Sharing in D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"superdan" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> "superdan" wrote
>> > you may as well be equally right. or even more right, as you usually 
>> > are.
>> > sure you are a great hacker who knows threads in and out, as "you spend 
>> > a
>> > lot of time thinking about multithreaded issues". i'm impressed. i do
>> > suggest you run a lil experiment one day tho. google for walter bright.
>> > figure out what kinds of shit he's done. google for bartosz milewski.
>> > figure out for what kinds of shit he's done. google for andrei
>> > alexanderescu. figure out for what kinds of shit he's done. then google
>> > for steven schveighoffer. unless sure enough you are hans boehm in
>> > disguise. then ask yourself. "is my big mouth going to make up for all
>> > this?"
>>
>> Just because I'm not published all over google doesn't mean I don't know
>> anything.  Your artistic use of the english language combined with 
>> bullying
>> tactics doesn't really phase me, as I care nothing about ego.  So go 
>> right
>> ahead and bitch about what I don't know :)  Last I heard, this is a 
>> public
>> forum, and I'm free to question Walter and his team as much as I want.
>>
>> I can't believe you pulled the "do you know who I am" card for Walter :)
>>
>
> thanks for keeping ur cool. really appreciate that. my intent was not to 
> bully you and shit.
>
> this is programming. it's not entomology. anybody who's somebody in 
> programming *is* on the web somewhere for the web is nerdworld. some 
> participation to an open source project. some blog. some article they've 
> written. that's what i see all around.

I probably have more hits under schveiguy than Steven Schveighoffer.

But I don't really write articles.  I wrote one for topcoder when I was into 
that (about threading coincidentally).

> but i still agree. sometimes you can know your shit without being 
> published. you work for nasa, cia, or some secretive hedge fund. or you 
> just don't like sharing shit. no problem. but without a track record you 
> must come with real good *factual* shit to be credible. not "i spend a lot 
> of time thinking about this shit". not what you believe. without a proven 
> track record nobody gives a shit on how you spend your nights or on what 
> you believe.

What I meant by that is, I think possibly the only solution for 
multithreadded issues is careful planning, training, and experience.  In 
otherwords, my threading code works because I pay careful attention to the 
threading details.  It might be impossible for a technical solution to exist 
to prevent Joe Newb programmer from making threading mistakes.

> so as long as you stick to facts u should be in good shape. if you come 
> with "my opinion is" shit then you should understand nobody will give a 
> shit. in fact they will give a negative shit because that further fucks 
> your credibility.

You don't have to believe me.  Nobody has to believe me.  The fact that I 
stated my opinion is good enough for me.  If I turn out to be right, then 
people might listen to me next time.  If I turn out to be wrong, then it 
still won't stop me from stating my opinion on the next issue.  Mind, I 
can't say anything about facts because I don't have any.  I'm very careful 
to state things in terms of what "I think", and "my opinion".  I don't have 
any more facts than Walter and company to know whether this concept will be 
useful.  All I can say is what I think might happen (as is all Walter can 
say too).  If it turns out to be the best thing since transitive const, then 
I'm all for it.  Remember that Walter and company had several iterations 
before they got that right.  I think that will probably be the case here 
too.

> insofar as this being a public forum. i'm a prime abuser of that with my 
> shitfucking and shit. but that is nothing compared to the technical abuse 
> this
forum has seen and still does. if that goes down i'd be happy to get my 
shitfucking shit down too.

I don't know what 'shitfucking' is, but it sounds very unpleasant :)

-Steve