Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[Ramon]

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 09:10:33 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam at thanks.no> 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:58:24 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>>> Happily I'm stupid and completely missed the condescending 
>>>> tone of an evident genius. Instead I'll just be grateful 
>>>> that it pleased one of the D masters to drop some statement 
>>>> down at me at all.
>>>
>>>>> Awesome, thank you and keep destroying.
>>>>
>>>> "destroying"??? Which part of "not to bash it" and of "D 
>>>> means a lot to me" and of "D is, no doubts, an excellent and 
>>>> modern incarnation of C/C++. As
>>>> far as I'm concerned D is *the* best C/C++ incarnation ever,
>>>> hands down." was too complicated to understand for your 
>>>> genius brain?
>>>
>>> I knew this would happen at some point:
>>> Andrei uses "destroy" as a positive term to denote a 
>>> well-reasoned powerful argument/response.
>>>
>>> Chill :)
>>
>> Uhum.
>>
>> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very 
>> negative meaning.
>> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and 
>> condescending and I do not intend to change my communication 
>> habits so as to understand "to destroy" as a positive 
>> statement or even a compliment.
>
> Have you heard the phrase "when in Rome..".  Seriously, you 
> would rather assume a negative meaning/intent even after 
> someone has taken the time to explain the intent/usage of the 
> word/phrase in this grand forum?
>
> I sense that you may be beyond reasonable advice at this point?
>  But, if not..
>
> Always start by assuming good intent, if you're right (and you 
> will be 90% of the time) no problem.  If you're wrong, well at 
> least you've not gotten worked up about it (so they have failed 
> in their goal) and chances are it will annoy the abuser even 
> more that you haven't (so ultimately, you win).
>
> Communication in written form is fraught with pitfalls, and 
> this thread demonstrates how comments can be taken in 
> completely the wrong way.  Dicebot's "I am dangerously close to 
> hating you." was meant in a friendly way, /you/ decided not to 
> read it that way.  Likewise Andrei's style is abrupt but there 
> are good reasons for this, none of which include the goal of 
> offending but /you/ have chosen to read them that way.
>
> Sure, more effort could be taken to make it clearer with excess 
> smileys etc.  But, that stuff isn't necessary for communicating 
> the content, and isn't necessary between established forum 
> members, and isn't necessary if everyone just assumes good 
> intent from the outset.
>
> All the best,
> Regan


Wow. Now I even get general advice for my life like "Always start
by assuming good intent".

How about some honesty?

It happens to everybody of us. We hadn't any bad intentions but,
alas, someone feels offended, improperly treated, etc.
There is exactly 1 proper reaction for a responsible adult: To
honestly look "Did I contribute to that?" and if so, to explain
oneself.

It would have cost pretty nothing to Mr. A. to simply say "OOps.
Didn't mean any bad. When I say 'destroy' it's actually in
between an invitation to continue hitting with constructive
criticism and a compliment. Weird habit of mine". Not even a
"sorry" would be needed.

Well, he didn't. Instead he relied on his alpha-dog factor and
the fact that there had already been some group members
explaining and excusing him (and, in fact and very funnily, when
he finally decided to comment he addressed not me but someone
else).

Meanwhile I'd be better placed to start trouble - if that ever
were my intention. I've read a good part of Mr. A's book, watched
quite some youtube, both with Mr. Bright and Mr. A. - and I have,
to put it in prosecutor like wording, generously enough material
in my hands (where Bright/AA basically say something I said too
and got bad reactions. But then, it's not really new that it
matters in social groups _who_ says sth.).

One simple example: Is Mr. A perfectly well capable to talk/write
within usual social limits? Yes, he is. His (btw. very well done,
if somewhat jumpy) book proves it. He just happens to feel free
to behave like an *** in this group, where he is an alpha and
where "tough lingo" and weird personal rites are part of the
"culture" - and glue - of this "D crowd".

I don't feel hurt, I am not after Mr. A., I'm not looking for
trouble and I'm not in fight mode or anti-D or anything like
that. But would you (all) kindly refrain from playing your group
games with me and telling me bullsh*t? I'm not interested.
Mr. A. has written the book on D and he did that quite well. He
has largely contributed to D and he did that well and some of his
work is even brilliant (for "scope" alone I'd be willing to
praise him gleefully).
And he also happened to show himself capable of gross social and
human incompetence - and I don't care; I'm interested in his
work, not in his person.
If at all, I'd point out the professional component, i.e. the
question, if it is wise for a relatively new, unknown and little
used language to drive newcomers off rather than to invite them,
guide them and be patient with potentially not so smart
questions. Like it or not, Mr. Bright and Mr. A.A. *are* your
shopfront.

You can count on me striving to be professional and constructive.
Don't count on me becoming another adapting dog in the D-crowd,
though.

Your advice and opinions on programming and language related
issues is honestly welcome and appreciated - incl. uncomfortable
ones. Anything beyond that is almost certainly not what I would
be taking from the "D crowd".

Can we now finally continue our lifes? Sure enough someone has
some detail issue to be found in the archives and to be
enchantedly discussed. With a little luck, your alphas will chime
in.