I wasn't quite finished...

[xcal]

RE: This thread.

Did you put any more thought into this answer than the OP did the question? Do you expect that to work how it's written when compiled and run on a different computer?

That was your first response. It was misleading. You questioned whether it would work if it was compiled and run on a different computer. By that statement, it's not a stretch to conclude that it would work uncompiled (and on your own computer). That is a partial assumption, yes, but a very safe one. So, when you made that first response, you were:

a) actually uncertain about how you had written it in the first place,

b ) setting up a situation for you to abuse your power (first hand knowledge) in order to manipulate the situation,

c) just wanted to be an asshole.

Personally, I think it was (a) and then (c ), and in the end (b ). So I guess all of the above, but not necessarily in that order.

You then posted 2 more times without any explanation at all. You posted a 3rd time before beginning to allude to what the problem really was. It wasn't until post #18 that you actually lay it out in a reasonable way. Even the best of coders make mistakes. I don't care who you are, I wasn't going to take what you had to say at face value, just because you say so. Only a fool would do that because you learn absolutely nothing that way. I was grateful for the explanation, and actually did appreciate understanding why I was wrong.

don't carry on like some damn fool who's too right to be wrong

Again, no clue where that comes from. The second I was shown to be wrong, I backed off and apologized.

I suggest you find yourself another language if this is how you're going to act here about our language.

Because I made that mistake, you want me to leave, and find another language? Because of how I act? I've spent the better part of 370+ posts trying to help people. I've asked maybe 5 questions for myself. I'm sorry if that's not the type of person you are trying to attract. And you call me an idiot. Speaking of which...

I didn't think you were an idiot, but it seems that you indeed are.

You said that a couple times through out the post, like having you think I'm not an idiot is some kind of special prize - because it's your opinion? Or maybe it's just important to you that I think it's important for you to judge me favorably. Please. Like I would hold your opinion in high regard. I've always thought you were an idiot. Should that matter to you? Not really. For the same reason I gave, I suspect.

You can ban me, close my account, whatever you want to do. I will explore another language (or two) as you suggested.

(edit - tags)

Edited January 2, 2007 by xcal

[_Kurt]

Well that's certainly interesting. Although I agree with xcal on this one, I'll leave it to you two to sort it out. xcal has helped me and others with several problems, that's a fact, and I do not believe he should be frowned upon for defending his point of view and even apologizing afterwards when he realized that he was infact wrong.

(... Waiting for Valik)

*edit* minor correction

Edited January 2, 2007 by _Kurt

[Valik]

That was your first response. It was misleading. You questioned whether it would work if it was compiled and run on a different computer. By that statement, it's not a stretch to conclude that it would work uncompiled (and on your own computer). That is a partial assumption, yes, but a very safe one. So, when you made that first response, you were:

Dumbass. That sums it up nicely. The question was rehtorical. I knew then, knew years ago and will continue to know into the future how #include works. The idea was, it doesn't work like you think so you need to go back and check your logic. But you completely missed that, no, the evil ass-hole developer can't know what he's talking about.

a) actually uncertain about how you had written it in the first place,

Just plain wrong.

b ) setting up a situation for you to abuse your power (first hand knowledge) in order to manipulate the situation,

No, I'd really rather you try on your own to learn how something works instead of pester me.

c) just wanted to be an asshole.

I'm an asshole by default.

I don't care who you are, I wasn't going to take what you had to say at face value, just because you say so.

Then you're an idiot, as I've said. I wrote the god damned code. If I say it does something - it does. End of story. Sure, I occasionally screw something up and it doesn't work like I intend, but #include has been in the language in it's current form for years.

Only a fool would do that because you learn absolutely nothing that way.

No, only a fool would question a developer about a feature working correctly (as I mentioned before).

Again, no clue where that comes from. The second I was shown to be wrong, I backed off and apologized.

It comes from you not taking what I say at face value. As mentioned for the 4983 time, I wrote the code, it works. If I say it doesn't work a certain way, it doesn't. No explanation should be necessary and if you want one you can find a better way of getting it than telling me that something I wrote doesn't work like I wrote it to.

Because I made that mistake, you want me to leave, and find another language?

If your reaction to a developer stating something is to challenge them on it, yes, I'd rather you harass somebody other than us.

I've always thought you were an idiot.

Here's a good reason to leave, then. If I'm an idoit then you're pretty well fucked. I've got code all throughout AutoIt so if I'm an idiot, I must not be able to write code, therefore the language has stuff in it written by an idiot making it unsafe to use.

Thread locked. You create another thread on the subject, you will be banned.