In article <rfgCD2xv8.2FB@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>There are a number of zealous proponents of C++ (here and elsewhere) who
...
>(Labeling someone is, as we all know, the time-honored precursor to
>ignoring that person or group's legitimate concerns.)

Isn't "zealot" a label?

Another "language basher basher" basher heard from <g>



for the humor impaired: I just thought Ron's posting was funny,
don't take this one seriously!


  -Richard Hartman
  hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
optimism - the belief that we live in the BEST of all possible worlds
pessimism - the belief that WE live in the best of all possible worlds

In article <1993Aug31.003450.445@cello.hpl.hp.com> fouts@hpl.hp.com writes:
>
>As to those claims that I was "language bashing" (my words,) I can
>only reply with the old maxim: never attribute to malice what can best
>be described as miscommunication.

You need not have repiled at all.

There are a number of zealous proponents of C++ (here and elsewhere) who
would like you, me, and the rest of the world to believe that the C++
language is perfect, and that its specification is perfect.  Of course
nothing made by man is ever perfect, but if you happen to mention any
of the flaws, these folks will be quick to label you a "language basher".
(Labeling someone is, as we all know, the time-honored precursor to
ignoring that person or group's legitimate concerns.)

When you see one of the zelots starting down this path, the best thing to
do is just to ignore them (unless and until they come back around to
discussing the actual issues).

(Just my 2 pence.)

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------

Several people have recently posted notes in which they speculate
about what I might have been thinking when I posted the note starting
the "For Your Amusement discussion."  For the record I was thinking:

* Gee, here's a stupid mistake I've made because of an interaction of
  language features - I bet other people would benefit from seeing
  it.

* Gee, I've gotten it down to a real small example, so it will be easy
  to understand.

* I bet people would be more interested in understanding the example
  if I posted it without an explanation and challenged them to
  describe the problem concisely.

* And while I'm at it, why don't I tell a "shame on you" story by
  mentioning how long it took me to find such a simple bug.

As to those claims that I was "language bashing" (my words,) I can
only reply with the old maxim: never attribute to malice what can best
be described as miscommunication.

I would like to thank all of the people who have posted in my defense,
and would like to ask everyone to stop the non technical part of this
discussion, as it is not relevant to this group.

Thanks,

Marty
--
Martin Fouts
fouts@hpl.hp.com