I wonder if it's actually ad hominem, given that the complaints were directed at the content rather than the person, and given that the complaints weren't used to show that the arguments were incorrect. On Mar 2, 2013 5:36 AM, "morten hattesen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Clay, I couldn't help laughing, when I read your post. > > This is clearly the most clear example of the pot calling the kettle > black<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black> I > have ever seen. > > Your post contains nothing, but ad > hominem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>attacks. Nothing to counter > the substance of the argument. It is, in fact, > completely off topic. > > I guess you havn't had a good day, and just felt like letting out a some > steam ;) > > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:13:28 AM UTC+1, clay wrote: >> >> "A Java™ Parallel Calamity"!?!? >> >> *This is the most childish, baseless attack I've ever read.* >> >> If you are going to attack this technology for performance, you need some >> kind of benchmarks to even begin to look like a serious criticism and not >> just childish insults without any point. >> >> When JDK7 launched: I did some benchmarks of my own: I implemented a >> simple quick sort in serial, one with a simple thread pool with locked data >> queues, one with a lockless data queues (using Atomic check-and-set ops), >> and a fork-join implementation. The results were slightly hard to >> interpret. For small volumes of data, serial worked the fastest. Locked >> data queues were always slow. My custom lockless data queues worked about >> as fast as JDK7 fork/join in the higher volume cases. >> >> *This is garbage. All attack and insults and Java sucks, .NET rules, and >> nothing to back it up with.* >> >> I am critical of Java 8 (and Guava) for omitting map and flatMap from >> Optional. I am critical of the Java language for other things, but I have >> actual specific points with some kind of reason and evidence. *This is >> just hateful trolling of the laziest and worst kind.* >> >> Cedric, no *he shouldn't submit this to lambda-dev*. Anyone can write >> Java is *a big flaming pile of dung* and send it, but they shouldn't. >> Thoughtful negativity is ok. *Ranting crazy hateful insults* are not. If >> you have some better ideas, or if you think .NET has some better ideas, you >> should start with some benchmarks or something close so that we can rule out >> * this kind of utter crap*. I have benchmarked fork/join as I said and >> it did reasonably well. Even Typesafe uses JDK fork/join under the hood for >> some Scala/Akka stuff and I suspect they chose it for a reason. >> >> Edward and Casper, *you are trolling in the worst, laziest, and most >> disgusting way*. You should be *deeply embarrassed for posting this kind >> of thing.* I don't see *an ounce of legitimate complaint* and nothing >> beyond *Java sucks, .NET rules*. >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
