Pissing match? Copious examples on using threads are not a pissing match, I much prefer them to rumors and fairy tale rants | [reply] |
It's a little more complicated than that, but it is understandable that you aren't interested in the detail. But you do have the choice of simply not reading them.
However, if you find that unacceptable, perhaps you could post a list of subjects that are important to you, to which I should restrict myself?
What's more, if you can get a consensus--let's be generous and say, 1% of the active membership--on what those subjects should be, I'll be so bound.
| [reply] |
that you aren't interested in the detail
As it happens, I am somewhat interested in the issues that are discussed. Concurrency is an important element of programming and discussions about the possibilities of various concurrency models can be enlightening. While I remain securely in the camp that favours a process-based model, it never hurts to hear a differing view, and some of the things you said e.g. about why you think ithreads is a strong concept that's just not implemented ideally, were illuminating. So thanks for that. And YMMV in these things, always. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I find your POV unworthy of consideration.
I just wish these posts were not coated with such an unappetising sheen of belligerence. And, though you may be surprised to hear that, I perceive most of the antagonism originating with you (this perception, naturally, is mine alone and I make no claims that it may be shared by others). Which makes it harder and less pleasant to dig through the threads in search of actual information hidden within the barbed comments.
As for your implication that I am trying to censor or limit the things you should talk about: Please! Enough with the paranoia already!
| [reply]
[d/l] |
some of the things you said e.g. about why you think ithreads is a strong concept that's just not implemented ideally, were illuminating.
Thank you for noticing. I respect your preference for the process-based model.
I don't agree with you doesn't mean I find your POV unworthy of consideration.
Ditto.
I just wish these posts were not coated with such an unappetising sheen of belligerence.
Believe it or not, I agree with you.
I wish it was possible to express a positive opinion of the iThreads model--or any, counter-the-current-trends, opinion--here, without them getting drowned out by catch-phrase contentions and bumper-sticker labelling by the usual suspects.
With today's tenancy for short attention spans and sound-bite evangelism, unless you can persuade or cajole the sound-bite slingers to expand them into something that can be countered on a blow-by-blow basis, then all that gets remembered is the sound-bite. Which is why those who are entirely aware of the technical limitations and outright inaccuracies of their sound-bites choose to hide behind them.
The point of this meditation is to point a real-time example of how, yesterday's FUD becomes today's de-facto understanding.
As for your implication that I am trying to censor or limit the things you should talk about: Please! Enough with the paranoia already!
No paranoia. Just counter argument through reductio ad absurdum.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
