On Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 23:05:34 UTC, IchorDev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 06:53:24 UTC, Renato Athaydes wrote:
> I agree that the D Book is great. I don't understand why criticize it for tiny inaccuracies among a sea of great content, no book is perfect.
So, your logic is that criticism of something that is mostly great does not make sense? Now, apply this logic to another situation and perhaps you’ll see how it’s this logic that does not make sense.
I've come to realize from other threads that you tend to misrepresent, or simply misunderstand, what people say quite often. I would ask you this: please stop considering us your enemy to be beaten in these threads... this is not a competition. Noone here is or should be hostile to others.
You've basically misinterpreted "this is not the place to criticize the book" as "yo must not criticize anything". I hope it's clear to anyone that this is not a charitable interpretation.
> It’s not a public git repository with issues & PRs open, it’s a book with a single author. I’m not responsible for the publication of some random person and they’re not exactly asking for help on their website. If anything, I think it would be quite rude to contact them unsolicited to request that they change their book based on what I think. The book is allowed to be wrong, and I’m allowed to say that it’s wrong so that people know.
I was hoping that you would prefer to write a polite email to the author explaining what you see as problematic content on the book, and perhaps they would consider improving it. Github is not the only way you can contribute to things.
> > Such negativity seems to come from a place of anger, not genuinely from trying to help the discussion and the correctness of general content about D.
You think that disagreeing with the book for explaining slices in a way that’s bound to cause confusion and frustration for learners is ‘not […] trying to help the discussion’?
Yes. Because the question has nothing to do with that. The book is more than appropriate according to most people in this Forum from what I've seen, and is endorsed by Andrei Alexandrescu in the Foreword. Also, I just think you're again twisting a bit what the book says to make it sound wrong when it can be reasonably interpreted as correct.
> So you are criticising me for criticising something because you think criticism is unproductive? What a self-defeating argument. If you think criticism is ‘negativity’ and ‘angry’, then you must say nothing unfavourable of such criticism; lest you participate in the very same activity. Yet the true struggle is for the superiority of ideas, and you have added nothing to this conversation of any value.
No, again, please stop misrepresenting things. All I am asking you is to look in the mirror and think a little bit about why nearly all your comments on this Forum sound angry and ranting, instead of helpful and to the point. I am trying to find positive interactions here, like I hope most of the others. I feel like you're preventing that quite a bit with comments like this and the one I was criticizing.
I appologize for everyone else for indulging in completely unrelated drama, I promise I will avoid doing that from now on.
Permalink
Reply
