Conversation started May 17, 2013 at 15:05.
gnat
gnat
May 17, 2013 15:05
@GlenH7 ah I see. i would appreciate if you post the links you mentioned, I'd like to take a deeper look at my mistakes (it never hurts to learn, y'know:)
user41796
@gnat - will do. I need to take care of a few things first this AM, but will ping you with a few examples and my thoughts.
MadKeithV
MadKeithV
Wanted to post some of that black-box code, but it filled a page of chat, bad idea ;-)
Jimmy Hoffa
Jimmy Hoffa
lol
It's ok, I actively translate pointer operators into comments whenever I read code anyway
MadKeithV
MadKeithV
@JimmyHoffa Real low-level C++ developers read SSE intrinsics as if they are Esperanto.
Jimmy Hoffa
Jimmy Hoffa
@MadKeithV my answer to people who think the metal matters is anymore OCaml; because you don't need low level to get C++'s performance, so why bother when pointers are possibly the largest cause of bugs known to man? heh
Now if you genuinely need ASM level twiddling to eek out the perf you want; great, or if you're doing embedded; good on ya, but outside of those two scenarios: There are high level languages that can meet your performance needs, and do so with far less bugs
...and that's my stance on that holy war ;P
hides behind cover
user41796
May 17, 2013 15:13
@JimmyHoffa we'll just flag your inflammatory comment instead. ;-)
MadKeithV
MadKeithV
@JimmyHoffa No indeed, you don't need low level to get C++ performance, you can easily make your program that slow in a high-level language too!
Jimmy Hoffa
Jimmy Hoffa
@GlenH7 now I'm actually a little curious; you're a proper engineer which includes the rigor and the formality common to maths and proofs etc; but you're a C guy. Have you never lived the functional approach? I would think it more fitting to a proper real engineer with all the formality and rigor that those languages give you; have you ever looked at a language with dependent types? doesn't get much more formal than defining even your primitive types yourself
dependant typing is all about proving your code does behave exactly as it should, it won't even compile if there are any edge cases you didn't account for
(the classic joke for those languages is the code's never been run, because they only ever compile it)
 
2 hours later…
Yannis Rizos
Yannis Rizos
May 17, 2013 17:38
@gnat Your comments with links to tag wikis aren't particularly helpful. First, nothing authoritative about a tag wiki. Second, the tag wikis you've picked aren't particularly well written. Just a bunch of links and a couple of out of context quotes aren't going to help someone trying to grok the site, especially someone who already failed to read the FAQ.
gnat
gnat
@YannisRizos well, I couldn't use the books faq reference because clarification on Q being book request has been added later. - and most importantly, because I felt there is a chance for question to get rid of that part. as for resource requests reference...
...I would appreciate any suggestion of better one
(that would not be limited to book requests)
Yannis Rizos
Yannis Rizos
@gnat Check the revision history more carefully, the question was asking for a book from the start.
Title is "JavaFX Book | Learn JavaFX More In Depth", and in the question text:
> I'm having a tough time finding a good book I can curl up with for some good ol' bedtime reading. The Oracle documentation is fine for starters, but I'd like something comparable to the Swing Hacks book or other of the great Swing books.
gnat
gnat
@YannisRizos I saw that, per my reading of first rev it wasn't clear enough to qualify as book request "Learn JavaFX More In Depth ...The Oracle documentation is fine for starters..."
that has a chance to slide from book request (had, until rev 2)
not that it would make a good question, but sufficient enough for me to abstain from quoting faq on books
until rev 2, that is
Yannis Rizos
Yannis Rizos
May 17, 2013 18:00
Ok. As for a better comment, you won't find a boilerplate comment that would work on every off topic question. I'd suggest dropping them completely. Either the question is good enough (despite being off topic) to inspire you to spend a couple of minutes writing a personalized comment, or it's crap, in which case downvote, vote to close and move on.
user41796
Wall of text warning:
1) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/150045/53019
2) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/101300/53019
3) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/49379/53019
4) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/103779/53019
user41796
1) For me, the web services aspect is what differentiates this from the duplicate. Yes, services are just classes or methods off of classes, but the manner in which they're interacted with is different. So I see them as related, but different questions.
2) This one is really unit vs. integration testing whereas the dup is "what sorts of testing are there?" And that doesn't go into the level of detail the unit vs. int question could have generated.
3) Another related, but different set here. The question I linked is really focusing on when to use. The duplicate question (to design...) is…
Yannis Rizos
Yannis Rizos
As for a better link for resource requests: What kind of questions should I not ask here? (every answer is equally valid)
user41796
That said, I had to dig a bit to find those. And I specifically limited myself to ones where I thought the question should remain open. I could have found a few where I voted to close and may have picked a different close reason (NC, NARQ) instead of dup. To better summarize my sentiment, I think it's better to close as NC or NARQ when that's the case instead of finding a "duplicate" that's a bit of a stretch. To paraphrase Shog9's somewhat recent blog post, sometimes it's ok to be an a-hole.
 
Conversation ended May 17, 2013 at 18:01.