until you do this, you need to stop saying anything about my words are "emotional" or "projecting"

it was trivially fallible again, why would I rebut that?

Banana peels always lead to flying. Unfortunately airplanes can't burn banana peels.

until you do this, you need to stop saying anything about my words are "emotional" or "projecting"

lol "trivially fallible", like asking some toddler to explain something he doesn't understand so he just says "it's a secret"

lol I think sumbuddy is maddd ;)

I just want you to address the arguments I'm making instead of trying to distract from them

You didn't make logically consistent arguments, are you actually asking why they aren't?

Or just making ad-hominem and unfounded accusations as (statistically) usual?

I'm asking what makes your definition of singleton the unquestionably right one

There is no such thing.

but! wait

don't do your usual thing yet...

don't do it! ok let me type

I use the definition I do because it is practically applicable, and not arbitrarily retarded from applying to certain fundamentally useful cases for the sake of theoretical argument on effectively the morality of using them or not.

I reject your definition because it is based on an unknown combination of an unknown number of unqualified opinions.

Further, if that were not the case, I still reject your definition because it arbitrarily retards the topic from progress in some specific cases which you frequently voice.

Lets go a step further.

Lets use the actual definition of the word "singleton" outside computer programming.

> a single person or thing of the kind under consideration.

A static class is objectively a singleton, because there is only a single static context of any given class. Q.E.D.

okay, so you've finally admitted "There is no such thing.", and you have a reason for your definition. it's a good reason too. finally some progress. however, the problem still remains: when you use the word singleton, everyone assumes the same definition that I do, and they misunderstand what you're saying.

Lets go a step further... The definition is general, which is the thesis of my original argument.

@IcyDefiance The word is defined in the dictionary. You are wrong. Other wrong people are also wrong. The word is the word.

when someone comes into this room and asks "should I use a singleton" they're not asking "should I limit this class to one instance", they're asking "is there a better way to limit this class to one instance than the pattern with GetInstance()"

Yes they are!

They exactly and literally are, maybe it's not what they mean to ask...

But they objectively are asking exactly that, maybe even more general, but not less.

Your argument is that singleton means something less general than singleton.

This is trivially false.

and when I give the right answer to the second question, which is the one they're actually asking, you say I'm "retarded" and objectively wrong.

I only said that the definition "retards" as in blocks from progress.

no earlier you said anyone who opposes using a singleton is retarded. I didn't mean that message.

I am not like you, I do not assume people say things they don't mean. I do not assume people use all words informally at all times.

@IcyDefiance Yes, literally retarded from the usage of the singleton pattern.

Objectively retarded.

The actual definition of retarded, not your icydefiance informal "folksy guess" definition

Let's get it started in here

okay I can accept that you didn't mean to be insulting...I don't believe that, but it doesn't matter, so moving on...

I assume people are smart enough to use the language they use.

lol

@jon man this is a 7.5 GB download.

Anyway, Mick. Any idea on where to start working (related to svg rendering)?

I'll get it later tonight, and rebuild with the newer version tomorrow

huh

to dillute the argument further, so it's harder to distract from the point: I answered the second question correctly, and you said it was wrong

@Pip Do you want to be able to use them as textures or not?

Preferably

@IcyDefiance nobody gives a fuck, not even a flying one lol

err, dillute is the wrong word isn't it... whatever, lol

I might just do interpretation once and save it to a pretty high resolution normal bitmap texture

that would probably be way easier

@Pip Can you pre-render them into texture memory as needed?

Yeah I think that's the route I'm going for now. Thanks!

@MickLH except Adrian does...or did. he got the wrong advice from you because you expect people to infer an unusual definition for a word when there are no indicators to infer that definition from.

Ok look, you have to just drop it. Nobody cares and you're assuming too much

observing, not assuming

Sorry for trusting people to understand what the word they are using means.

Is that good enough?

"Sorry for trusting people to understand what the word they are using means according to me and no one else on the planet."

I'll just assume that last bit and accept it

I can prove that if you truly believe you're "observing" and "not assuming" then your axioms and view of reality are objectively corrupt and invalid.

And I can objectively prove that the dictionary says exactly what "singleton" means, and it's what I've said the whole time.

It's very general.

GetInstance() methods are not the only singletons. period!

dictionary.reference.com/browse/singleton

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/singleton

thefreedictionary.com/singleton

Fuck what morons think, here are some dictionaries.

If you still care what morons think, I do not care what you think!

those "morons" are the ones asking if they should use a singleton, so what they think is exactly what we should care about

Hey @AidanMueller

I thought you were intelligent, but @IcyDefiance is saying you're too much of a moron to understand the meaning of the words you use. Is this true?

....but apparently I'm the insulting one lol

LOL yes, because when I put "morons" in quotes specifically to mock that word, implying that he's not a moron and you are being insulting, that means I'm calling him a moron

makes so much sense!

You literally are.

LOL

He is your specific example for your argument that people can not understand the meaning of the word they use. Correct me.

Wait, let me be specific

Lets make this fair

you mean LoL

sure, assuming your definition is the right one, which you've already admitted doesn't exist. but even assuming that, you're the one who said that lack of understanding makes him a moron.

omg

Excuse me? I'm simply saying that we leave the idea of a "moron" out of this...

shut up and play rocket league losers

ROKIT LEEG!!

new mapz on the way

I have a class in a real codebase, lets call it T and it generates singletons. It is a singleton factory lol.

you are the first and only person to call anyone a moron, Mick. my entire point, which you partially agreed to earlier, is that any definition is valid and for the sake of mutual understanding we should use the popular one. your point is that one definition is right, or at least more right, and when referring to people who don't "understand" that, you said "Fuck what morons think"

your lack of self awareness right now is astounding

I called some people morons earlier...

@Almo you see those fucken maps?

@IcyDefiance My patience is the only astounding thing here

@Jon I did not.

I think one's the round one from SARPBC

nio???!?!

Oh man

I love that map

multi hole nets

cool :)

multi level

obstacles

it is gonna significantly change up the game

right, because calling someone a moron and then going "I didn't say that, you said that" is so patient. the person putting up with that shit without getting himself suspended again isn't patient at all.

and we are gonna have to play 1 on 1 :D

SARPBC had a pirate ship with two levels and posts in the middle

and a space one that was pretty cool

yeah i'll play 1on1 with you sure

I want to be absolutely clear: The popular definition of a word is irrelevant in the context of computer science. Any notion which insists that the popular definition is the correct one is ill-formed to the extend that you should literally expect an edible (probably chocolate chip) cookie to be delivered to you physically every time you use a website with cookies.

So again, what is your goal here?

I'm assuming it's "for the lulz" at this point.

Because your logic is objectively wrong from every angle, and your rebuttal is "LOL"

the popular definition of a word becomes relevant when talking to literally anyone, if you want to be understood. if you don't want to be understood, and instead just want to be "technically right" by some mostly arbitrary metric, then expect people to - at the very least - try to translate your ramblings so the noobs can at least get some worthy information.

I will re-state the original thesis as I exit, for the sake of any confused reader: The singleton pattern is not limited only to "GetInstance()" methods.

This is infallibly correct assuming 2016 english dictionary definitions. Good day, I have to go.

Don't forget lounging

You're right tho

i hear that a lot