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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25502 > unrolled thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

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: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 11:10 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-08 22:51 -0500

#25502 — Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote:

> On 02/07/2011 06:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 06-02-2011 23:53, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> "Ken Wesson" <kwesson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4d4f63e6$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> The only real bone of contention seems to be "how clear was it that
>>>> Mike meant it that way in <iii7jc$ssv$1@news.eternal-september.org>?"
>>>> And I don't think that's very important anymore. Certainly not
>>>> important enough to be making posts implying that various people are
>>>> trolls, or not "really" programmers, or similarly over it.
>>>
>>> I meant it disparagingly, and that was clear, it seems, to people who
>>> know the way I tend to express myself. I see that it wasn't clear to
>>> you at first, but I trust it is now.
>>
>> I find it difficult to imagine "micro optimization" even being used in
>> a forum like this as something positive.

I don't. As I said, it's easy to imagine it being applied in a neutral 
way to an optimization of a small, specific bit of code, such as a 
particular inner loop.

> The whole, entire, universal point of the term "micro-optimization" is
> to disparage foolish attempts to optimize that have the opposite effect.

So you say.

>  I am simply astounded that "Ken Wesson" would pick a fight over
> something so basic and universally well understood in the industry. 

Obviously, your experience with "the industry" differs from mine.

Furthermore, I did not pick a fight. I observed that the only thing 
Microsoft is known for optimizing is the size of their cashflow (<4d4cc253
$1@news.x-privat.org>). The only one that might be picking a fight with 
is Microsoft. Yet Arne responded in a manner seemingly intended to 
disparage me.

Unless Arne takes it personally when people disparage Microsoft, then, it 
looks an awful lot like Arne was the one picking fights here.
 
> Especially after several people have set him straight!

Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the original 
use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather than to be 
neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and "set someone 
straight". The difference is the same as someone having allowed for 
several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the case, and 
someone having only allowed for one possibility and having been wrong. 
You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the former, as I have 
said several times now.

> What reason in the world can someone have to argue with the answers
> universally provided by knowledgeable professionals in response to his
> question?

This is not even meaningful in this context, because I hadn't asked a 
question.

> (Hint:  It rhymes with the second syllable of "control".)

And that is simply not constructive. Looks like Arne isn't the only one 
spoiling for a fight.

Too bad for both of you, I'm not interested. I refuse to stoop to your 
level, which is barely above explicit name-calling.

We obviously have had different patterns of experience in our encounters 
with the term under discussion. That is not a rational basis for either 
side disparaging the other. Let's drop this noisome subject and move on.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#25574

On 08-02-2011 05:10, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote:
>> Especially after several people have set him straight!
>
> Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the original
> use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather than to be
> neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and "set someone
> straight". The difference is the same as someone having allowed for
> several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the case, and
> someone having only allowed for one possibility and having been wrong.
> You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the former, as I have
> said several times now.

That all depends.

If you are a programmer is´t was "set me straight".

If you are ordinary word processor and spreadsheet user then
it is "clarified".

Given that this is cljp, then the first was assumed.

>> What reason in the world can someone have to argue with the answers
>> universally provided by knowledgeable professionals in response to his
>> question?
>
> This is not even meaningful in this context, because I hadn't asked a
> question.

You did not post anything intended as a question.

But posting misunderstandings about programming terminology
in a programming group tend to be considered an implicit question
to be answered.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web