ely_bob wrote:

But seriously, GOF is a good book to read at least once, but best read by someone who has been programming for at least a couple of years. It gives a conversational framework for interacting with people who are "pattern happy" as well as rounding out the self taught programmer as per recognizing that what they have been doing has been done before...

I agree that's worthwhile, but I guess what I meant was that even if that is your goal, there are now better books out there for that purpose. I guess it's kind of similar to what I'd recommend for someone learning to program C++. The first book I'd recommend wouldn't be Stroustrup's C++ reference, even though that's the "bible", if you see what I mean. It's easier to get started with other books, even though a serious C++ programmer will want it.

Luc Pattyn wrote:

if it is not in a GUI event handler, hence already being executed by some other thread, then you are performing illegal cross-thread operations to GUI components. You might want to read this article[^].

But since he's not getting an exception, that can't be it. Unless there's more to it than I've experienced.

Understood. Rock on, be strong.

I was just jokin' back with you, happy new year.

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

I have immediate access to the nearest restroom, I can watch the movies naked if i want to.... Try watching Knight and Day under those circumstances, and it's pretty nice little movie.

I'll pretend I didn't hear you talk about Tom Cruise shirtless in this movie.

John C wrote:

Try learning to play blackjack in a casino, for example, instead of from a book and we'll see how bad of a blackjack player you are. Speaking of inane.

What's your point? There are some things in life where experience is a terrible teacher, and that's a perfect example of one. It's basically a math problem that can be solved by computers, but generally not by people. No, I'm not writing a book. Frankly your reply makes no sense.

Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:

Playing with grandkids, working on my radio equipment, developing engineering analysis techniques, hiking and camping, studying to keep up with technology and learn new things, helping the local radio club, traveling, etc. I'm never bored or at a loss for something to keep me occupied and entertained. And in 2 more weeks I start grad school again.

Well you are quite the guy Mr. Walt Fair, Jr., P.E.

Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:

Of course I rarely watch TV, either.

Oh of course.

Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:

I find TV and computer games to be a waste of time better spent actually doing something.

Such as?

John C wrote:

the school of hard knocks can't be substituted by any book or course of study.

Comments like this are so inane. None of the elements of a lifetime of learning can be substituted by any of the other elements. Sometimes experience is helpful, sometimes it's not. Try learning to play blackjack in a casino, for example, instead of from a book and we'll see how bad of a blackjack player you are. Considering the fact that books are "online" now makes your comment about books being "20th century" quite.... weird.

John C wrote:

anyone can learn anything they need online now and the school of hard knocks can't be substituted by any book or course of study

Well which is it? Can you learn anything you need online or not? I thought "any course of study" would include "learning anything they need online", but then that can't be substituted for the school of hard knocks? If you're only learning by "hard knocks", you're wasting a lot of time.

Well he might have a point about some not-so-great C++ code. But basically, the book is a catalog of preexisting solutions to software problems. So it's kind of hard to call it "merely" that, since that's what it claims to be, and that's a valuable thing. If it gets misapplied, that's the programmer's fault, not the book's.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the premise in the original post was that the book benefits our profession. It does not.

You're just off a little, that's all. It's like saying alcohol has hurt our society, when in fact it has brought a lot of enjoyment and health when used correctly. A book that is technically correct can't hurt anything. You might want to say that misapplication or overapplication of the concepts in the book has hurt the profession. The book itself has helped our profession.

Mark Nischalke wrote:

Is this fault of the book or its authors though?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Having said that, I view the GoF book kind of like some people view an album like Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Important? Yes. Influential? Yes. Does anyone actually listen to it? No. In other words, if you don't have the book I wouldn't bother buying it. Get a newer book that is more applicable to what you're doing, or search forums and the web, but in any case you can leverage patterns without reading that book.

Gizz wrote:

As for the comparison between electrician and plumber, being as I am qualified in both disciplines

But at one point you were only qualified in one of them, right? Which if you think about it, is kind of his point. I think this is one of those debates that doesn't have a correct answer.

dpminusa wrote:

Hopefully you will think about this and adjust your tone.

Yes father.

dpminusa wrote:

As feedback, I don't agree with your comment that "the details don't matter".

Sorry if I sounded snooty. However, you responded to the original question with "not enough detail". That's simply not true. The OP asked what was a pretty cut and dried question that didn't need any more detail to answer. It would be as if he asked "is it possible to assign integer values for X and Y such that X + Y = SquareRoot(3)", and you answered "not enough detail - it depends on the values of X and Y." That's simply incorrect. It's not personal, I was just simply correcting your answer for the benefit of the OP. The answer to his question is "no", and the answer doesn't depend on the combination of pieces putting the king in check, as you stated. Nor can castling "sometimes handle the problem". Again, it's not personal, it's simply factually incorrect. (OK I had some fun with "castles", but hey let's be honest - the only people who use that term are 4 year olds and non-chess-players.) But since you brought it up, you have described yourself as a "competitive" chess player, and someone with "several degrees", including math. I haven't posted my credentials, so one might ask you the same question you asked me - how does being snooty help anyone? Credentials don't matter much when the answer is wrong. I agree the problem was interesting. Is defining a problem critical to solving it? Obviously. Was there any more information we needed to know to answer his question? No, it was very straightforward, concise, well-defined and complete as written. I'm genuinely curious about what you thought was missing that was necessary to formulate a correct answer. In fact the question was so concise and well-defined that I'm also curious as to why you think the OP is "clearly very sharp". I suspect he merely copied that question from someone else, which is fine (although if it was a homework assignment that probably should have been stated), but it doesn't make him "clearly very sharp". Maybe he is, but actually I think many people could have gotten an answer by some clever Googling in about the time it took him to post the question.

dpminusa wrote:

I am not sure what your anger is about.

I'm not sure why you picked up on anger. I simply replied to the inaccuracies in your post. You might have played "competitive" chess, whatever you mean by that, but it doesn't make your post any more authoritative. The original question was relatively logical and technical in nature - effectively a math problem - and I think you'll find on any technical forum if you post an incorrect answer you're going to get corrected. At least I hope so - that's really one of the main reasons for having a public forum - so answers can get peer reviewed and corrected, making the whole process much more valuable. I'm sure if you asked a question here and got conflicting answers, you'd appreciate somebody clearing up the discrepancies. So.... lighten up dude :)

JLengi wrote:

It is possible to deliver a double-check en passant. But it is not possible to get out of double-check en passant.

I was saying it's possible to deliver a double check en passant even without the pawn giving check. But with regard to your second point, I'd have to agree that's true.

JLengi wrote:

If you are capturing a piece in one space while moving to a different space, then it is en passant. If you capture en passant, then your opponent's previous move was advancing a pawn two spaces from its initial position. If your opponent introduced a double-check by moving a pawn, then that pawn must be one of the pieces that is attacking your king.

Not quite sure what you're implying here, but it is possible to capture a pawn en passant, which delivers a double discovered check, without your capturing pawn giving check. Wikipedia shows an example of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_check[^]

Mike Hankey wrote:

We were a poor family

You couldn't even afford a "t" in Christmas. Now that's poor!

tf_ics wrote:

Sure it is... Assume that two white pieces, such as, a rook & queen, check along the same file. If the black can move off the file or interpose, no double check.

As I wrote in my other post, that is not considered "double check" by standard terminology. Only 1 piece has put the king in check. Double check is not "defined" as a condition which forces the king to move, but simply that double check is 2 checks from 2 pieces in 2 different directions, and it so happens that the only way out of this is to move the king. I assume there's a typo in your post, where you said "if the black can move off the file or interpose." If that was supposed to be "if the black king can move off the file or another piece can interpose", then there's a third way out of the situation you described. For example if you have 2 connected rooks and one of them gives discovered check, then by capturing that rook you are simultaneously blocking the other rook from giving check. This sounds like a homework problem or something, and I wonder if the teacher might be expecting an answer when he doesn't fully understand the problem or rules.

modified on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:57 PM