Dijkstra
-
Ah. Now I understand the point you're making. So now the student is teaching me? I just write what comes to mind, sometimes emotion gets mixed in. I don't recognize the rhetorical question as one, just like I do not recognize passive-aggressive. I've never had a real education, something I intend to remedy this year and which will take more than just "this" year. There's some area's where my skills could be improved upon, so to speak. See the first line in my sig for a hint why. Given your reaction, you're ahead of me on that point. Take heart in that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
>So now the student is teaching me. Not at all. We are all different and have our own way of expressing ourselves. Your argument might still be valid, however the way you express it makes it difficult( not impossible) to follow
-
edit: You start with two rhetorical statements (two questions) one after the other, usually that’s not how an argument is made. I had to say it. > we speak with passion In my opinion passion is one thing it has a positive meaning, lashing out by breaking the boundaries of politeness (which is what I did) is something else.
-
Eddy just curious, your way of addressing is always so sketchy, do you always expect the other person to guess the second half of the thing you’re trying to say?
-
Calin Negru wrote:
In my opinion passion is one thing it has a positive meaning,
Rather certain that almost everyone would be comfortable with the statement that Hitler's speeches were passionate. But many would not claim that the passion was positive.
-
Calin Negru wrote:
In my opinion passion is one thing it has a positive meaning,
Rather certain that almost everyone would be comfortable with the statement that Hitler's speeches were passionate. But many would not claim that the passion was positive.
jschell wrote:
But many would not claim that the passion was positive.
Many would be wrong then. You can hardly blame "passionate speaking" for the results.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Calin Negru wrote:
In my opinion passion is one thing it has a positive meaning,
Rather certain that almost everyone would be comfortable with the statement that Hitler's speeches were passionate. But many would not claim that the passion was positive.
>Hitler’s speeches were passionate Some people think it was cold, calculated strategy
-
I would consider the response concise and on point. But however I can see that someone with less experience perhaps in forums and/or with development might not understand what was implied.
> I would consider the response concise and on point. If you’re talking about the reply [2 Jan 23:48] , nothing unusual with that reply in its own right. When you corroborate that reply with what he said in the data base thread you will notice a gambling tendency. He’s providing feedback on questions that are not there. In [2 Jan 23:48] he makes the assumption I did not write a Dijkstra implementation already, he has no grounds to make that assumption. Again I’m not saying he’s doing it on purpose. However it’s difficult to cope when you’re trying to learn something and you’re only receiving evasive answers. When the answer is 100 percent between the lines you can’t learn much
-
> I would consider the response concise and on point. If you’re talking about the reply [2 Jan 23:48] , nothing unusual with that reply in its own right. When you corroborate that reply with what he said in the data base thread you will notice a gambling tendency. He’s providing feedback on questions that are not there. In [2 Jan 23:48] he makes the assumption I did not write a Dijkstra implementation already, he has no grounds to make that assumption. Again I’m not saying he’s doing it on purpose. However it’s difficult to cope when you’re trying to learn something and you’re only receiving evasive answers. When the answer is 100 percent between the lines you can’t learn much
Calin Negru wrote:
When you corroborate that reply with what he said in the data base thread you will notice a gambling tendency. He’s providing feedback on questions that are not there.
Conversations of any sort are always based on assumptions. The post I read made sense to me as a response given to the post that I read. I understood immediately what he was saying. But, as I said, that is likely due to the decades of experience that I have.
Calin Negru wrote:
When the answer is 100 percent between the lines you can’t learn much
The reality is that forums, all forums of any sort, cannot attempt to explain absolutely everything to every single question. There is not enough time in the universe. And as an very specific example that you will encounter often is that responses, instead of answering the question, will attempt to explain why it should be done in a different manner. Those responses are in fact very often correct. And quite possibly are often correct even for the question asked. But sometimes there are reasons that the original post did not provide which mean they are wrong. So wasting everyone's time. But again that is a case of assumptions being made.
-
Calin Negru wrote:
When you corroborate that reply with what he said in the data base thread you will notice a gambling tendency. He’s providing feedback on questions that are not there.
Conversations of any sort are always based on assumptions. The post I read made sense to me as a response given to the post that I read. I understood immediately what he was saying. But, as I said, that is likely due to the decades of experience that I have.
Calin Negru wrote:
When the answer is 100 percent between the lines you can’t learn much
The reality is that forums, all forums of any sort, cannot attempt to explain absolutely everything to every single question. There is not enough time in the universe. And as an very specific example that you will encounter often is that responses, instead of answering the question, will attempt to explain why it should be done in a different manner. Those responses are in fact very often correct. And quite possibly are often correct even for the question asked. But sometimes there are reasons that the original post did not provide which mean they are wrong. So wasting everyone's time. But again that is a case of assumptions being made.
To my mind there are two ways to react to a question in a forum. As a person who is trying to help you can either show your cards all at once or keep your cards to yourself and provide clues about The cards you’re holding. As a person seeking help if the answer you got is from the second category, you have to either come up with a second question or move on to other things. If you file a second question the person helping you can find it constructive ( the person feels that the second question is taking into account the hints you have been already given) or not. When your second question is perceived as constructive usually you receive an explicit answer ( the person that is helping you shows you the cards or at least offers you more clues) When your second question is not perceived as constructive you get dismissed. There is no point in keeping the discussion going from there on. When you keep the discussion going for too long and all your answers are 100 percent implied and rhetoric your contribution in revealing the truth is null.
-
Yeah but sometimes what is expensive ( precious) in our terms is cheap in computer terms and vice versa what is cheap in our terms turns to be expensive in computer terms ( takes a lot of power to process) In this case you would think something good is produced that goes to waste
Common examples include: the recipe for baking a cake, the method we use to solve a long division problem, the process of doing laundry, and the functionality of a search engine are all examples of an algorithm.