Time to vent
-
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);
-
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);
Dar Brett wrote:
before I educated them
Are you really educating them? Most "things" are not right or wrong, but an opinion of what is the correct way or wrong way. Some of these opinions are widely accepted, thus "turning" into fact, which of course, is not true. I am of the opinion that if you are on a magical quest to educate people in your way of thinking, that you are on a quest of epic proportions where the treasure to be found is failure. In summary, "who cares". ;)
-
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:
In my opinion it's quite the oposite and I have found developers and other IT techies very easy going and forgiving. In my experience the most difficult nitpickers are Esperantists :-) Then again there are rather a lot of IT folks in the Esperanto community so perhaps the conclusion is that the difficult IT-ers are the ones who learn Esperanto and would that include me or am I exempt for I knew Esperanto before I knew anything about computers let alone programming.
-
Dar Brett wrote:
before I educated them
Are you really educating them? Most "things" are not right or wrong, but an opinion of what is the correct way or wrong way. Some of these opinions are widely accepted, thus "turning" into fact, which of course, is not true. I am of the opinion that if you are on a magical quest to educate people in your way of thinking, that you are on a quest of epic proportions where the treasure to be found is failure. In summary, "who cares". ;)
I never usually don't take it too seriously. I just like to argue and discuss pointless things to break the monotony, but occasionally I really do feel the need to actually educate people - Like when team leads think that source control is just a nice to have.
-
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.)
There seems to be more than one issue here, Grasshopper. 1) That there are unhelpful and aggravating people; and, 2) That acceptance of 1) has not yet occurred. Which of these is more likely to yield itself to a solution? ;)
Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
-
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
-
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.)
Concur. That's why I don't spend much time on forums.
-
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.)
Stack overflow IS a problem in the developer world. It may be large, but its a cabal of the worst kinds of people this world has, and who have some kind of problem being normal. Some world class developers post there, some known others with a common monniker you wouldnt guess. So just as Las Vegas is better than determinism, its a gamble whether you get an answer, and God have mercy if someone doesnt think your question is up to their standards of ?? so just what are their standards? Some cranky goof upset at their role playing and foul mood where perhaps other players criticized them, now they are mad and have the control to punish developers who are looking to solve problems in the real world... stack overflow SUCKS!! let good or bad questions persist, let obviously wrong questions or answers persist, no they have the need to micromanage peoples' lives and get off on being sadistic, stack overflow users with control, SUCK!! as Homer said: Ive seen people suck before, but they (stack overflow goofs) are the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked. we need to boycott the use of stack overflow, insist on using code project or msdn or anything else. Its not just a minor annoyance, stack overflow is or has become a scourge on the developer world
-
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:
...there seems to always be at least one commenter who ignores the question/answer and deconstructs the trivial code?
Maybe not everyone in the conversation has the same goals as you do. Maybe, as interested as you are in your answer, they are that interested in deconstructing the code, perhaps for learning. That doesn't make them an idiot or a griefer. Railing against their natural behavior raises your blood pressure without affecting them in the slightest. If you ask 100 random forum-readers a question, you don't get 100 complete, correct, useful answers. You can usually find the correct answer in the mix. If you got your question answered, getting worked up over the non-correct answers has no value.
-
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.)
-
I feel your pain, Joe, but recall that these forums are seen by many as venues for establishing reputation. Every time you post something, you're not simply asking for help, you're creating an opportunity for someone to score points.
bkebamc wrote:
I feel your pain, Joe, but recall that these forums are seen by many as venues for establishing reputation. Every time you post something, you're not simply asking for help, you're creating an opportunity for someone to score points.
Great point! if someone comes to me with a resume saying they have a StackOverflow reputation or score of having downvoted or flamed 1000+ developers or whatever the h. a good score is supposed to be there? I will thank them and show them the door.
-
Obligatory XKCD[^]. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
It's really sad when you eventually remember that you were
DenverCoder9back then.Software Zen:
delete this; -
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.)
(one of the hazards of writing for the office -- get called away to a meeting and forget to send it...)
Quote:
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."
Hmmm... Was that some sort of a test ?? .. To see who would comment on it... ?? - std:string is not part of the STL. - The STL is a product created and originally maintained by HP, then SGI, then AT&T then other (Matt Austern was the last maintainer I know of, and he kept bring it with him as he changed jobs) - A variation of the STL (from 1995) was incorporated into the C++ Standard Library. Since the STL variant formed a large & pervasive part of the Standard Library, the Standard Library is oft-times mistakenly called "the STL" (see point 1 above), implying that it's a third-partry library (like the STL). It is not. The Standard Library is officially part of the language. - Hence you cannot choose between "the STL" and "MFC". You are always using the Standard Library whether you want to or not. The only choice is if you use MFC "also". -
Truth, James
-
(one of the hazards of writing for the office -- get called away to a meeting and forget to send it...)
Quote:
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."
Hmmm... Was that some sort of a test ?? .. To see who would comment on it... ?? - std:string is not part of the STL. - The STL is a product created and originally maintained by HP, then SGI, then AT&T then other (Matt Austern was the last maintainer I know of, and he kept bring it with him as he changed jobs) - A variation of the STL (from 1995) was incorporated into the C++ Standard Library. Since the STL variant formed a large & pervasive part of the Standard Library, the Standard Library is oft-times mistakenly called "the STL" (see point 1 above), implying that it's a third-partry library (like the STL). It is not. The Standard Library is officially part of the language. - Hence you cannot choose between "the STL" and "MFC". You are always using the Standard Library whether you want to or not. The only choice is if you use MFC "also". -
Truth, James
;P (At least you sent it. You could have rebooted and then forgotten all about your pedanticness. Months from now you would have woken in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, remembering your post, but by then it would be too late. You'd then spend the rest of your life fretting about the lost opportunity.)
