Re: To Richard Heathfield: enough's enough

From: Randy Howard (randy.howard_at_FOOmegapathdslBAR.net)
Date: 12/30/03 

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:06:55 -0600

In article <f5dda427.0312300814.29abec5a@posting.google.com>, spinoza1111
@yahoo.com says...
> Randy Howard <randy.howard@FOOmegapathdslBAR.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a5a691d38c479e989a54@news.megapathdsl.net>...

> > If you had intended arbitrary length restrictions, you should have
> > enforced them in your code.

> What nonsense. And what's interesting is that these rules aren't
> followed in the enterprise software systems ...
[followed by another descent into babble for confusion's sake]

Why is it nonsense to code correctly? You claim it is nonsense to
*KNOW* that your code has a problem with long strings (which you now
claim but adamantly denied previously) and still not either enforce
the limits directly or at least warn the developer behind you via
comments. That's tantamount to intentionally spreading viral
software.

It also appears that you are actually using improper programming by
others to defend your own piss poor algorithm design. If those
"enterprise" and "corporate" programmers are so bad, why do you emulate
them? So, you choose to stoop to the level of those you malign. Sad.

> > No, your lack of knowledge of the semantics of the C for loop caused
> > the problem.

I note that you didn't deny this. Which is good, since it would have
been another lie.

> I think I've made it clear that it doesn't bother me if a computer
> recalculates, not only in a reliable but also in a transparent way, a
> needed value. You see, that's what computers are for.

It's not transparent to output a series of a million ' ' characters
interleaved with a million and one backspace characters (on a given
terminal type) just to back up the cursor one position. You're code
"for clarity" (laughable) which does such things on a small scale will
balloon into a cluster of such disasters when incorporated into a large
software solution. Sure, it will work on a suitably fast system with
nothing better to do, but that doesn't make it a good idea, or even
defendable. I didn't see anything in your which said "This is good
enough when run on a 21.6 GHz quad-processor Opteron system with
no other processes running using any length strings you care to imagine."

You have no idea what target platform software posted to Usenet will
be used upon. Someone with a history on IBM hardware from the 60's
should damn well know better by now. What's your excuse for not
understanding this simple concept?
 
> I think I've made it clear that I long ago disabused myself of the
> (absurd) notion that a computer is like a car, down which you travel
> "fast" some highway to Wrong Answer, AZ.

This would make some sense, if you could demonstrate that modifying
your code (as Richard demonstrated) to perform much, much better
would cause the code to get erroneous answers. I haven't seen
that, have you?

> > Psst! It's okay to admit it, we already know and we'll understand,
> > promise.
> >
> Who is this we?

Everyone with an ounce of knowledge about programming that reads this
thread knows that your code was poor, and they also know that you
simply too much of a coward to admit your mistakes. True experts
know enough to realize that they can never be perfect. Only the
true newbies think otherwise. If you have as much industry experience
as you claim to and still haven't made it to that point simply means
you never made it past the newbie stage before you flipped your
write-protect tab on. That's depressing, since it implies that
you've spent 30+ years with no willingness to learn from others.

> You are just a loser or a thug with a wireless card, at best.

Why is it that someone with a modem, or a wireless card is a loser?
Is it because you do not have either? Well, in point of fact, I've
had dozens of modems over the years, at least 3 different wireless
cards, I cannot count how many different token ring, 10mbit, 100mbit
and gigabit Ethernet cards I have owned or used over the years, as
well as Fibre Channel, Infiniband and iSCSI cards in the last few
years.

Currently, my home has a gigabit ethernet switch in a wiring closet
to which drops go to most rooms in the house, along with a wireless
access point which is used mostly by guests who bring laptops with
them and need access while they are here. Again, I ask you, why is
it that someone with a modem, or a wireless card is a loser?

> > If you'd just
> > say "you know what, I made a mistake and I realize there is a better way"
> > it would be over and done with, but you're not grown up enough to do so.
> >
> Yeah, I was saying there is a better way.

Unfortunately, you don't seem able to identify it when it is staring
you in the face.

> It is of course constituted in OOD and typical of OOD, with its close
> coupling of data and code, to have shorter strings in the state, where
> microefficiency considerations mean less.

Bull***. Poorly performing code can be written in C++ or other OOP
languages. That has been proven more times than can be counted. You
have yet to demonstrate the ability to NOT do that in any language. 

-- 
Randy Howard                
2reply remove FOOBAR
Quantcast