On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 04:12:33 UTC, BS wrote:
> An important aspect in developing anything is a forum where people can destroy ideas and opinions clearly and succinctly without fear of the destroyed taking it personally.
>
> Technical arguments, and counter-arguments, are best when they stick to the point without fear of the other being overly precious.
>
> Andrei was *not* rude, he simply showed cases where he disagreed with your post and gave reasonable arguments as to why. In no way did he make any personal remark about you or your intelligence. If you choose to take it personally because he disagreed with you then it is not his fault, nor his problem.
>
> You either counter-destroy, with a more solid set of arguments and examples, or you accept their case and move onto the next difficult problem.
>
> However, if the remarks were personal and of the order "You are clearly stupid mate. Everyone knows ABCD 1234!" then it would be rude and I could understand your discontent.
>
> There is a clear difference.

I should add D.learn is often less abrupt than this forum, especially if you're just finding your feet in D.

Here it is often assumed that posters are OK if their arguments are shot down in flames. It is used as a technical discussion forum for new ideas driving the language forward. That sort of work has to be nutted out without tiptoeing around each other. BUT, I reiterate, it doesn't mean posters are attachking others personally. I have rarely seen that behaviour on the D forums.

Politeness will kill western civilization one day :)

On 8/20/13 7:29 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:46:33AM +0200, Ramon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:58:24 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>>> Happily I'm stupid and completely missed the condescending tone
>>>> of an evident genius. Instead I'll just be grateful that it
>>>> pleased one of the D masters to drop some statement down at me
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>>>> Awesome, thank you and keep destroying.
>>>>
>>>> "destroying"??? Which part of "not to bash it" and of "D means a
>>>> lot to me" and of "D is, no doubts, an excellent and modern
>>>> incarnation of C/C++. As
>>>> far as I'm concerned D is *the* best C/C++ incarnation ever,
>>>> hands down." was too complicated to understand for your genius
>>>> brain?
>>>
>>> I knew this would happen at some point:
>>> Andrei uses "destroy" as a positive term to denote a well-reasoned
>>> powerful argument/response.
>>>
>>> Chill :)
>>
>> Uhum.
>>
>> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very negative
>> meaning.
>> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and
>> condescending and I do not intend to change my communication habits
>> so as to understand "to destroy" as a positive statement or even a
>> compliment. While I'm certainly not in a position to look down on J.
>> Ichbiah, N. Wirth, and B. Meyer, I have certainly not spent the last
>> 25+ years without understanding a thing or two about my profession,
>> no matter what Mr. Alexandrescu seems to think.
>
> I didn't find Andrei's tone condescending at all. I think you're
> misunderstanding his intent. Disagreement with your ideas is one thing,
> but being rude is completely another thing. I would not stand for
> anyone, even if it's Andrei, being rude to a newcomer, but I don't
> perceive his response as being rude at all, even if he did disagree with
> you.

Probably not worth belaboring the point, but OP's reaction made me feel guilty enough to go back and re-read http://goo.gl/mJU68I. It's a bummer that Ramon took issue with it, but I'd be insincere to apologize for what I see as no wrongdoing. This may be a cultural difference seeing as OP's rhetoric and literary mannerisms are quite a bit different from the usual on this forum.


Andrei

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 16:50:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Probably not worth belaboring the point, but OP's reaction made me feel guilty enough to go back and re-read http://goo.gl/mJU68I. It's a bummer that Ramon took issue with it, but I'd be insincere to apologize for what I see as no wrongdoing. This may be a cultural difference seeing as OP's rhetoric and literary mannerisms are quite a bit different from the usual on this forum.
>
>
> Andrei

What a vulgarily cheap shot (on multiple levels).

But then, the D book he wrote is quite good and some of his contributions to D are really brilliant.
Do I care whether the bookkeeper has what it takes to be significant on a human, character or culture level? Nope. As long as he counts the beans without destroying too much I'm satisfied.

So, thank you, Mr. Alexandrescu

- End of communication -

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:58:24 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>> Happily I'm stupid and completely missed the condescending tone of an evident genius. Instead I'll just be grateful that it pleased one of the D masters to drop some statement down at me at all.
>>
>>>> Awesome, thank you and keep destroying.
>>>
>>> "destroying"??? Which part of "not to bash it" and of "D means a lot to me" and of "D is, no doubts, an excellent and modern incarnation of C/C++. As
>>> far as I'm concerned D is *the* best C/C++ incarnation ever,
>>> hands down." was too complicated to understand for your genius brain?
>>
>> I knew this would happen at some point:
>> Andrei uses "destroy" as a positive term to denote a well-reasoned powerful argument/response.
>>
>> Chill :)
>
> Uhum.
>
> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very negative meaning.
> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and condescending and I do not intend to change my communication habits so as to understand "to destroy" as a positive statement or even a compliment.

Have you heard the phrase "when in Rome..".  Seriously, you would rather assume a negative meaning/intent even after someone has taken the time to explain the intent/usage of the word/phrase in this grand forum?

I sense that you may be beyond reasonable advice at this point?  But, if not..

Always start by assuming good intent, if you're right (and you will be 90% of the time) no problem.  If you're wrong, well at least you've not gotten worked up about it (so they have failed in their goal) and chances are it will annoy the abuser even more that you haven't (so ultimately, you win).

Communication in written form is fraught with pitfalls, and this thread demonstrates how comments can be taken in completely the wrong way.  Dicebot's "I am dangerously close to hating you." was meant in a friendly way, /you/ decided not to read it that way.  Likewise Andrei's style is abrupt but there are good reasons for this, none of which include the goal of offending but /you/ have chosen to read them that way.

Sure, more effort could be taken to make it clearer with excess smileys etc.  But, that stuff isn't necessary for communicating the content, and isn't necessary between established forum members, and isn't necessary if everyone just assumes good intent from the outset.

All the best,
Regan

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 09:10:33 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:58:24 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>>> Happily I'm stupid and completely missed the condescending tone of an evident genius. Instead I'll just be grateful that it pleased one of the D masters to drop some statement down at me at all.
>>>
>>>>> Awesome, thank you and keep destroying.
>>>>
>>>> "destroying"??? Which part of "not to bash it" and of "D means a lot to me" and of "D is, no doubts, an excellent and modern incarnation of C/C++. As
>>>> far as I'm concerned D is *the* best C/C++ incarnation ever,
>>>> hands down." was too complicated to understand for your genius brain?
>>>
>>> I knew this would happen at some point:
>>> Andrei uses "destroy" as a positive term to denote a well-reasoned powerful argument/response.
>>>
>>> Chill :)
>>
>> Uhum.
>>
>> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very negative meaning.
>> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and condescending and I do not intend to change my communication habits so as to understand "to destroy" as a positive statement or even a compliment.
>
> Have you heard the phrase "when in Rome..".  Seriously, you would rather assume a negative meaning/intent even after someone has taken the time to explain the intent/usage of the word/phrase in this grand forum?
>
> I sense that you may be beyond reasonable advice at this point?
>  But, if not..
>
> Always start by assuming good intent, if you're right (and you will be 90% of the time) no problem.  If you're wrong, well at least you've not gotten worked up about it (so they have failed in their goal) and chances are it will annoy the abuser even more that you haven't (so ultimately, you win).
>
> Communication in written form is fraught with pitfalls, and this thread demonstrates how comments can be taken in completely the wrong way.  Dicebot's "I am dangerously close to hating you." was meant in a friendly way, /you/ decided not to read it that way.  Likewise Andrei's style is abrupt but there are good reasons for this, none of which include the goal of offending but /you/ have chosen to read them that way.
>
> Sure, more effort could be taken to make it clearer with excess smileys etc.  But, that stuff isn't necessary for communicating the content, and isn't necessary between established forum members, and isn't necessary if everyone just assumes good intent from the outset.
>
> All the best,
> Regan


Wow. Now I even get general advice for my life like "Always start
by assuming good intent".

How about some honesty?

It happens to everybody of us. We hadn't any bad intentions but,
alas, someone feels offended, improperly treated, etc.
There is exactly 1 proper reaction for a responsible adult: To
honestly look "Did I contribute to that?" and if so, to explain
oneself.

It would have cost pretty nothing to Mr. A. to simply say "OOps.
Didn't mean any bad. When I say 'destroy' it's actually in
between an invitation to continue hitting with constructive
criticism and a compliment. Weird habit of mine". Not even a
"sorry" would be needed.

Well, he didn't. Instead he relied on his alpha-dog factor and
the fact that there had already been some group members
explaining and excusing him (and, in fact and very funnily, when
he finally decided to comment he addressed not me but someone
else).

Meanwhile I'd be better placed to start trouble - if that ever
were my intention. I've read a good part of Mr. A's book, watched
quite some youtube, both with Mr. Bright and Mr. A. - and I have,
to put it in prosecutor like wording, generously enough material
in my hands (where Bright/AA basically say something I said too
and got bad reactions. But then, it's not really new that it
matters in social groups _who_ says sth.).

One simple example: Is Mr. A perfectly well capable to talk/write
within usual social limits? Yes, he is. His (btw. very well done,
if somewhat jumpy) book proves it. He just happens to feel free
to behave like an *** in this group, where he is an alpha and
where "tough lingo" and weird personal rites are part of the
"culture" - and glue - of this "D crowd".

I don't feel hurt, I am not after Mr. A., I'm not looking for
trouble and I'm not in fight mode or anti-D or anything like
that. But would you (all) kindly refrain from playing your group
games with me and telling me bullsh*t? I'm not interested.
Mr. A. has written the book on D and he did that quite well. He
has largely contributed to D and he did that well and some of his
work is even brilliant (for "scope" alone I'd be willing to
praise him gleefully).
And he also happened to show himself capable of gross social and
human incompetence - and I don't care; I'm interested in his
work, not in his person.
If at all, I'd point out the professional component, i.e. the
question, if it is wise for a relatively new, unknown and little
used language to drive newcomers off rather than to invite them,
guide them and be patient with potentially not so smart
questions. Like it or not, Mr. Bright and Mr. A.A. *are* your
shopfront.

You can count on me striving to be professional and constructive.
Don't count on me becoming another adapting dog in the D-crowd,
though.

Your advice and opinions on programming and language related
issues is honestly welcome and appreciated - incl. uncomfortable
ones. Anything beyond that is almost certainly not what I would
be taking from the "D crowd".

Can we now finally continue our lifes? Sure enough someone has
some detail issue to be found in the archives and to be
enchantedly discussed. With a little luck, your alphas will chime
in.

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 12:11:29 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 09:10:33 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:58:24 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, Ramon wrote:

Look, is not about alphas, crowds and so on. It is a simple misunderstanding that escalated.

Let's end this trouble. There is a lot of work that awaits to be done.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11:28 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 09:10:33 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very negative meaning.
>>> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and condescending and I do not intend to change my communication habits so as to understand "to destroy" as a positive statement or even a compliment.
>>
>> Have you heard the phrase "when in Rome..".  Seriously, you would rather assume a negative meaning/intent even after someone has taken the time to explain the intent/usage of the word/phrase in this grand forum?
>>
>> I sense that you may be beyond reasonable advice at this point?
>>  But, if not..
>>
>> Always start by assuming good intent, if you're right (and you will be 90% of the time) no problem.  If you're wrong, well at least you've not gotten worked up about it (so they have failed in their goal) and chances are it will annoy the abuser even more that you haven't (so ultimately, you win).
>>
>> Communication in written form is fraught with pitfalls, and this thread demonstrates how comments can be taken in completely the wrong way.  Dicebot's "I am dangerously close to hating you." was meant in a friendly way, /you/ decided not to read it that way.  Likewise Andrei's style is abrupt but there are good reasons for this, none of which include the goal of offending but /you/ have chosen to read them that way.
>>
>> Sure, more effort could be taken to make it clearer with excess smileys etc.  But, that stuff isn't necessary for communicating the content, and isn't necessary between established forum members, and isn't necessary if everyone just assumes good intent from the outset.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Regan
>
>
> Wow. Now I even get general advice for my life like "Always start
> by assuming good intent".

.. and have you taken that advice as it was intended?  With good intent?  Or are you still assuming the worst in people?

> How about some honesty?

Who isn't being honest?

> It happens to everybody of us. We hadn't any bad intentions but,
> alas, someone feels offended, improperly treated, etc.
> There is exactly 1 proper reaction for a responsible adult: To
> honestly look "Did I contribute to that?" and if so, to explain
> oneself.
>
> It would have cost pretty nothing to Mr. A. to simply say "OOps.
> Didn't mean any bad. When I say 'destroy' it's actually in
> between an invitation to continue hitting with constructive
> criticism and a compliment. Weird habit of mine". Not even a
> "sorry" would be needed.

The issue is that you've got this totally backwards.

In some countries people carry bodily fluids around in a small square of cloth in their pockets, in others they blow them straight onto the side walk.  If one is the norm and you're offended by it does someone owe you an apology?

Here, on this forum, "destroy" has a well known meaning which is the "norm".  If someone uses it, and you are offended, do they owe you an apology?

The answer in both case, IMO, is "no".

<snip>

I can't think of anything constructive to say in response to the rest of that, except that you seem to have a very different view of this community than I do...

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Human language rarely has any clear and well-defined meanings. Without cultural context it is almost nothing. Actually, in fact people almost never understand each other, they always operate within some amount of false assumptions.

In that regard, Andrei, who has been using well-established communication protocol understood by most part of this community was most honest and reasonable in expressing his intentions. Failure to understand that is always your failure as "proper" communication is always defined by community and never by beliefs of some people.

Scorning from my side is not because of opinions you express or technical goals you find important. It is because of sermon flavor that overwhelms all your comments. No reasonable man can think his beliefs and/or habits are any exceptional. Denying this and refusing to properly study domain you oppose is quite reliable indicator of ignorance or trolling. Probably both and I shouldn't really care about the difference.

I must admit I am quite fast to lose my temper and tend to overreact sometimes. However, it makes me sad to see that D community falls into completely opposite extreme - wasting time and efforts in useless attempts to satisfy people who are simply mocking it, whenever form it may take.

Agreeing with eles

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 14:08:47 UTC, eles wrote:

> Let's end this trouble. There is a lot of work that awaits to be done.

I limit myself to

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 14:21:45 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:

> .. and have you taken that advice as it was intended?  With good intent?  Or are you still assuming the worst in people?

Yes and no.

No, I did not take the advice. Partly because it doesn't mean and/or concern me, partly because I tend to carefully select from whom I take advice.

And Yes, I have understood you having good intentions.

For the rest of your post: Yeah, right, *I* have got it wrong. Of course. You bunch of assholes.
("asshole", of course, meaning "esteemed colleagues" but I won't tell you that until later).


On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 14:22:44 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Human language rarely has any clear and well-defined meanings. Without cultural context it is almost nothing. Actually, in fact people almost never understand each other, they always operate within some amount of false assumptions.

And, of course, the "D-crowd" is perfectly right assuming a newcomer to know their internal communication codes - while - the newcomer, of course, is plain wrong when assuming that words carry the meaning they carry for the rest of the world. Sure. Strikes me as brilliantly logical. I should bow before so much wisdom. How does one bow around here? By farting?

> In that regard, Andrei, who has been using well-established communication protocol understood by most part of this community was most honest and reasonable in expressing his intentions. Failure to understand that is always your failure as "proper" communication is always defined by community and never by beliefs of some people.

Short version: Mr. A is alpha and we are "the D crowd" not only  making whateverrules we please but we also expect anyone entering our virtual group to immediately know all our arbitrary wanton rules and kinks.
Try that with your dog. Using that on intelligent life forms is bound to fail.

> Scorning from my side is not because of opinions you express or technical goals you find important. It is because of sermon flavor that overwhelms all your comments. No reasonable man can think his beliefs and/or habits are any exceptional. Denying this and refusing to properly study domain you oppose is quite reliable indicator of ignorance or trolling. Probably both and I shouldn't really care about the difference.
>
> I must admit I am quite fast to lose my temper and tend to overreact sometimes. However, it makes me sad to see that D community falls into completely opposite extreme - wasting time and efforts in useless attempts to satisfy people who are simply mocking it, whenever form it may take.

So I'm supposed to thank you for your lack of consistency and "wasting time"?

You seem to know quite a lot about D. It might be wise to play that strength rather than doing what you did here (and which I mercifully will not take on further).

Have a nice day and be sure that I'll gladly listen to you as soon as it's about D ;)