www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Sorry and Goodbye...

reply A <privacy.is.security gmailisntprivate.com> writes:
I use to be a part of this community for some time, I stayed 
anonymous as I don't like forming connections as they are 
complicated. I've come to a realization recently that I made a 
huge mistake in my calculations. I was under the assumption that 
all of your minds work the way mine does, but I realize now that 
was a very stupid mistake.

I don't have "opinions". I base all my "opinions" purely on 
observable fact. If there is a statistic that can't be observed 
as fact I view it as a probability and make determinations to 
observer the best solution for a given result. I also have what I 
guess you would describe as a photographic memory. So I see all 
the consistency a normal person wouldn't and that might be where 
a large part of where the miscommunication has happened.

Walter- I notice a lot of inconsistency in your arguments that I 
perceived as deception. I see now that could be explained away by 
a number of factors, among which may include bad memory (compared 
to mine; sorry) or possibly a coping mechanism you've constructed 
that you aren't aware of. Sorry I can't help you more, you simply 
avoided talking to me lol. Some of the bugs in DMD are a 
reflection of that, simply avoided.

Andrei- You said you couldn't understand why someone wouldn't 
accept your help? How do you think I feel about you? For some 
reason it seems you don't think someone in this community is 
capable of helping you. I won't presume to know what that is, but 
I would suggest you post some of your ideas anonymously and see 
what people really think of them. I think you may have been in 
the spotlight too long, but that's just a hypothesis at this 
point.

Mike Parker- We had a disagreement about a change that you were 
making. I said you didn't care about the community and you took 
that the wrong way. What you were implementing negatively 
impacted the community. I presumed you knew, but I see now that 
was an incorrect assumption to make, and I should have assumed 
you were incompetent at encouraging community growth. I can see 
how the change could have been made to protect Walter, but you 
can't really do both at the same time, you need to pick one.

I hope you see this as the way I intended it, to help you in the 
way someone managed to help me. To see something about my self 
that I don't see myself or that I forced myself to forget. I know 
change is difficult, and it is even more difficult when you don't 
know for certain whether a change will actually be positive or 
negative. Sometimes you do have to take a chance though.

```d
I'm glad to see there's finally syntax highlighting, you're 
moving in the right direction, keep it up :)!
```

Sorry if I don't respond, I'm going through a list of things I 
thought I was crazy about, but so far they've all proven to be 
true. I have a terrible fear of rejection, so I don't want to 
read any of your replies because it is easier for me lol.

-Some asshole with aspergers
May 22
next sibling parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:
 I use to be a part of this community for some time, I stayed 
 anonymous as I don't like forming connections as they are 
 complicated. I've come to a realization recently that I made a 
 huge mistake in my calculations. I was under the assumption 
 that all of your minds work the way mine does, but I realize 
 now that was a very stupid mistake.

 [...]
Interesting anecdotes, but it would be beneficial to have some background on what you're talking about so that others can understand you point of view.
May 22
prev sibling next sibling parent Ola Fosheim Grostad <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:
 Sorry if I don't respond, I'm going through a list of things I 
 thought I was crazy about, but so far they've all proven to be 
 true. I have a terrible fear of rejection, so I don't want to 
 read any of your replies because it is easier for me lol.
In case you took a peek anway: Take a break from it all and come back and participate later when you feel like it. :-) I totally agree that we need to be objective, evaluate and measure. Identifying and admitting technical weak spots is important. <3
May 22
prev sibling next sibling parent zjh <fqbqrr 163.com> writes:
Sometimes, you just ignore it.--Walter.

Maybe there's too much criticism of them, so it's just a layer of 
protection.
May 22
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/22/21 12:26 PM, A wrote:
 
 Andrei- You said you couldn't understand why someone wouldn't accept 
 your help? How do you think I feel about you? For some reason it seems 
 you don't think someone in this community is capable of helping you. I 
 won't presume to know what that is, but I would suggest you post some of 
 your ideas anonymously and see what people really think of them. I think 
 you may have been in the spotlight too long, but that's just a 
 hypothesis at this point.
Speaking just for myself - good stuff. Thanks, much appreciated!
May 23
parent reply deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 15:37:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 5/22/21 12:26 PM, A wrote:
 
 Andrei- You said you couldn't understand why someone wouldn't 
 accept your help? How do you think I feel about you? For some 
 reason it seems you don't think someone in this community is 
 capable of helping you. I won't presume to know what that is, 
 but I would suggest you post some of your ideas anonymously 
 and see what people really think of them. I think you may have 
 been in the spotlight too long, but that's just a hypothesis 
 at this point.
Speaking just for myself - good stuff. Thanks, much appreciated!
Plot twist, A stands for Andrei.
May 31
parent RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305 gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 10:17:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 15:37:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:
 On 5/22/21 12:26 PM, A wrote:
 
 Andrei- You said you couldn't understand why someone wouldn't 
 accept your help? How do you think I feel about you? For some 
 reason it seems you don't think someone in this community is 
 capable of helping you. I won't presume to know what that is, 
 but I would suggest you post some of your ideas anonymously 
 and see what people really think of them. I think you may 
 have been in the spotlight too long, but that's just a 
 hypothesis at this point.
Speaking just for myself - good stuff. Thanks, much appreciated!
Plot twist, A stands for Andrei.
Or Amaury ;)
May 31
prev sibling parent reply SealabJaster <sealabjaster gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:
 -Some asshole with aspergers
As a fellow spergic arsehole, give your mind time to settle, and don't be afraid to make yourself known if/when you come back.
May 23
parent reply Avrina <avrina12309412342 gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 16:14:39 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:
 On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:
 -Some asshole with aspergers
As a fellow spergic arsehole, give your mind time to settle, and don't be afraid to make yourself known if/when you come back.
Hey I actually thought Walter might be able to help me with something. I'm lazy so here's the quote that got me interested, if you don't see it like I do, let me know and we can try to figure out where the misunderstanding lies. My intentions are good, literally. ``` What is the meaning of trust but verify? In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been used to describe the implementation of downcasting: the compiler trusts that the downcast term will be of the desired type, but this assumption is verified at runtime in order to avoid undefined behavior. ``` A quick question, if someone was developing a software simulation of an experimental explosion. What would be the real life equivalent of "undefined behaviour"? Does anyone know where I might find such an expert and who might be able to give such a person the right amount of information they feel at the right time, but again. Trust, but verify when dealing with nuclear.
May 29
next sibling parent Ola Fosheim Grostad <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 29 May 2021 at 22:19:45 UTC, Avrina wrote:
 What would be the real life equivalent of "undefined 
 behaviour"? Does anyone know where I might find such an expert 
 and who might be able to give such a person the right amount of 
 information they feel at the right time, but again. Trust, but 
 verify when dealing with nuclear.
The real life equivalent of undefined behaviour would be driving a car out in an ocean, since you are doing something that is outside the trafic laws for roads those laws no longer applies. In a spec, undefined behaviour just means that the program was not written in the specified language. This is specific to low level languages. The language is the set of all valid programs. High level languages checks that the program is valid at either compile or runtime. So there is no undefined behaviour in those.
May 29
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/29/2021 3:19 PM, Avrina wrote:
 What is the meaning of trust but verify?
 In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been used to describe
the 
 implementation of downcasting: the compiler trusts that the downcast term will 
 be of the desired type, but this assumption is verified at runtime in order to 
 avoid undefined behavior.
It means you trust people to do the right thing, but still verify that it gets done right. For example, you trust the pilot to fly the airplane safely, but the copilot is there to verify it. In other words, it's safety through redundancy.
May 30
parent reply claptrap <clap trap.com> writes:
On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 22:29:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/29/2021 3:19 PM, Avrina wrote:
 What is the meaning of trust but verify?
 In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been 
 used to describe the implementation of downcasting: the 
 compiler trusts that the downcast term will be of the desired 
 type, but this assumption is verified at runtime in order to 
 avoid undefined behavior.
It means you trust people to do the right thing, but still verify that it gets done right.
Its an awful proverb, it's like 1984 double speak. I mean if I hire a PI to check up on my wife, I cant very well claim that I trust her.
May 31
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/31/21 5:47 AM, claptrap wrote:
 On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 22:29:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/29/2021 3:19 PM, Avrina wrote:
 What is the meaning of trust but verify?
 In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been used to 
 describe the implementation of downcasting: the compiler trusts that 
 the downcast term will be of the desired type, but this assumption is 
 verified at runtime in order to avoid undefined behavior.
It means you trust people to do the right thing, but still verify that it gets done right.
Its an awful proverb, it's like 1984 double speak.
Oh no it isn't.
 I mean if I hire a PI 
 to check up on my wife, I cant very well claim that I trust her.
That would not quite mean trust because a spouse cannot cheat by means of an honest mistake. Better examples are counting the cash in a transaction. That doesn't mean there's no trust involved, it just means there's verification against a possible honest mistake.
Jun 01
parent claptrap <clap trap.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 June 2021 at 10:23:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 On 5/31/21 5:47 AM, claptrap wrote:
 On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 22:29:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/29/2021 3:19 PM, Avrina wrote:
 What is the meaning of trust but verify?
 In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been 
 used to describe the implementation of downcasting: the 
 compiler trusts that the downcast term will be of the 
 desired type, but this assumption is verified at runtime in 
 order to avoid undefined behavior.
It means you trust people to do the right thing, but still verify that it gets done right.
Its an awful proverb, it's like 1984 double speak.
Oh no it isn't.
Oh yes it is!
 I mean if I hire a PI to check up on my wife, I cant very well 
 claim that I trust her.
That would not quite mean trust because a spouse cannot cheat by means of an honest mistake. Better examples are counting the cash in a transaction. That doesn't mean there's no trust involved, it just means there's verification against a possible honest mistake.
A runtime check on a downcast is a check against incompetent programmers not nefarious ones. So the trust in that context is "trust that the programmer knows what hes doing", not "trust that he's honest". But if the compiler then checks it at runtime then it doesn't really trust you at all. So it should be "humans make mistakes, don't trust 'em" but that's not as catchy :)
Jun 02