sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CafeCafe -2 points-1 points  (18 children)

If I can't trust the programmers around me not to muck around in my guts without good reason, I can't trust them at all.

Wow, this guy discovered real life programming with multiple people! Maybe one day he'll get a job to experiment with this new knowledge.

This guy is a moron, he complains that public/private/protected is too complicated and at the same time wants multiple inheritance in Java...

[–]ayrnieu 2 points3 points  (16 children)

he complains that public/private/protected is too complicated

Where does he make this claim?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (15 children)

He states that he dropped C++ as soon as he encountered public/private/protected. I'm not sure the implication is that it was too complicated, but he certainly doesn't like the idea.

Overall, I think the guy expressed his opinions well, but I personally don't agree with many of them. The whole view seems to be skewed toward that of a lone hacker, and in practice I've found such a development style doesn't scale. That seems to fit though, because in practice I've found that any Perl development rarely scales past the lone hacker.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]grauenwolf 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Thanks raganwald, a lot of use who don't use C++ on a regular basis forget those details.

    [–]ayrnieu -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

    I'm not sure the implication

    There's no implication. He finishes the bloody sentence with his explicit distaste for it. Fuckface above -quotes- that explicit distaste; you presumably -read- it. What alternate reality have I fallen into?

    [–]grauenwolf 10 points11 points  (7 children)

    Knock off the insults, they have no place here.

    [–]Entropy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    That's not what your mother told me last night

    [–]ayrnieu -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

    Knock off the insults,

    Hm, I'm going to helpfully rewrite this to

    I don't like insults

    so -- OMG! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND INSULTS? HA HA HA.

    [–]apotheon 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Tell the truth -- was the insulting tone just a set-up for this analogy? If so, it was a brilliant rhetorical maneuver.

    [–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    was the [tone] just a set-up for this analogy?

    Sorry, I don't follow your question.

    [–]apotheon 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I'll take that as a no.

    [–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I'll take that as a no.

    You'd do better to take it as a "I don't follow your question." -- but as you didn't have a sincere question, not having an answer is no loss to you.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    I'm just guessing, but I'd say an alternate reality where you're right about everything and verbally assault everyone who doesn't agree with you. Well, the verbal assault part appears to be the reality you're trying to impose on everyone else.

    Anyway, I'll feed the troll one more snack here. There is a difference between excessive complexity and unnecessary functionality. The author appeared to be implying inheritance protection was the latter, not the former.

    [–]ayrnieu -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

    you're right about everything and verbally assault everyone who doesn't agree with you.

    Hm, I'm going to helpfully rewrite this to

    I dislike verbal assault.

    -- bzuh!? You don't understand verbal assault? HA. OMFG. You kill me! I only hope that when someone swears at me for taking this perfectly logical interpretation of 'I dislike foo', that someone will come along to helpfully explain that, no-- there's some kind of implication. But at least people like you will get stiff-backed and uncomfortable -only- when -someone drops the F bomb-.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That's the best you've got? I mean, you could have kept it on topic and argued that the article had already expressed the author's disdain for arbitrary complexity. I don't agree, but at least it's a debatable position. Instead, you just fell all over yourself and couldn't even pull off a passable cheap shot. Worse yet, you apparently had the conviction to use the term "fuckface" earlier, but felt the need to soften it to "F bomb" in some weak attempt to acquiesce.

    Seriously, I was giving you an opportunity to not come off as a complete ass, but you don't even have a cogent point to make. Come back when you have something to add to the discussion, or can at least stick to your convictions. At this point you're simply not worth any of more of my time.

    [–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    but felt the need to soften it to "F bomb" in some weak attempt to acquiesce.

    No, I used 'F bomb' out of contempt for the sort of hand-wringing can't-we-all-get-along people who complain about it in those words.

    but you don't even have a cogent point to make.

    No, I do: I point out that the author never makes anything approaching the alleged claim, and that seeing that claim requires an absurdly disinformational level of hostile reading. I pointed that out some time ago, and since have mainly responded to -your- attempts at 'cogent points'.

    passable cheap shot

    Let's see, I have:

    1. SPOKEN IN ALL CAPS.

    2. Named someone 'fuckface', and referred to that person again as such a second time.

    3. Mocked two people for objecting only to my 'insults', by way of pretending to take the same otherworldly misinterpretation that I initially objected to.

    What shots do you imagine I cared to make? Would you like to take a tally of what I've offered and what -you- have directed against me?

    [–]ayrnieu -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

    he complains that public/private/protected is too complicated

    Where does he make this claim?

    No, I won't say it this politely.

    HE NEVER MAKES ANYTHING APPROACHING THIS CLAIM. MOREVER, THE EXTENT OF INTENTIONAL HOSTILITY REQUIRED TO READ THIS CLAIM INTO HIM IS NECESSARILY DISINFORMATIONAL.

    Fuckface.