Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121305 > unrolled thread

Re: We have a new standard!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-27 21:51 -0500
    Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 20:11 -0800
    Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-28 10:19 +0000
      Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-28 16:20 +0100
        Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:32 +0000
          Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-29 14:51 +0100
            Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:16 +0000
              Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 08:34 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-30 09:34 +0000
                  Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 15:37 +0100
                    Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-30 15:08 +0000
                      Re: We have a new standard! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-30 18:06 -0500
                      Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 17:55 +0200
                        Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-01 16:05 +0000
            Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-12-30 00:12 +0200
              Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-30 00:44 +0200
                Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 03:17 -0800
                  Re: We have a new standard! boltar@caprica.org - 2024-12-30 12:00 +0000
                    Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 15:52 +0100
                    Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 18:06 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2024-12-30 22:26 -0500
              Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 03:14 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 16:05 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 16:02 -0800
                  Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 17:58 -0800
                    Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-31 10:54 +0100
                      Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 13:40 -0800
            Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-30 13:25 +0200
              Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 17:15 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-04 21:40 +0200
      Re: We have a new standard! Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-12-28 13:05 -0500
        Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:43 +0000
          Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-29 08:50 -0500
            Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:33 +0800
              Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:17 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 01:08 +0800
                  Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 17:11 +0000
            Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:15 +0000
              Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-29 11:57 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 17:08 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-29 19:50 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#121305 — Re: We have a new standard!

Stefan Ram writes:

>   According to one web site, C++23 (ISO/IEC 14882:2024) was released
>   October 19, 2024.
>
>   (Sorry if it was mentioned here then, and I just did not notice!)

Hip-hip-hooray! Finally, finally they addressed the long-standing criticism  
of C++ being too trivial and too simple, and a kids' language. At last,  
there's some meat on those bones. Watch out, Java! There's a new boss in  
town. Real programming languages' specifications are measured in pounds,  
and not a page count.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#121307

On 12/27/2024 6:51 PM, Sam wrote:
> Stefan Ram writes:
> 
>>   According to one web site, C++23 (ISO/IEC 14882:2024) was released
>>   October 19, 2024.
>>
>>   (Sorry if it was mentioned here then, and I just did not notice!)
> 
> Hip-hip-hooray! Finally, finally they addressed the long-standing 
> criticism of C++ being too trivial and too simple, and a kids' language. 

The new BASIC? ;^) I detect sarcasm... ;^)


> At last, there's some meat on those bones. Watch out, Java! There's a 
> new boss in town. Real programming languages' specifications are 
> measured in pounds, and not a page count.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121308

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 21:51:10 -0500
Sam <sam@email-scan.com> gabbled:
>Stefan Ram writes:
>
>>   According to one web site, C++23 (ISO/IEC 14882:2024) was released
>>   October 19, 2024.
>>
>>   (Sorry if it was mentioned here then, and I just did not notice!)
>
>Hip-hip-hooray! Finally, finally they addressed the long-standing criticism  
>of C++ being too trivial and too simple, and a kids' language. At last,  
>there's some meat on those bones. Watch out, Java! There's a new boss in  
>town. Real programming languages' specifications are measured in pounds,  
>and not a page count.

Watch out Java? Watch out Perl more like! The title of most write only
language could soon change!

Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it but going by C++ 2020
it'll be yet more syntactic soup to support features absolutely no one outside
of ivory tower academic discussions asked for. It'll just add yet more 
complexity to compilers, hence more potential bugs and make the C++ learning
curve even steeper meaning yet more new programmers abandon it - or don't
even start - for languages such as Python.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121309

On 28/12/2024 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 21:51:10 -0500
> Sam <sam@email-scan.com> gabbled:
>> Stefan Ram writes:
>>
>>>   According to one web site, C++23 (ISO/IEC 14882:2024) was released
>>>   October 19, 2024.
>>>
>>>   (Sorry if it was mentioned here then, and I just did not notice!)
>>
>> Hip-hip-hooray! Finally, finally they addressed the long-standing 
>> criticism of C++ being too trivial and too simple, and a kids' 
>> language. At last, there's some meat on those bones. Watch out, Java! 
>> There's a new boss in town. Real programming languages' specifications 
>> are measured in pounds, and not a page count.
> 
> Watch out Java? Watch out Perl more like! The title of most write only
> language could soon change!
> 
> Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it but going by C++ 2020
> it'll be yet more syntactic soup to support features absolutely no one 
> outside
> of ivory tower academic discussions asked for. It'll just add yet 
> morecomplexity to compilers, hence more potential bugs and make the C++ 
> learning
> curve even steeper meaning yet more new programmers abandon it - or don't
> even start - for languages such as Python.
> 

Ah, yes - the classic well-reasoned argument.  Why would one ever want 
to /look/ at the new standard before condemning it?

It's inevitable that most people won't have need of most of the new 
features - C++ is a big language, and has a big standard library, and 
few people use more than a fraction of it.  But all the new features 
will be of some use to some people.  (It's a lot like Python in that 
aspect.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121318

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:20:57 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>On 28/12/2024 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it but going by C++ 2020
>> it'll be yet more syntactic soup to support features absolutely no one 
>> outside
>> of ivory tower academic discussions asked for. It'll just add yet 
>> morecomplexity to compilers, hence more potential bugs and make the C++ 
>> learning
>> curve even steeper meaning yet more new programmers abandon it - or don't
>> even start - for languages such as Python.
>> 
>
>Ah, yes - the classic well-reasoned argument.  Why would one ever want 
>to /look/ at the new standard before condemning it?

Ah yes, the same logic that has produced cars with ever more, harder to use
complexity that no one wants.

>It's inevitable that most people won't have need of most of the new 

For most read 99.9%. 

>features - C++ is a big language, and has a big standard library, and 
>few people use more than a fraction of it.  But all the new features 
>will be of some use to some people.  (It's a lot like Python in that 
>aspect.)

For some read 0.01%. Is it worth it? No.

Also you seem to have little understanding of human nature. Make the learning
curve close to vertical for a language and no one will bother with it. I've 
worked with 20 something devs in the last few years. Not ONE of them bothered 
to learn C++, its all Python, Java (usually learnt at uni - even uni's don't
bother with C++ now) or Web dev. Ask yourself why. At this rate when people 
such as myself retire in the 2030s C++ will become legacy like Cobol and no
amount of bolting on ever more niche features will save it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121321

On 29/12/2024 10:32, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:20:57 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>> On 28/12/2024 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it but going by 
>>> C++ 2020
>>> it'll be yet more syntactic soup to support features absolutely no 
>>> one outside
>>> of ivory tower academic discussions asked for. It'll just add yet 
>>> morecomplexity to compilers, hence more potential bugs and make the 
>>> C++ learning
>>> curve even steeper meaning yet more new programmers abandon it - or 
>>> don't
>>> even start - for languages such as Python.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes - the classic well-reasoned argument.  Why would one ever want 
>> to /look/ at the new standard before condemning it?
> 
> Ah yes, the same logic that has produced cars with ever more, harder to use
> complexity that no one wants.

No, not remotely.  But then, you knew that before making what you 
mistakenly thought was a smart or witty reply.

If you don't like the complexity of newer C++ standards, that's fine. 
If you don't think it is a good direction for the language, fair enough. 
  You can choose a different language, or stick to an older standard, or 
make your own language, or get involved in the C++ standardisation 
processes and try to influence them.

You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree with 
the opinions of the committee members.

But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you want 
to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.  That's no 
more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.

So go away, and read about C++23.  Learn what is new or changed.  /Then/ 
you can come back and tell us what you don't like about it - or perhaps 
you'll find some things that you /do/ like about it.  Either way, you'll 
be at least vaguely qualified to express an opinion on it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B23>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121325

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:51:17 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you want 
>to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.  That's no 
>more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.

Ah ok , its the usual "anyone who disagrees with me POV is ignorant" position
is it?

Back under your bridge troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121334

On 29/12/2024 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:51:17 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you 
>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.  
>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.
> 
> Ah ok , its the usual "anyone who disagrees with me POV is ignorant" 
> position
> is it?
> 

It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement.  You know - by your own 
admission - /nothing/ about C++23.  Your ignorance is not a matter of 
opinion but a matter of fact.

I'm not disagreeing about your /opinions/ of C++23 - I am simply stating 
that any opinions you have, until you have learned at least a little 
about the new standard, are totally worthless.

Maybe once you have gone away and learned a little, we can talk about 
the new features of C++23, and agree or disagree about particulars or 
general aspects of it.  Until then, you might like to note that I 
haven't as yet offered any opinions about C++23 at all - so how could 
you possibly think I disagree with you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121335

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:34:32 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>On 29/12/2024 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:51:17 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you 
>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.  
>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.
>> 
>> Ah ok , its the usual "anyone who disagrees with me POV is ignorant" 
>> position
>> is it?
>> 
>
>It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement.  You know - by your own 
>admission - /nothing/ about C++23.  Your ignorance is not a matter of 
>opinion but a matter of fact.

I'm going by 2017 and 2020 adding little of value to the language. I very
much doubt they've suddenly found some paradigm changing additions.

>I'm not disagreeing about your /opinions/ of C++23 - I am simply stating 
>that any opinions you have, until you have learned at least a little 
>about the new standard, are totally worthless.

So you think I've never browsed anything to do with 23? Thats a hell of an
assumption.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121342

On 30/12/2024 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:34:32 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>> On 29/12/2024 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:51:17 +0100
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you 
>>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion. 
>>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.
>>>
>>> Ah ok , its the usual "anyone who disagrees with me POV is ignorant" 
>>> position
>>> is it?
>>>
>>
>> It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement.  You know - by your 
>> own admission - /nothing/ about C++23.  Your ignorance is not a matter 
>> of opinion but a matter of fact.
> 
> I'm going by 2017 and 2020 adding little of value to the language. I very
> much doubt they've suddenly found some paradigm changing additions.
> 
>> I'm not disagreeing about your /opinions/ of C++23 - I am simply 
>> stating that any opinions you have, until you have learned at least a 
>> little about the new standard, are totally worthless.
> 
> So you think I've never browsed anything to do with 23? Thats a hell of an
> assumption.
> 

You wrote: "Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it..." 
followed by assumptions about C++23.  The only assumption /I/ made was 
that you were telling the truth - was that unreasonable?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121345

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:37:45 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 30/12/2024 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:34:32 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>>> On 29/12/2024 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:51:17 +0100
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:
>>>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you 
>>>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion. 
>>>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Ah ok , its the usual "anyone who disagrees with me POV is ignorant" 
>>>> position
>>>> is it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement.  You know - by your 
>>> own admission - /nothing/ about C++23.  Your ignorance is not a matter 
>>> of opinion but a matter of fact.
>> 
>> I'm going by 2017 and 2020 adding little of value to the language. I very
>> much doubt they've suddenly found some paradigm changing additions.
>> 
>>> I'm not disagreeing about your /opinions/ of C++23 - I am simply 
>>> stating that any opinions you have, until you have learned at least a 
>>> little about the new standard, are totally worthless.
>> 
>> So you think I've never browsed anything to do with 23? Thats a hell of an
>> assumption.
>> 
>
>You wrote: "Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it..." 
>followed by assumptions about C++23.  The only assumption /I/ made was 
>that you were telling the truth - was that unreasonable?

I'd skimmed the wiki entry, nothing in depth. It was enough. But hey, they've
renamed puts() to println() so win! Not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121347

On 12/30/24 10:08, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:37:45 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
...
>> You wrote: "Being serious, I haven't even checked whats new in it..." 
>> followed by assumptions about C++23.  The only assumption /I/ made was 
>> that you were telling the truth - was that unreasonable?
> 
> I'd skimmed the wiki entry, nothing in depth. It was enough. But hey, they've
> renamed puts() to println() so win! Not.

So, David's assumption was unreasonable?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121356

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:08:13 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

> 
> I'd skimmed the wiki entry, nothing in depth. It was enough. But hey,
> they've renamed puts() to println() so win! Not.
> 

Congratulations. You are not an ordinary idiot, but quite extraordinary
one. Not the best, but likely you belong to top 5%.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121357

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 17:55:01 +0200
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:08:13 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>
>> 
>> I'd skimmed the wiki entry, nothing in depth. It was enough. But hey,
>> they've renamed puts() to println() so win! Not.
>> 
>
>Congratulations. You are not an ordinary idiot, but quite extraordinary
>one. Not the best, but likely you belong to top 5%.

That your considered opinion is it aspie?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121332

On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:

> You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree with 
> the opinions of the committee members.
> 
> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you want 
> to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.  That's no 
> more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to anyone.

Thanks David, for standing against the trolls. It's a pity that personal 
freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has exactly the 
same worth as your expert knowledge".

I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might hurt 
other people, or the nature for that matter. Boasting ignorant jumble 
can easily do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121333

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:12:31 +0200
Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:

> On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:
> 
> > You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree
> > with the opinions of the committee members.
> > 
> > But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you
> > want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.
> > That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to
> > anyone.  
> 
> Thanks David, for standing against the trolls. It's a pity that
> personal freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has
> exactly the same worth as your expert knowledge".
> 
> I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might
> hurt other people, or the nature for that matter. Boasting ignorant
> jumble can easily do that.
> 

It seems that Muttley@dastardlyhq.com still didn't figure out why
stating strong opinion about something that you not just didn't learn
in depth, but didn't even look at casually is less than optimal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121337

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:12:31 +0200
> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>
>> On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree
>>> with the opinions of the committee members.
>>>
>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you
>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.
>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> Thanks David, for standing against the trolls.  It's a pity that
>> personal freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has
>> exactly the same worth as your expert knowledge".
>>
>> I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might
>> hurt other people, or the nature for that matter.  Boasting ignorant
>> jumble can easily do that.
>
> It seems that Muttley@dastardlyhq.com still didn't figure out why
> stating strong opinion about something that you not just didn't learn
> in depth, but didn't even look at casually is less than optimal.

For some time now I have simply stopped reading his comments.
I don't know why anyone bothers with him for more than a handful
of interactions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121339

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 03:17:17 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wibbled:
>Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:12:31 +0200
>> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree
>>>> with the opinions of the committee members.
>>>>
>>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you
>>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.
>>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to
>>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> Thanks David, for standing against the trolls.  It's a pity that
>>> personal freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has
>>> exactly the same worth as your expert knowledge".
>>>
>>> I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might
>>> hurt other people, or the nature for that matter.  Boasting ignorant
>>> jumble can easily do that.
>>
>> It seems that Muttley@dastardlyhq.com still didn't figure out why
>> stating strong opinion about something that you not just didn't learn
>> in depth, but didn't even look at casually is less than optimal.
>
>For some time now I have simply stopped reading his comments.
>I don't know why anyone bothers with him for more than a handful
>of interactions.

The same could be said about you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121343

On 30/12/2024 13:00, boltar@caprica.org wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 03:17:17 -0800
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wibbled:
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:12:31 +0200
>>> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree
>>>>> with the opinions of the committee members.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you
>>>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.
>>>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to
>>>>> anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks David, for standing against the trolls.  It's a pity that
>>>> personal freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has
>>>> exactly the same worth as your expert knowledge".
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might
>>>> hurt other people, or the nature for that matter.  Boasting ignorant
>>>> jumble can easily do that.
>>>
>>> It seems that Muttley@dastardlyhq.com still didn't figure out why
>>> stating strong opinion about something that you not just didn't learn
>>> in depth, but didn't even look at casually is less than optimal.
>>
>> For some time now I have simply stopped reading his comments.
>> I don't know why anyone bothers with him for more than a handful
>> of interactions.
> 
> The same could be said about you.
> 

There are plenty of people here who have stopped reading posts by 
particular other people - or at least, specifically stopped reply to 
them.  I think the group would be poorer if everyone refused to respond 
to someone they judge to be trolling, rude, or otherwise unpleasant in 
some way.  Sometimes the replies might be of interest or use to others 
(I don't expect Muttley to stop giving uninformed opinions, but it is 
conceivable that some other posters will at least look at what's new in 
C++23 before telling us all how terrible it is).  And of course 
sometimes even the worst trolls make good points or raise interesting 
questions.

Tim never replies to my posts directly - though he occasionally 
indirectly shows signs of reading them.  I believe I have at least some 
understanding of his reasons for ignoring me.  (I am not a model poster 
by any means.)  But I'd prefer it if he did as many others here try to 
do - reply to posts, not to posters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121350

boltar@caprica.org writes:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 03:17:17 -0800
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wibbled:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:12:31 +0200
>>> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29.12.2024 15:51, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can have an informed opinion about C++, and agree or disagree
>>>>> with the opinions of the committee members.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what you don't get to do - or at least, don't get to do if you
>>>>> want to be viewed seriously - is spout an /uninformed/ opinion.
>>>>> That's no more than mindless prejudice, and of no interest to
>>>>> anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks David, for standing against the trolls.  It's a pity that
>>>> personal freedoms are often interpreted as "my ignorant opinion has
>>>> exactly the same worth as your expert knowledge".
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for personal freedoms, but my freedoms end where they might
>>>> hurt other people, or the nature for that matter.  Boasting ignorant
>>>> jumble can easily do that.
>>>
>>> It seems that Muttley@dastardlyhq.com still didn't figure out why
>>> stating strong opinion about something that you not just didn't learn
>>> in depth, but didn't even look at casually is less than optimal.
>>
>> For some time now I have simply stopped reading his comments.
>> I don't know why anyone bothers with him for more than a handful
>> of interactions.
>
> The same could be said about you.

I assume you mean that someone might have the same reaction to me
as you imagine I have to Muttley.  Note that I didn't say anything
about Muttley;  my comments were statements only about myself, not
about anyone else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web