beginning "I cannot see ..."
implied that what I claimed to have seen wasn't real, i.e. that either I
was lying or I'm crazy.

Neither is the case.

I think you have just proved the last ....

Arne

 

[Lew]

Last time I looked at the calendar it said 2009 not 1909.

The language in 2009 especially on the internet is "direct".

If posting a question to usenet and being told that it is
in the docs (and being supplied the relevant link) and that
one should RTFM before posting is too rude, then I don't
think one is suited for the internet anno 2009.

"RTFM" is just being direct.

"RTFM you fucking imbecile moron" would be rude.

It was worse than that. The OP was actually complaining that {@code } wasn't
even documented, when it has been for five years. He would have known better
if he had actually read the documentation.

 

[Lew]

It is a damn good idea to reread the docs before asking someone
else for assistance.


It seems very obvious to me to want to check before asking
"Is that a new one not yet documented?".

Deciding not to do so is arrogant because it assumes
that ones own time is more valuable than other peoples.

I have a job that "kinda" requires me to know what I'm doing as a programmer,
and this "kinda" requires that I do a lot of reading, and failing to do so
"kinda" makes one less competent than one needs to be. Anyone who thinks they
can get by as a programmer without studying the craft is doomed to be "kinda"
a putz as a programmer.

Any discipline that requires expertise requires constant study, including of
basics. Tending "to read something only once" is a mark of an inadequate effort.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I have a job that "kinda" requires me to know what I'm doing as a
programmer, and this "kinda" requires that I do a lot of reading, and
failing to do so "kinda" makes one less competent than one needs to be.
Anyone who thinks they can get by as a programmer without studying the
craft is doomed to be "kinda" a putz as a programmer.

Any discipline that requires expertise requires constant study,
including of basics. Tending "to read something only once" is a mark of
an inadequate effort.

IT evolves pretty fast.

Which means that there are only two types of IT people: those
that read and those that are left behind.

Arne

 

[Tom Anderson]

Why not.

You are not seriously expecting him to go away just because
people do not reply.

No. But Lew would have more time for other, more positive activities,
which would make him happier, if he didn't put effort into replying. In
the time he's spent responding to Twisted this year, he could have studied
a new API, learned Python, written a PostgreSQL tutorial in iambic
pentameter, learned to juggle, built a covert nanobrewery in his cubicle,
or any one of a number of things.

tom

 

[Tom Anderson]

IT evolves pretty fast.

Which means that there are only two types of IT people: those
that read and those that are left behind.

Three types: there's also Alan Kay.

tom

 

[Robert Klemme]

Robert Klemme wrote:

Yet, you did. At best, your statement beginning "I cannot see ..."
implied that what I claimed to have seen wasn't real, i.e. that either I
was lying or I'm crazy.

There are other possible interpretations as well: Maybe you just glanced
over the message and misread it (which happens to all of us once in a
while). Maybe you felt offended by the poster in the past and assumed
an offense here as well. Maybe you replied in a hurry and accidentally
picked the wrong message - whatever.

My question was meant to say "I don't see it, please show it to me". I
even offered an apology which apparently you choose to ignore
completely. You could have easily answered with an explanation why the
offending message is read as an offense by you particularly or even by
people sharing your culture.

I still fail to see where Arne called you a liar. He just seems to
disagree with your assessment that Lew's remark was rude. I can see how
one can view Lew's statement rude for its brevity - but I can also see
it as an appropriate answer to a lazy questioner. Both are valid
interpretations of the message.

Neither is the case.

Now I am not sure any more. Anyway, thank you for giving the
opportunity to meditate on some basic terms.

Cheers

robert

 

[Lew]

Yeah, but what does he do in the second week?

PLLPPPTHPTHPTTTHHPPPTTTTHHH!

 

[Lew]

PLLPPPTHPTHPTTTHHPPPTTTTHHH!

You have your facts wrong. Look at the number of responses to Twisted's posts
and you'll see I have not that many, especially compared to others here. Even
tom himself has responded to him. I count two from him in the last week.

PostgreSQL:

Among the many databases, some
of which are free, and some quite dear,
with varied levels of support, there's one
that from the rest stands out, the winner clear.

Its syntax is robust, performance, too.
To choose among them you would sure do well
to pick the one that scales, is free, and fast -
that RDBMS, PostgreSQL.

 

[Tom Anderson]

You have your facts wrong. Look at the number of responses to Twisted's
posts and you'll see I have not that many, especially compared to others
here. Even tom himself has responded to him. I count two from him in the
last week.

I confess that it is true. And yes, there are others who respond more than
you - Arne, i think. But Arne responds to everything, and once in motion,
cannot be stopped, like some kind of programming Juggernaut. I suppose i
was addressing myself to all of us, with Lew as an avatar. If you enjoy
troll-wrestling, go crazy. But don't do it when you'd really rather be
doing something fun.

PostgreSQL:

Among the many databases, some
of which are free, and some quite dear,
with varied levels of support, there's one
that from the rest stands out, the winner clear.

Its syntax is robust, performance, too.
To choose among them you would sure do well
to pick the one that scales, is free, and fast -
that RDBMS, PostgreSQL.

Wonderful!

And now, an Alexandrine about log4j.

tom

 

[Dave Searles]

How rude.

[personal attack deleted]

[personal attack deleted]

[personal attack deleted]

Wrong.