Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 15:47:54 +0400
Sent from my Galaxy
>>>>>> Sent from my Galaxy>>>>> czw., 1 sie 2024 o 12:39 organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):> >> > Please watch some of Leslie Lamport's videos.> > He is a Turing award holder.> > He explains exactly the opposite of what you say.> >>> What video? and how opposite? And opposite to what statement?> You do not address any of my concerns, only again avoid hard questions.> If I am wrong you should be able to quote me and exactly show where I am wrong.>> That's true and fair.>> So allow me answering it.>> In your analogy, about not approaching operations table unless someone checks you are qualified.> Given that logic, who checked the first surgeon in the world? And against what?By row of dead bodies after failed operations, first surgeons weresimply people with sharp knives,but now after centuries of trial and error we can ask new ones if theydo their homework and willnot repeat mistakes made by the first generation of surgeons that inmany cases harm more than help.C++ is older than me, many brilliant people work on it but even theydid fail and make blunders duringstandardization. And we all need to learn from this, understand andtry not to repeat it again.Without a close understanding of the standard and its history we willrepeat these blunders or even create bigger ones.This is why people ask you about your understanding of C++, because ifyou try to build somethingon misunderstand of some of its parts, then whole construct will bemisaligned and fail to reach its goals.Like building a home, some failure in foundations will cause the wholehome to crack or even collapse.So let's make an interview test before anyone is allowed to even post anything. That's what you suggest?But even then.If he passes that rigorous test, that means he is already well framed in that thinking box.How can he pull anything new, then?>> Only trust, help, discussion and good intentions can encourage that first surgeon to break through.>Trust based on what? If I meet someone and he use correct language andhe show that he know what he sayingthen I can risk trusting him to allow him to do first aid in car crashbut if some things that he say is bizarre and not matchexactly common knowledge then how I could risk giving him access to acar crash victims?Ask him about his work plan, follow his steps, try making sense out of them, if you can't ask for clarification, if you trust enough his approach and sound plausible even if it is unconventional, then he can dive in.> Yes, we have an accumalation of knowledge of experts in C++ language in a form of a standard, but that is always a subject of scrutiny. What was advocate for today, can be advocate against tomorrow, it is just a matter of someone bold enough to contest the status-quo.>> Did this address you concerns?This is not if someone is "bold" but if he is "correct" or even moreif its "useful".We are still waiting for real life code that show usefuls of thischange and proves that current C++ can't solve the same problemeasily.We already had `std::fucnction` (and its flavors) and `std::any` whyC++ need more?Before std::function and std::any, they were saying the same, "We have callbacks, and union, what can't we do using them?"You want to see working code?That's not easy and quick as you think, especially for one person. I came here to discuss the idea using pen and paper before putting any finger on a keyboard.But i was wrong.
>>>>>> Sent from my Galaxy>>>>> czw., 1 sie 2024 o 12:39 organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):> >> > Please watch some of Leslie Lamport's videos.> > He is a Turing award holder.> > He explains exactly the opposite of what you say.> >>> What video? and how opposite? And opposite to what statement?> You do not address any of my concerns, only again avoid hard questions.> If I am wrong you should be able to quote me and exactly show where I am wrong.>> That's true and fair.>> So allow me answering it.>> In your analogy, about not approaching operations table unless someone checks you are qualified.> Given that logic, who checked the first surgeon in the world? And against what?By row of dead bodies after failed operations, first surgeons weresimply people with sharp knives,but now after centuries of trial and error we can ask new ones if theydo their homework and willnot repeat mistakes made by the first generation of surgeons that inmany cases harm more than help.C++ is older than me, many brilliant people work on it but even theydid fail and make blunders duringstandardization. And we all need to learn from this, understand andtry not to repeat it again.Without a close understanding of the standard and its history we willrepeat these blunders or even create bigger ones.This is why people ask you about your understanding of C++, because ifyou try to build somethingon misunderstand of some of its parts, then whole construct will bemisaligned and fail to reach its goals.Like building a home, some failure in foundations will cause the wholehome to crack or even collapse.So let's make an interview test before anyone is allowed to even post anything. That's what you suggest?But even then.If he passes that rigorous test, that means he is already well framed in that thinking box.How can he pull anything new, then?>> Only trust, help, discussion and good intentions can encourage that first surgeon to break through.>Trust based on what? If I meet someone and he use correct language andhe show that he know what he sayingthen I can risk trusting him to allow him to do first aid in car crashbut if some things that he say is bizarre and not matchexactly common knowledge then how I could risk giving him access to acar crash victims?Ask him about his work plan, follow his steps, try making sense out of them, if you can't ask for clarification, if you trust enough his approach and sound plausible even if it is unconventional, then he can dive in.> Yes, we have an accumalation of knowledge of experts in C++ language in a form of a standard, but that is always a subject of scrutiny. What was advocate for today, can be advocate against tomorrow, it is just a matter of someone bold enough to contest the status-quo.>> Did this address you concerns?This is not if someone is "bold" but if he is "correct" or even moreif its "useful".We are still waiting for real life code that show usefuls of thischange and proves that current C++ can't solve the same problemeasily.We already had `std::fucnction` (and its flavors) and `std::any` whyC++ need more?Before std::function and std::any, they were saying the same, "We have callbacks, and union, what can't we do using them?"You want to see working code?That's not easy and quick as you think, especially for one person. I came here to discuss the idea using pen and paper before putting any finger on a keyboard.But i was wrong.
Received on 2024-08-01 11:48:06