Raw binary(to work without OS) in D

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 22-Jun-12 20:08, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 15:45:30 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> I actually meant my previous post to be the last in this thread.
>> But here it goes:
>
> Sorry :\
>
>> 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"
>> That's ALL I meant to say here. You can frame it like advice, insult,
>> promotion or whatever you fell like (it's not like I or someone else
>> can stop you).
>
> 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.)

Sorry, like Roman said I'm not native speaker. And I'm not sure of the 
emotional component of things I type. To be honest no matter what form I 
use I tend to be neutral in general (or so I thought).

(Except some very rare cases. I recall that I told something harsh in 
response to the "brilliant idea" of turning enforce into assert with 
some version statement)

>
>
>> 2. The sarcasm is not lost on me, but for some reason I _think_ you
>> are/were outraged way before my post.
>
> "Outraged"? Not sure at what you're referring specifically...
>

I meant something like this:

 > Good luck getting the C-runtime part of the "D runtime" right..
...

 > If you have any idea how to implement things like TLS, SEH, and the 
like, then PLEASE, share them!

You were almost shouting or demanding (or so it seemed to me). I think 
this was the first time I insulted somebody uninterruptedly and that 
went totally unexpected for me.

>
>> Being outraged doesn't help sort out things 99% of time (this is my
>> assertion you may disagree).
>
> Totally agree... though (until now) I didn't see any attempt at "sorting
> out" anything. (The second comment only made things worse.)

Good.
And bad, as it seems I need to refresh my word/phrase selection :)

>
>> 3. If anything the mailing list/NG is not technical support
>> (especially "general discussion ones") I'm not obliged to offer you
>> any help. It's all about sharing opinions.
>
> Yes, and I wasn't asking for you to offer me help either.
> But insulting people -- yeah, It's against my expectations to go on an
> NG and be told I'm too stupid to do something. Even if it's your opinion.
>

If anything I'm not about to make any statements aimed at a particular 
person. If there was insult, I'm sorry as I failed to spot emotional 
context of things I posted.

>
>> So take it or ignore it and let's move on.
>
> Sure, if you'd like to. (I didn't get that message from you until now.)
>

OK, glad we are (sort of) having some agreement.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky