Evaluating opinions (was Re: "compile" vs. "tokenize" (wasRe:Password Problem))

[John Esak]

> there eye along the segment to find the error... ESPECIALLY
> because it is so
> > exactly described directly above as an array error. There is NO need to
> > point directly at the array itself...
>
> If the pointer doesn't in fact actually *point* at the error spot in
> the line, then it is worse than useless.  We *know* the line is the
> problem line; it's displayed.
>

> programming environment is going to point out an error to you,
> shouldn't it either point in the right place of shut up?
>
> *Should you* have to exercise judgment about whether to *ignore* that
> pointer or not?  :-)

I think the explicit wording about there being a problem with the array and
then the line being displayed _is_ enough. Just because the pointer is at
the beginning of the code segment with the array element... it does not
detract from this error reporting... it does not make it "worse than
useless".  That is just patently absurd. And as for it being called a syntax
error, and you not liking that because it happens at runtime... well, that
is just so much semantic nonsense. It is a syntax error because the error
might not have occurred if you had defined the array large enough to cover
the runtime value. In the case of a zero value, there is no need to change
the wording from syntax to runtime... just not that important to me or
probably anybody else. That the error was reported so completely in English
and with a line to look at is just fine. For you to complain that the little
carat doesn't point to the _exact_ part of the error is _very_ hard for me
to understand... so I attribute it to your just wanting to bitch about
something/anything... :-)

Just yesterday I hit a _very_ similar error... it said just about the very
same thing, but my problem was that I had used a field instead of a literal
as the subscript for the array... something like this:

        blah blah;  avg_pounds_per_roll[14]=something
                    ^

by your logic, you would expect (and loudly and yes "rudely") proclaim that
the carat should be pointing to the subscript!!!  Why?  There is NO way for
filePro to tell what is wrong in this regard... it just knows the subscript
value was out of range and says so EXPLICITLY and PROPERLY... moving the
carat along a few characters to the subscript is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY
unnecessary from my point of view. It is telling me there is something wrong
with the array and particularly saying "look at the subscript".... Just
because the ^ points to the name and not the subscript... who cares?  Well,
obviously you do... but you could have just said. "I think the carat should
point to the subscript not the array name. I think in your case, because the
array was further along in the segment that didn't work, filePro put the
carat at the beginning of that segment rather than pointing to the array...
this also, coincidentally was the beginning of the line... Okay, so this
outraged you... Well, in my case the array happens to be the start of the
segment and the carat points to it... there is no need for the caustic stuff
(regardless of Mark's protestations that you are just SO honest and SO
plain-spoken... excuse me, but bullsh*t. You can still be nice. Just my
opinion. Always has been, always will be.


>
> Remember, John, that you were once a novice filePro programmer as wll;
> get back to that Zen empty mind state, and think about what this error
> mesage would cause you to do then, if you took it at face value.
>
> We experience filePro hands know which parts of the error message to
> *ignore*... but we shouldn't have to.

If you are saying that a perfectly clear English description of the error
_and_ a display of the precise line are all "worse than useless" because
there is a tiny ^ pointing to the beginning of the line... well, again Jay,
I couldn't disagree more... and can't express the amount of total disbelief
I have over this. Just seems again like you have some other agenda...
because the error reporting in this specific case is not completely or
utterly or even in a tiny fraction made worthless by the placement of the
carat at the beginning of the line. You are very right. We just have to
agree to disagree.


>
> Worse than useless is a phrase which, while a touch incendiary,
> admittedly, has few parallels; it's a real condition: when a program
> goes out of it's way to tell you the wrong thing, and (assuming you
> aren't smart enough to know what to ignore) wastes your time.

Sorry, Jay,... but ridiculous... totally ridiculous. You actually think (at
least you are stating) that filePro has gone out of its way to tell you the
wrong thing... just because that ^ is at the beginning of the line. This
statement is just another of a type that you make so often... It is
completely unsupportable and wrong. FilePro did not go out of its way to do
any such thing. God, let me stop at this... ridiculous is the only word that
makes sense, I'll leave it at that.

>
> Then it should do so, and not lie about extra degrees of precision that
> it does not posess.

Again, more of the same... "lie about..."  Sheesh... in my example the ^ was
pointing just right... in yours it wasn't... Are you saying that because it
tried in your case and didn't do exactly what you wanted it to do, it was
lying? :-) I'm actually laughing.  You haven't (or seemingly haven't) used a
C compiler much, have you? The VAST range of this kind of inconsistency
based on the infinite variations and permutations of people's code is just
daily, hourly, minute-by-minute standard operating procedure. I've seen
compilers present syntax checking that isn't even close to accurate, let
alone pointing to the right line. The problems are so extensive lately, that
I have taken to not writing in C much anymore because it is so frustrating.
The few times the filePro error reporting is off, and the tiny margins by
which it is off are not even enough to ever bother me in comparison. I've
seen the ^ on a blank space along the IF line when the error is below in the
THEN line... big deal. Sure, I try and report such things... but I don't say
and don't believe that the error checking is "worse than useless"... it is
still highly offensive to me that you characterize it as such. But, like I
say I don't know what your agenda is... never have. You just seem to like to
pick fights with the tiniest problems in filePro and portray them as your
contributions to helping to develop the product. They are never worded in
that way and never have a positive, creative criticism mode to them. They
_always_ have the "I could have done it better..." attitude and a negative,
slamming tone. This is simply why I finally asked you if you have ever
written a program on the scope of filePro... and as I had guessed, you
hadn't.  Like I said earlier, I'm sorry this bothered you so much. Yes, you
still have your right as do we all to make suggestions and criticisms... I
just wanted to assure myself that what I had thought was right.


> Don't have an argument there.  But if you can't position the damn thing
> accurately, *do not display it*.  Why are you and I arguing about
> *this*, my only point?  Do you really disagree with that assertion?

No. Now you see, I don't disagree with that assertion... with the exception
of referring to it as a "damn thing"... I totally agree with this
suggestion. If the error checker realizes that it doesn't know _exactly_
where to place the carat along the offending line... then, yes, not
displaying it would be a good idea. We are arguing about this specifically
because of the offensive way in which you first stated this extremely simple
(and even good) suggestion. Like I said, there is no reason nor special
privilege you have NOT to be nice in your comments... none. If you don't
understand that this is the crux of all we've been talking about... even
though it's been coated with the discussion of a technical functionality of
filePro... well, c'mon Jay you're smarter than that.

>
> Does the 5.0 manual warn you about that WRT GETNEXT?

I think you described very well the process that would happen should you
change a key field while in a GETNEXT loop... Seeing this kind of a warning
in the manual, of course, would be a good idea. But it presupposes that
people are going to do something wrong in the first place... How many other
wrong things would you want the manual writers to dream up that people might
do wrong, just so they could say, "don't do that". Telling people not to use
a function to do certain things is kind of a manual methodology I haven't
seen often, or ever. Usually, manuals tell you how to do a thing correctly
and not how to do it incorrectly.

>
> > 2) If a file were to be walked through with getnext (for whatever insane
> > reason a good programmer might want to do this... although I
> can't think of
> > any...)

> And, John, isn't 'insane' the sort of invective you're accusing
> me of?  :-)

Yes, I suppose it is... but I fight fire with fire... and I told you I
perceived your messages as flames not reasonable suggestions about ways to
improve filePro... if you can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen and
don't start the fire in the first place.


> Projection, John.  It's a horrible thing.  I'm not insecure about my
> background at all, nor do *I* find it insufficient to justify my having
> and expressing the opinions I do, yes, ex cathedra.

I said NOTHING of the kind... expressing opinions is one thing... describing
something that works like the error checker did in your example as "worse
than useless" is not expressing an opinion... it is flaming and you do it
all the time. It is sad that you think you are just "expressing opinions".
Again, and I'll say it for the last time... I think you know very well what
you are doing... I just don't know why... you have some agenda for
constantly knocking filePro and Ken in negative ways... only you know why
you do it. Did filePro hurt you very badly once in your youth? :-)  Perhaps,
the fact (as you once stated) that you only use it (for the last 15 years to
make your living) because your boss forces you to... is what has you so
angry. You feel that if you had taken those years to learn some other more
mainstream development tool that you would be in a better place, earning
more money... or just better off generally... has you being the way you are
here.  Can't be told from your messages. All that we see is the obvious and
constant denigration. You keep calling it "helping with the development..."
:-) But all the rest of us seem to be able to do that without the
always-under-the-surface great disrespect and distaste you always show for
the product. I'm sorry Jay, but everyone here is always on about honesty...
that is how I see it.

> > I will not be answering any more on this thread you have turned
> it into some
> > kind of a flaming thing... not gonna byte. :-)
>
> Sorry you consider it flaming.  I suggest that you haven't been in the
> right places long enough to qualify for your own pair of nomex undies,
> if you think *this* is flaming, but so be it.

Well, I've shown above why I think you are usually just flaming filePro and
Ken instead of making your suggestions as reasonable, courteous comments.
Thank God, I manage to stay away from worse than what you do here... it
bothers me so much... any worse would probably "give me the big one". :-)

Actually, I will always answer your notes or anyone's if they keep their
comments civil as all of yours were here... I just assumed (bad on my part)
that there would be more of the "worse than useless" kind of stuff. Glad to
see there wasn't.

> Have A Nice Day.

Thank you, I will. You, too.

John Esak

Visit The FP Room www.tinyurl.com/yuag7 24/7