FYI, I liked it, even though yes.. it would be optimized out.
my rule of thumb, if it aint slowing you down.. dont worry about it. Do it the easiest way you can. The advanced concepts were moved to another list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 4:42 AM Subject: [(evil aura) general flame] Re: Style and possible (fun) isset > I'm just trying to provide some entertainment for you oldbies. :) > > Actually, this mailing list is dying. I haven't seen a CONCEPTUAL discussion > in ages. There's not any discussions of how nanny could be redone anymore. > There's no discussions of what the better implementation of unlimited bits > are. There's no discussion of anything experimental. People write in with > their questions about "Hey, I've got THIS problem with THIS code." > > The response they get: "Smarten up! You're being dumb!" And as true as this > is, in most cases, it's uncalled for. ;) (In my case, it's called for, I was > busy reading about compilers and such things when I wrote the email too. :P) > Also, I suppose I'm one of those people that comp.lang.c faq talks about.. > "The average C programmer tends to want to know too much about the underlying > machine code they're producing." ~paraphrased. I don't know... I've been > making an active effort to start a discussion about something new, something > "exciting." I posted a command interpreter that I wrote from scratch - the > comments? "You don't know how to indent." "You used malloc?!?" Now I truly > don't care what people think of my indenting style, because I have mine, and > you have yours. And as long as mine is uniform it's not that bad. BUT. That's > beside the point. Nobody on this list (With the exceptions of Palrich and > Sandi Fallon) made any comment on how it worked! And it's not that I was > looking for glory - indeed, it's not that elegant. It works. Now, people > didn't tell me why I shouldn't use malloc... they just said don't. And I find > that many people receive the same treatment. I've been on this list over a > year silently watching it's decline. Seriously, most of the questions > anymore have to do with "How do I implement this snippet?" > > Hmph. Nobody wants to write their own snippet! > > And I will now get off my pedastal and admit that I haven't written any > snippets either. But then... I don't have a mud. I don't program for a mud. > I'm just interested in programming and the concepts behind a mud. I joined > this mailing list because ROM was easier to read than smaug. (I'm on both > lists.) ROM's a lot easier to read than smaug... (Well, it was. :P) I've > learned alot from just being on this mailing list... but those days are over. > > I'm going to stay on this mailing list on the off chance that there's going > to be someone who comes who wants to discuss the concepts behind how a mud > works. Just in case someone wants to be creative and discuss a new way to > implement something... ANYTHING. And I'm sure I grow lengthy and boring. And > I congratulate those of you who actually made it this far. I also apologize > for my seemingly incoherent anger. > > So on a brighter note... anyone want to discuss the ideas behind any part of > ROM? > > *looks up and notices "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"* I'm probably going to get kicked > off > this list. *shrug* > > Hey Brian.. I noticed the b>>5 being found by most compilers just a few > minutes after I sent the email. Pity there's no way to "remove email 5" ;) > > Merry Christmas folks... And happy coding to all, and to all a ... (maybe) > good night! > > Mark > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > -- > ROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom >
