|
George wrote:
Don't cry little boy, there will be a lot of opportunities to insult the people in the future.
You're a sad, laughable character, aren't you ? I thought you didn't have time to waste posting to me ?
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
You're a sad, laughable character, aren't you ?
No, you have mistaken me with your image in the mirror again, didn't you?
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought you didn't have time to waste posting to me ?
Well, I thought I would make a susprise post 
BTW: Don't think, you are not good at it. And also don't judge the people - you are not good at understanding and finding out about them, you are too ego-centric and ego-holic.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
You're a sad, laughable character, aren't you ?
No, you have mistaken me with your image in the mirror again, didn't you?
I've had numerous opportunities to make these sorts of comments to you, but as my mental age goes into the double figures, I've never taken them.
George wrote:
BTW: Don't think, you are not good at it. And also don't judge the people - you are not good at understanding and finding out about them, you are too ego-centric and ego-holic.
In the same way you are not good at finding out about new ideas ?
Based on our recent exchanges, I propose that we simply accept that our ancestors took two different branches on the evolutionary scale, and agree never to speak to each other again ? Although you already agreed to do that and it took you a matter of hours to prove you are not a man of your word.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I've had numerous opportunities to make these sorts of comments to you, but as my mental age goes into the double figures, I've never taken them.
Interesting is that you do all sorts of comments all the time, yet when returned same towards your direction you seem surprised as to why?
Maybe you should argue the argument, because you normally argue the person and only use the argument as excuse for the rude language. I thought I will let you know how that feels when person ignores all you say and simply puts a rude language in the post.
Christian Graus wrote:
In the same way you are not good at finding out about new ideas ?
And you do it again - assuming too much. I like new and good ideas. If you talk about .NET then I did the research and did not like it. You like it - good for you. But why do you think that everybody has to come to the same conclusion as you during the process of "finding out"? As I said, I tried beta 1 and didn't like it. I don't have to proceed anymore, I'm do with .NET and VS70 as for now and waiting for the next move. But I did the research, ok.
Christian Graus wrote:
Based on our recent exchanges, I propose that we simply accept that our ancestors took two different branches on the evolutionary scale, and agree never to speak to each other again ?
See, the problem with you is that you can't agree to disagree. Whoever has a different opinion from yours is an "idiot". It's been a second exchange when you attacked me personally and not my arguments (which you undermine or say ""it's not a problem". Maybe it is for me, why can't I have my own idea about things?). I thougt that maybe you need to taste of what you serve.
Christian Graus wrote:
Although you already agreed to do that and it took you a matter of hours to prove you are not a man of your word.
It's hard to explain things to the people like you, you always put a words or a meaning into my mouth. Maybe I need to use your "language" to achieve a higher level or undertanding... Let me try:
I do what I want to do, and no idiot will command me. I can change mind any time I like, no idiot will advice me on that...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Maybe you should argue the argument, because you normally argue the person and only use the argument as excuse for the rude language.
I've asked several times for example code that won't compile under .NET, and you refuse to give it, but keep arguing. If I were a pussy I'd give up, I can't argue the argument because you refuse to progress it. What do you expect me to do with my frustration - kick the cat, or insult you ? The cat hasn't done anything to deserve it.
George wrote:
See, the problem with you is that you can't agree to disagree.
Have you ever called a kettle black ?
George wrote:
Whoever has a different opinion from yours is an "idiot".
Whoever belligerently and contantly presents their views and yet refuses to back them up when asked is an idiot. I disagree with many here who think STL syntax is 'too hard', that does not mean I think they are idiots. They present their views a little differently to you though.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I've asked several times for example code that won't compile under .NET, and you refuse to give it, but keep arguing.
OK. But how do I give you example of code that doesn't compile without installing the VS.NET (which I would have to buy first)? I have only the beta 1 CD. But I know that there was a lot of changes since in the compiler and so the beta 1 not compiling doesn't prove anything. I know that maybe it's easy to fix the erros that will pop up, and perhaps some of the places that generate an error are "bad code" or use undocumented features. But still, some code will not compile. I don't care if it's one line or thousand.
Anyway, the point is that VS.NET is totally different that previous VS. Can you agree with that? New IDE, new compiler, new everything?
Christian Graus wrote:
They present their views a little differently to you though.
You mean they don't stand their point and give up arguing? Anyhow, I will not attack the person if not offended. If you can agree to stop calling people names, I will stop childish methods.
To prevent further escalation of the arguing, I will simply restrain myself from arguing a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
If you talk about .NET then I did the research and did not like it. You like it - good for you. But why do you think that everybody has to come to the same conclusion as you during the process of "finding out"?
I don't think that at all - I am still in the process of finding out, the point is not that I think you need to come to my conclusion, just that you need to either back up yours, or keep it to yourself if you cannot or refuse to do so.
By the way, my reason for posting again is to say that I've put a big sticker on my monitor to remind me to never answer your posts again. It's obvious you need the last word, so if you're that insecure, then take it. I'm sure it will be insightful, wise and cuttingly funny in it's expose of the wrongness of my viewpoint and my myriad of personality disorders and dysfunctions.
Good for you.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to butt out of this one and let the pros handle it, but...
George wrote:
Whoever has a different opinion from yours is an "idiot".
I think, and I would bet money that others here do as well, that Christian speaks for all of us when he calls you an idiot - if not intellectually then certainly as a person. That wonderfully crafted peice of tripe you just spewed out (tell me honestly, do you have that saved on your hard drive as a template to use every week?) actually does a pretty good job of describing how you have projected yourself over the past few days. If you had just accepted your critical mistake (using lies to back up your point of view, but not making them discrete enough), then we would ahve left you alone with your pride intact.
If you'll excuse the plagiarism... It's hard to explain things to the people like you, you always put a words or a meaning into my mouth.
I couldn't agree more.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
If you had just accepted your critical mistake (using lies to back up your point of view, but not making them discrete enough), then we would ahve left you alone with your pride intact.
Are you still drinking to the problems with legacy code compilation? I guess so, since you think that is my "grave"...
OK, just for the last time about that, it's boring how you scramble to dis-credit the whole argument based on the topic I don't want to drill too deeply.
I just went back to the previous poll that was about C++ compliance and your code. Very interesting finds you have there. It shows that to about 17% of the people it's not acceptable change anything in the code just to make it "standard compliant" and thus compile with, eventualy better standard compliant, new compiler (compliance changed from 89% compliance to 97%). Keep that number in the memory for a minute please...
Now, returning to the shortest poll ever (aka "Have you used Visual Studio .NET?") and the infamous "Yawn" thread. In here you can read that althought all the code written by Mr. Anders Molin compiled OK, they "(...) have an application with about 300k lines in it, and there were 15 compile errors in it, when we tried to compile it with VC 7, all of the errors was because there were used undocumented features im MFC.". Well, 15 compile errors is quite enought to prove my simple point that "The old code does not compile with new compiler, the old addins don't work with the new IDE.". I don't care if the code was bad, undocumented or a hack. It was compiling with the old compiler and now it doesn't. Even one error would prove my point here. I was not trying to put it that sharp, because it was not the "main" point. The main point was to show that the continuity of the tool that was VC++/VS is broken.
I can't fulfill the request to present the non-compiling code, simply because I don't want to buy the compiler for sole purpose of the argument. However, if that will be the case in the future, I will keep in mind to send you the build errors. I do have one real-life sample of the build problems send to me by one of the users of my open source work, but I don't think it's a good sample for the purpose of that discussion, because it's a VC++ add-in code and it can't function without VC++5.0 or VC++6.0 anyway. If that doesn't build with VC7 then it doesn't matter because it useless without the old IDE anyway. I can email you the output on your request however, together with the emails exchange (the persons data would be removed) just to prove that the conversation took place. I remember to see another complain for another code, but I don't quite know where I've put that email (my email box brings almost 1200 matches when searching for "net" , 500 for ".net" and I can't read it all to find it).
|
|
|
|
|
Your "death" was very clearly in your statement that it was not just C++ code that would not compile. I don't give a flies ear about any of the rest of your arguments - I never have - they are your opinions and you are entitled to hold them as much as I or the next person is; but I will not sit here while you continue to try to draw attention away from your mistake. Please, to clear this mess up once and for all, just tell me the language of the other code that would not compile.
That is all I have asked of you this week, desipte you trying to make others without the time to research your claims believe I have started some kind of personal assault on you. Let me just remind you, you through the first, second and third punches, and gave me a black eye, before I started returning the insults - though even I have the tact not to call you an outright liar or a biggot.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
Your "death" was very clearly in your statement that it was not just C++ code that would not compile.
Sorry, I must have missed your meaning - you wanted an example of the non-C++ code that would not compile? 
Well, I only work with C++ and so I am unlikely to get a report about that from anyone, so I was claiming only what I can prove in a simple way and what I actually care about. It somehow cliped in my mind that my point was not C++ specific and yet I did stick to the C++ sample that I dealt with.
Well, in that case it's simple -> make it VB then. There is a hell lots of apps that are made with it and they all need re-write and tweaking. Time consuming and costly process. Sorry to miss such a detail - I didn't know that someone would try to deny the whole logic based on that one. However, it still sort of stands, because even thought I didn't deny VB, I did provide the elaboration on the real problem when the old code didn't work. At one moment I seem to have doubts as to what you are talking about, bringing back the original point I made, but you still drove the wrong track just because it was convenient for you.
The point was, once again, that continuity was broken. In the code, in the IDE, in the tools working with IDE. If you insist to the code problems I can easily give C++ for my real-life, experienced problem. And take the VB to cover my claim that it's not just C++ code. Just cut the crap with the grave and focus on the point. Prove me that all the code compiles and the addins are working, and show me where did VC++ IDE is hidden in the VS70 IDE. Save the silly and useless word-games for some other time.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed your meaning
Despite repeating in in bold lettering each time you went off on another of your tangents? Even so, thank you, that was exactly what I wanted -- to prove my belief that you indeed have no clue as to the meaning of what you are receiting. VB is not even supported nor indeed available in Visual Studio .NET, so of course it will not compile. Continuity was not broken anymore so than the continuity that was broken by not allowing you to compile C++ applications with a Java to machine code compiler.
Now, doesn't it feel much better now all this is over with?
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
Despite repeating in in bold lettering each time you went off on another of your tangents?
I didn't realize you are trying to play word games with me. It's as you would stick to the one's typo in the message, and even though you know it's just a typo you would go on and presure the miss-statement. I will keep that in mind and avoid expanding the argument with you in the future, it's just not all that usefull.
David Wulff wrote:
Continuity was not broken anymore so than the continuity that was broken by not allowing you to compile C++ applications with a Java to machine code compiler.
OK, so what are all those VB application folks supposed to do now? It was a hype to use "VB for GUI, C++ for business logic", now we have "C# for everything, C++ for confusing everyone" and in two years C# will get trashed the same way and your application will too?
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
I didn't realize you are trying to play word games with me.
I wasn't. Usually people use bold text to draw attention to a particular word or phrase, and I did nothing more, nor did I have any other intent in doing so.
George wrote:
It's as you would stick to the one's typo in the message
Are you suggesting now that you made a typo? In which case, not even after contsant reminders that was the single phrase in your entire thread that I was talking about, you still did not think about going back and correcting it? Help me now - what should it have read?
George wrote:
I will keep that in mind and avoid expanding the argument with you in the future
Expanding the argument is one thing, but deliberately changing the topic (and getting personal) purely to draw attention away from your mistake is a practise I expect of lawyers, not people with half an ounce of inteligence.
George wrote:
OK, so what are all those VB application folks supposed to do now?
Continue using VB 6 as they have been told to since late '00 when VB.NET was first announced.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
Are you suggesting now that you made a typo?
No, it was trown with the VB in mind, but I didn't mention assuming that you know it and you also said to rule VB out of scope. I simply returned to the original point of mine and mention a C++ experience. Should have beed enought to prove the point, but technically it was a mistake. Still my point stands anyway, in spite of that mistake, because I was definately drawing attention to the original point and I was talking about it too, while you pushed it your way. I should have corrected it.
Typo is just an example - what I mean is that it's not good to stick to one's mistake and build on it, knowing that person made a mistake that is so obvious. Forget the typo example, please? Or even that new poll will be pulled out tomorrow 
David Wulff wrote:
Expanding the argument is one thing, but deliberately changing the topic (and getting personal) purely to draw attention away from your mistake is a practise I expect of lawyers, not people with half an ounce of inteligence.
I was really trying to get back to the original topic all the time, not changing.
David Wulff wrote:
Continue using VB 6 as they have been told to since late '00 when VB.NET was first announced.
Great, C# guys will hear the same in two-three years time, and the (so called) "managed C++" folks are next in the queue. It will be "C##" by then, totally different from C++, C#, VB and more like COBOL or something equally peculiar.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
No, it was trown with the VB in mind
Sigh, some people are too arrogant for their own good.
George wrote:
Still my point stands anyway, in spite of that mistake, because I was definately drawing attention to the original point and I was talking about it too, while you pushed it your way.
The point is, was and forever will be that there was no point. You were cornered, and threw down (using VB as the justification in your mind) a big white lie to try to cloud over the fact that you had made a stupid mistake regarding Anders' post.
George wrote:
Typo is just an example - what I mean is that it's not good to stick to one's mistake and build on it, knowing that person made a mistake that is so obvious.
How did I know you had made a mistake? Both me and Christian asked you repeatedly and you continued with your intent to go personal. It is a common trend among inexperienced trollers, albeit a fatal one.
George wrote:
Forget the typo example, please?
It was not a typo, unless you managed to mistyle the entire sentance and the subthread that followed it.
George wrote:
I was really trying to get back to the original topic all the time, not changing.
No, you were trying to draw attention away from the issue at hand; the issue of you lie, as indeed you continue to do with unhindered agression. You knew what was going on and what was being discussed, I reread each of my messages to ensure this.
George wrote:
Great, C# guys will hear the same in two-three years time, and the (so called) "managed C++" folks are next in the queue. It will be "C##" by then, totally different from C++, C#, VB and more like COBOL or something equally peculiar.
Maybe so, but that is completly irrelavent. If you get off of your high horse for long enough to actually understand what has been said to you this week, you will see that not once has anyone challenged your view outside of constructive criticism. You are the one making a very large crater out of a collapsed molehill.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
The point is, was and forever will be that there was no point.
The point is that I have the point and you are trying to make (eg. create out of nothing) yet another point which I don't even care all that much.
David Wulff wrote:
No, you were trying to draw attention away from the issue at hand;
Because your "issue at hand" didn't make sense to me. Now I know what you meant and I can see how you exploited it.
David Wulff wrote:
You knew what was going on and what was being discussed, I reread each of my messages to ensure this.
Well, you obviously have more time at hand than me - I don't re-read my posts and yours I don't have time for that. I forgot about my post and was carrying on with my main issue, you were still on the "issue at hand" that you actually created for the sole purpose of getting personal. I've seen it before done by you to other peoples, not it was my turn obviously 
David Wulff wrote:
Maybe so, but that is completly irrelavent.
And this is where you are wrong, because the whole topic was just about that. Chris wanted some constructive criticism (which he didn't really want, it was just a trick), I gave it, and then you and CG started to drill the off-topic subject, which was so weird to me, but I didn't re-read my posts and I fell in your trap.
Interesting how some people can claim in the same post that the code compiles and not compiles but for others any missunderstanding is used for no end of insults. Well, he is in the .NET camp, he can ignore and make irrational statemnts, I can't because I critisize... The equal and more equal, huh? If you take a chess playboard and ignore all the black fields, you can sure claim it's all-white colored. That is pretty much what your gang was doing - ignoring the real problem and telling there is no problem.
David Wulff wrote:
f you get off of your high horse for long enough to actually understand what has been said to you this week, you will see that not once has anyone challenged your view outside of constructive criticism.
Sure, because the constructive critisims was ignored over and over again. Becaues I was right, and only by getting personal and using the rude language you were able to discredit my views. Well done, really well done if that was your intent.
|
|
|
|
|
George, you really are one blind, arrogant son of a bitch aren't you? And yes, that was me getting personal. I can repeat it a few times in bold typeface if if it will help you understand it.
Your recent reponse requires no direct reply because it is nothing new, and indeed nothing unexpected at the time I posted my last message to you. I can understand what you are trying to do, but if you want to get caught up in a one-to-one character assasination I will not pariticpate in the public eye. I may not hold much respect in the eyes of my peers, but I'll be damned if I am going to wrestle with you on the ground under their very noses. You may like playing dirty, I do not. Neither do I have the time to participate in your sh!t slinging matches. I suggest you find out where Christian is hanging out tonight and call him a wuss if you want to continue this line of conversation.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
George, you really are one blind, arrogant son of a bitch aren't you? And yes, that was me getting personal. I can repeat it a few times in bold typeface if if it will help you understand it.
It takes one to know one.
David Wulff wrote:
I suggest you find out where Christian is hanging out tonight and call him a wuss if you want to continue this line of conversation.
Maybe you follow his example and just use a big sticker on your monitor to remind you not to answer my posts or something.
David Wulff wrote:
Your recent reponse requires no direct reply because it is nothing new, and indeed nothing unexpected at the time I posted my last message to you.
So why do you open your mouth if I say something that is true, but not new to you? Just shut up and keep your rude comments to yourself. And thanks for admitting that I was right, even if I was not saying anything new.
|
|
|
|
|
George, just for clarification:
George wrote:
The point is that I have the point
What exactly is your point?
George wrote:
I forgot about my post and was carrying on with my main issue, you were still on the "issue at hand"
What is your main issue, and how does it differ from the "issue at hand"?
George wrote:
Chris wanted some constructive criticism (which he didn't really want, it was just a trick), I gave it, and then you and CG started to drill the off-topic subject, which was so weird to me, but I didn't re-read my posts and I fell in your trap.
 Clearly, because Chris is a manipulative bastard, and the whole world is out to get you. 
George wrote:
ignoring the real problem
What, in your very directed, succinct opinion, is the real problem?
Not trying to start yet another flame war, just looking for clarification on your POV.
Thanks,
Jon Sagara
What about ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) ?
[CPUA 0x9999]
Sonork ID: 100.9999 jonsagara
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Sagara wrote:
What exactly is your point?
My very point was that the poll named Have you used Visual Studio .NET? was yet nother boring .NET pool and I suggested that it appears as CP become the MS propaganda site. Chris asked for more constructive criticism and also implied that poll is about the tool used to produce 95% of the code the site is written and thus it's totally cool topic and also that topic are not meant to be cool anyway (I find that very suspicious and I begin to suspect he might get some money from MS for making those polls, or some T-Shirts perhaps ).
Anyhow, the site developemnt is a small part of the development world, so my second point was that the new MS toy doesn't produce so much code as of yet and that MS has broke continuity between VS60 and VS70 to the extent that polls like that are just boring, at least for now. The discontinuity point was never downed, it was only played down so far.
Jon Sagara wrote:
What is your main issue, and how does it differ from the "issue at hand"?
That was when the crazyness started and the main issue was that not all the code can be easily moved to the new environment. I was as well only played down, never disporved. The issue at hand was some missunderstnind - they wanted me to prove a non-C++ code porting problems while I was talking about my personal experience with C++ code. Anyhow, that point could be won by me if I noticed the missunderstanding in time. I guess you can't have it all
Jon Sagara wrote:
Clearly, because Chris is a manipulative bastard, and the whole world is out to get you.
Nah, it's just a couple or i.....ndividuals... Never mind, they will say I am being "impolite" again.
Jon Sagara wrote:
What, in your very directed, succinct opinion, is the real problem?
The real problem can be seen at least in three places.
1. When reading articles you will find out that CP is "Your Visual Studio.NET Homepage". Which it isn't (see below).
2. If you go to "Message Boards", which is nicely sorted by the numbers of posts so it's even more visible now than before, you will notice that Visual C++ is on top position, and .NET and C# is a long way down. Thus CP is rather Visual Studio Homepage (eg. no .NET).
3. The "filter tabs" will insist to stick the .NET contents everywhere, even when MFC/C++ tab is selected.
Summarizing, the real problem is too much of .NET propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
Bijesh wrote:
The real problem is.. you thought you found an inconsistency in a message by Anders Molin and you were so eager to capitalize on it that you didn't notice the holes in your own argument.
No, you are completely wrong.
You can't read people's minds, sorry, don't quit your day job
|
|
|
|
|
George, I know all of us (including you of course) already have come to know enough of your and others' view points by now. Going further than this will only cause more flames to start.
So, with all due respect to everyone's views, can we all put this whole thing to a rest?*
How about a new kinda fight, say a grand CP programming contest?
// Fazlul
*Obviously if anybody cares about my request
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++
http://www.capitolsoft.com
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
VB is not even supported nor indeed available in Visual Studio .NET
PS:
I will add that I am aware of VB.NET and that I assume you are not setting up some stupid traps here or something, are you?
|
|
|
|
|
I am not trying to trick you, nor anyone else. VB.NET is a new language - hell, even Microsoft are marketting it as such. Hence, VB code not compiling in VS.NET is completely irrelavent.
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave, CPUA: 0x0b0b
Contents of my clipboard:
Barclays Visa Connect - 4936-3503-2 -- sh*t, I'd better edit the rest out...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
