H1 2015 Priorities and Bare-Metal Programming

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 21:01:30 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:39:28 -0500
> schrieb Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com>:
>
>> On 2/2/15 12:06 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> > Am Mon, 02 Feb 2015 02:49:48 -0800
>> > schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>:
>> 
>> >> Please try it before deciding it does not work.
>> >
>> > I guess one ad hominem wasn't enough?
>> 
>> Sorry, I'm not really vested in this discussion at all, but I 
>> don't think you realize what ad hominem means.
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>> 
>> -Steve
>> 
>
> Ad hominem literally means 'to the person'. en/wikipedia 
> reduces that
> to character but other definitions (de/wikipedia) include all 
> arguments
> against a person instead of to the content of the arguments.
>
> Walter implicitly doubted my qualification in his last reply by
> claiming I don't understand how intrinsics work. Here he 
> basically said
> I didn't even try to run the code and just making up issues. 
> He's
> essentially saying I'm dishonest. He didn't respond to the 
> content of my
> arguments. This is clearly not an argument, it's an attack on my
> reputation. So how is this not ad hominem?

I agree it was ad hominem, but I don't think Walter implied you 
were dishonest, so much as *ignorant* (i.e. of what would 
*really* happen if you just used the products as intended) - 
which implication is still bad, if proven false, but not quite as 
bad as calling you dishonest...