I use to be a part of this community for some time, I stayed anonymous as I don't like forming connections as they are complicated. I've come to a realization recently that I made a huge mistake in my calculations. I was under the assumption that all of your minds work the way mine does, but I realize now that was a very stupid mistake.

I don't have "opinions". I base all my "opinions" purely on observable fact. If there is a statistic that can't be observed as fact I view it as a probability and make determinations to observer the best solution for a given result. I also have what I guess you would describe as a photographic memory. So I see all the consistency a normal person wouldn't and that might be where a large part of where the miscommunication has happened.

Walter- I notice a lot of inconsistency in your arguments that I perceived as deception. I see now that could be explained away by a number of factors, among which may include bad memory (compared to mine; sorry) or possibly a coping mechanism you've constructed that you aren't aware of. Sorry I can't help you more, you simply avoided talking to me lol. Some of the bugs in DMD are a reflection of that, simply avoided.

Andrei- You said you couldn't understand why someone wouldn't accept your help? How do you think I feel about you? For some reason it seems you don't think someone in this community is capable of helping you. I won't presume to know what that is, but I would suggest you post some of your ideas anonymously and see what people really think of them. I think you may have been in the spotlight too long, but that's just a hypothesis at this point.

Mike Parker- We had a disagreement about a change that you were making. I said you didn't care about the community and you took that the wrong way. What you were implementing negatively impacted the community. I presumed you knew, but I see now that was an incorrect assumption to make, and I should have assumed you were incompetent at encouraging community growth. I can see how the change could have been made to protect Walter, but you can't really do both at the same time, you need to pick one.

I hope you see this as the way I intended it, to help you in the way someone managed to help me. To see something about my self that I don't see myself or that I forced myself to forget. I know change is difficult, and it is even more difficult when you don't know for certain whether a change will actually be positive or negative. Sometimes you do have to take a chance though.

I'm glad to see there's finally syntax highlighting, you're moving in the right direction, keep it up :)!

Sorry if I don't respond, I'm going through a list of things I thought I was crazy about, but so far they've all proven to be true. I have a terrible fear of rejection, so I don't want to read any of your replies because it is easier for me lol.

-Some asshole with aspergers

On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:

Interesting anecdotes, but it would be beneficial to have some background on what you're talking about so that others can understand you point of view.

On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:

In case you took a peek anway: Take a break from it all and come back and participate later when you feel like it. :-) I totally agree that we need to be objective, evaluate and measure. Identifying and admitting technical weak spots is important.

<3

Sometimes, you just ignore it.--Walter.

Maybe there's too much criticism of them, so it's just a layer of protection.

On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 16:26:10 UTC, A wrote:

As a fellow spergic arsehole, give your mind time to settle, and don't be afraid to make yourself known if/when you come back.

On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 16:14:39 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:

Hey I actually thought Walter might be able to help me with something.

I'm lazy so here's the quote that got me interested, if you don't see it like I do, let me know and we can try to figure out where the misunderstanding lies. My intentions are good, literally.

What is the meaning of trust but verify?
In the study of programming languages, the phrase has been used to describe the implementation of downcasting: the compiler trusts that the downcast term will be of the desired type, but this assumption is verified at runtime in order to avoid undefined behavior.

A quick question, if someone was developing a software simulation of an experimental explosion. What would be the real life equivalent of "undefined behaviour"? Does anyone know where I might find such an expert and who might be able to give such a person the right amount of information they feel at the right time, but again. Trust, but verify when dealing with nuclear.

On Saturday, 29 May 2021 at 22:19:45 UTC, Avrina wrote:

The real life equivalent of undefined behaviour would be driving a car out in an ocean, since you are doing something that is outside the trafic laws for roads those laws no longer applies.

In a spec, undefined behaviour just means that the program was not written in the specified language. This is specific to low level languages. The language is the set of all valid programs. High level languages checks that the program is valid at either compile or runtime. So there is no undefined behaviour in those.