Time to vent
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
Obligatory XKCD[^]. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
someone always seem
You appear to have missed an s.
Or perhaps I meant "someone always has seams"
-
Or perhaps I meant "someone always has seams"
Nah, I'm unseamly.
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
On a serious note... I think it's great that in Q/A here on CP we can (though getting people to do it is another matter) segregate these concerns (as Comments) from actual helpful answers.
-
On a serious note... I think it's great that in Q/A here on CP we can (though getting people to do it is another matter) segregate these concerns (as Comments) from actual helpful answers.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
segregate these concerns (as Comments) from actual helpful answers
Please see my solution and you'll see that everything else is irrelevant. ;P
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
Fine, I hear your vent, and my ears are still okay, and true 'tis that suffering shared may be suffering diluted; but, if you are venting re StackOverFlow, why not post your thoughts on their 'Meta forum ? cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about <XYZ>, not the original question.
Unfortunately, that's human nature.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
Obligatory XKCD[^]. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Never fails, there is always one.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about <XYZ>, not the original question.
Unfortunately, that's human nature.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
Oh, I thought you said "human manure".
-
Oh, I thought you said "human manure".
Po-tay-to po-tah-to.
-
Never fails, there is always one.
There can be Only One!
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about <XYZ>, not the original question.
Unfortunately, that's human nature.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
DavidCrow wrote:
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Comment se fait-il que quand un développeur poste une question ou un commentaire sur certains forum (ici mais surtout ailleurs) et utilise un exemple délibérément trivial pour illustrer un point, il semble toujours au moins un intervenant qui ne tient pas compte de la question/réponse et déconstruit le code trivial ? Parfois longuement. Malheureusement le fil finit souvent être sur cette critique, pas à la question initiale. Dans une veine connexe, quand quelqu'un a une question précise sur une bibliothèque, une personne toujours semblent suggérer une bibliothèque de remplacement. Je préfère la STL dans la majeure partie des MFC, mais si quelqu'un pose des questions sur, dire, CString MFC, c'est assez gênant de voir quelqu'un rabâcher que "you doit utiliser std::string. " (c'est ennuyeux surtout quand le commentaire sarcastique ne résout en fait tout le problème étant donné que la fonctionnalité n'est pas prise en charge dans la suggestion remplaçant. le pire est ceux qui disent "use boost"pour tout quand ils n'ont aucune compréhension des contraintes pétitionnaires ou il y a des solutions de rechange supérieures.) EDIT : J'ai purgé maintenant parce que quelqu'un sur un autre forum cela ne me, mais il est très aggravant à google un problème, cliquez sur ce que vous pensez, c'est une réponse seulement à trouver un débat long sans rapport avec la question initiale toujours sans réponse (je cherche principalement à vous, débordement de pile). (Google translate.)
-
Comment se fait-il que quand un développeur poste une question ou un commentaire sur certains forum (ici mais surtout ailleurs) et utilise un exemple délibérément trivial pour illustrer un point, il semble toujours au moins un intervenant qui ne tient pas compte de la question/réponse et déconstruit le code trivial ? Parfois longuement. Malheureusement le fil finit souvent être sur cette critique, pas à la question initiale. Dans une veine connexe, quand quelqu'un a une question précise sur une bibliothèque, une personne toujours semblent suggérer une bibliothèque de remplacement. Je préfère la STL dans la majeure partie des MFC, mais si quelqu'un pose des questions sur, dire, CString MFC, c'est assez gênant de voir quelqu'un rabâcher que "you doit utiliser std::string. " (c'est ennuyeux surtout quand le commentaire sarcastique ne résout en fait tout le problème étant donné que la fonctionnalité n'est pas prise en charge dans la suggestion remplaçant. le pire est ceux qui disent "use boost"pour tout quand ils n'ont aucune compréhension des contraintes pétitionnaires ou il y a des solutions de rechange supérieures.) EDIT : J'ai purgé maintenant parce que quelqu'un sur un autre forum cela ne me, mais il est très aggravant à google un problème, cliquez sur ce que vous pensez, c'est une réponse seulement à trouver un débat long sans rapport avec la question initiale toujours sans réponse (je cherche principalement à vous, débordement de pile). (Google translate.)
-
So was I. :laugh:
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
It is of my opinion and experience that Geeks/Nerds...IT/Software people are some of the most critical people in the world, not just my world. I am guilty of this crime as well.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism
case in point... :sigh:
-
Why is it that when a developer posts a question or comment on some forum (here, but especially elsewhere) and uses a deliberately trivial example to illustrate a point, there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code? Sometimes at great length. Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism, not the original question. In a related vein, when someone has a specific question about a library, someone always seem to suggest an alternate library. I prefer STL over most of MFC, but if someone asks about, say, MFC CString, it's quite annoying to see someone harping that "you should be using std::string." (It's all the more annoying when the snide comment doesn't actually solve the problem at all since the feature isn't supported in the alternate suggestion. the worse are those who say "use boost" for everything, when they have no understanding of the petitioners constraints and/or there are superior alternate solutions.) EDIT: I vented now because someone on a different forum just did this to me, however it's very aggravating to google a problem, click on what you think is an answer only to find it a long irrelevant discussion with the original question still unanswered (I'm looking mainly at you, stack overflow.)
-
It is of my opinion and experience that Geeks/Nerds...IT/Software people are some of the most critical people in the world, not just my world. I am guilty of this crime as well.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately the thread often ends up being about this criticism
case in point... :sigh:
The worst part is that most of them are wrong. I've only met a few people who were right, and agreed with me before I educated them.
throw new NullReferenceException(null);
