Raw binary(to work without OS) in D

[Mehrdad]

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 17:06:19 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 16:08:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> The trouble is I only see what you write, not what you think.
>>
>> What you're writing here is very clearly different in tone 
>> from what you said before, even if it wasn't intentional.
>> (Usually the onus is more on the speaker to get his words 
>> across, not on the reader to try and decipher them.)
>
> Comparing what Dmitry wrote earlier:
>
>> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't 
>> be able to do what you wanted in the first place (e.g. 
>> real-time micro-kernel).
>
> and
>
>> Yeah, I understand how it could be frustrating, but once you 
>> are on this kind of level you usually already running circles 
>> around all of this stuff.
>
> to later interpretation:
>
>>> 1. I classify the above as speculation on my part, namely to 
>>> put it in other words (not featuring any individual):
>>> "this work take a lot of low-level hacking meaning that 
>>> investigating symbols output by compiler and their meaning is 
>>> least of problem there usually"
>
> may seem to be very different at first. But in Russian the 
> first and the last sentences would have similar meanings.



lol. I don't speak Russian, sorry. :\
For me, the first one would imply the last one, but not 
necessarily the other way around.



> In general, it is difficult to predict how something is going 
> to be perceived. So it is usually OK for a person to say 
> something assuming that others will understand the intended 
> meaning, provided that clarification is given on request.

I suppose?
Though if someone were trying to insult you, I'm not sure if they 
would ever confirm, "Yes, I mean to say you're an idiot", or that 
they would necessarily repeat it, even if you asked them. (Sad 
but true, I think.)
So I'm not sure if you can ask for a clarification for 
everything...


> In this case, Dmitry provided a very reasonable clarification 
> about the meaning of word 'level'. And interpretation of a 
> statement which I quoted first is reasonably equivalent to what 
> Dmitry provided later.

Well, yes; he clearly said:
>> I meant actually low level. Like "down to hardware/OS" so it's 
>> rather the opposite ;)

so that would've been fine.

What didn't help the situation was the other part...
>> "[...] you usually already running circles around all of this 
>> stuff"

With that part, it was saying, "If you don't know this stuff then 
you shouldn't be working at this level", _NOT_ "you're going to 
have bigger problems at this level". The implications are 
different.

Maybe my reasoning was weird, but that's how it came across...



> (I'm from Ukraine, we speak Russian well. Dmitry is from 
> Russia. Hope you will believe me.)

I have no reason not to. :)
But I also have a hard time integrating that fact into the rest 
of the discussion, since I obviously don't know Russian.