[comp.lang.c] cdecl keyword and flames

gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/25/88)

In article <994@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>In article <7682@brl-smoke.ARPA> (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>Point 4: My home computer uses a scheme exactly as I have described; ...
>>	Don't accuse me of lack of experience!
>Tch.  Tch.  Doug.  Now we are in fantasy land.  This is a fine example of
>going off at half cock, as in the recent "goto's" fiasco.

How did I "go off at half cock" in the "goto's fiasco"?
All I recall doing is supporting Henry's right to his opinion
about excessive use of goto, which I think is technically sound,
while mildly criticizing his lack of tact in flaming the company
publicly.  (It certainly wasn't clear to either of us that the
original opinion was not intended to represent the way that
programming was generally done in that company; we inferred quite
the contrary.)  Any blowing out of proportion was done by those
on the other side of the issue.  (I even stated that I use gotos
myself when it's appropriate, but not otherwise.)

>I will pay a handsome reward to the first person who can point out any
>accusation of lack of *experience* in my posting.

	Quoting from <982@micomvax> by Ray Dunn:

	If I could be so bold, from the documentary evidence of the
	exchange on this subject, at the time of Doug's initial one
	line sarcastic dismissal of cdecl he either did *NOT* understand
	its full ramifications, or he still does not understand its
	usefulness or the power hybrid language programming can provide.
	...
	Yup, he doesn't understand.

I take this as a clear statement that I don't understand hybrid
language programming, which as I strongly implied I have considerable
experience with.  Granted that experience and understanding are
not totally equivalent, perhaps I should have said "Don't accuse
me of lack of understanding!"  I didn't realize we were going to
try to play sophomoric word games instead of discussing the issue.
Because of this technicality I guess I don't qualify for the
"handsome reward".

I explained what is wrong with the "cdecl" approach to this issue,
but Dunn chooses not to counter the technical argument and instead
tries to impugn my psychological functioning (see <994@micomvax>).
If I were an onlooker I know what conclusion I would draw from this
concerning the defensibility of the respective positions.

I apologize for not including technical content in this posting,
but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl".
This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified
personal attack.  If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does
seem appropriate.

ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (05/03/88)

In article <7752@brl-smoke.ARPA> Gwyn@BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>
>I apologize for not including technical content in this posting,
>but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl".
>This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified
>personal attack.  If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does
>seem appropriate.
>

Hmm.  Doug (or should that be Gwyn (:-)) not resisting the temptation to try
to get "the last word" in once again, if only in this newsgroup!

I thank him for his permission to follow-up in alt.flame even though, sigh,
that is exactly what was suggested in the posting he is ranting about, so if
this article is inappropriate, then so is the above, and vice versa, and I
crave the indulgence of those of you who have still not pressed 'n' by now.


It is tempting to afterburn into alt.flame, but why bother to continue a
dialogue with someone:

who is responsible for initially setting the whole tone of what had up to
that point been a reasonable discussion, by dismissing the subject with a
sarcastic one-liner (not the first time, btw, remember, amongst others, "Why
are you guys wasting so much effort on a non-problem?"),

who then later complains his "technical points" are not rebutted (in non
response, incidentally to an article that complained *he* had not responded
to the points made!),

who thinks the discussion should be closed when all that *he* "thought
needed saying" is said,

who thinks subsequent criticism is an "unjustified personal attack", (are
his sharp tongued humourless parries "justified personal attacks", I wonder,
like that above, and his previous ones on the subject),

who, when queried on a misreading of words typical of the cause of much of
the contention in the news-group, Scrabbles (c) on about "sophomoric word
games", while at the same time makes accusations that there was an attempt
to "impugn [his] psychological functioning" (I couldn't even *begin* to
guess how to do *that* Doug (:-))!!

Wow!  Perhaps he should publish the "Gwyn Rules Of Debate" (GROD), with
particular attention to the double standard definition of what is allowed on
one side but not on the other, so we know how (not) to offend him!

In the interim, I suggest we read his postings, often but not always
rational, often but not always informative, but that under *no*
circumstances should we dain to disagree with him, lest, God help us,
instead of just keeping out of discussions he obviously feels are beneath
him, he wont resist the temptation once again, and, psychological
functioning unimpugned, will let loose another GROD tirade.

I hope we can finish this on at least one point of agreement, as he so aptly
stated, the onlooker will come to his own conclusion on the "defensibility
of the respective positions".
-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090

dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (05/04/88)

This bit of homely philosphy from Dale Carnegie, not directed at any
individual, but at the entire Usenet community.  Admittedly, I could
benefit from it myself.

Let your opponent save face even if he's beaten to the ground.  If
you're right and handle it gracefully, he'll come around sooner if you
don't gloat.  And if you just happen to be wrong, you will save
yourself a lot of embrrassment in the long run too.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi