Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...

From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...
Date	2015-12-31 10:16 +1300
Message-ID	<deivu4FsqnhU7@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<n5kdn4$cji$1@dont-email.me> <n5uqdd$gin$1@dont-email.me> <n5v0di$7i3$1@dont-email.me> <n5v0p5$8s3$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/12/15 22:13, David Brown wrote:
>> On 29/12/15 21:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 26/12/15 00:54, Ramine wrote:
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Your article says a lot more about your programming style than it does
>>> about either C or C++.
>>>
>>
>> While your post was technically correct, you are missing one critical
>> detail - Ramine is a write-only bot, and never reads anything that is
>> posted.
>
> There is a very, very, very small body of evidence to the contrary.
> Practically microscopic, in fact, but nevertheless non-zero.

So microscopic that I'm sure my host (N.I.N) filters out his posts as 
spam.  So now my "ignore thread" filters can't block replies to its posts!

-- 
Ian Collins

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
    Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
        Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300

csiph-web