Message to binutils

[JamesM]

Binutils, seriously your hit-and-run posting is getting a little annoying.

[binutils]

no i am not run and not talking to you. so you off..

my post is supposed to help op, NOT YOU.

--
PS: if i am running, you are cave man??

PPS: don't you dare say to me "annoying"..

[JamesM]

Another variety is the sole posting of a URL or link that leads to material that might be used as a discussion primer, but with no added opinion of the poster. It differs from plain spam since forum spam often is posted by spambots, while hit-and-run posting on the other hand is done by a real person. ... However, since the poster doesn't stay around to defend the posted material, or even discuss it, it is considered disrespectful

That is what hit and run posting is. Compare it with your style of reply and see if you can see the similarities. I know full well that I am not the first to comment on this.

You post links without any indication as to why they could be useful, and what they are. That is what I find annoying, and yes I do dare.

Cheers,

James

[binutils]

how the hell is it relevant to my previous post?
are you boring?

[JamesM]

http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp-linux.html

HTH

not flame, how about D over obj-c?
D win?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... highlight= <-- The first post.

Freshmeat is your another friend.

http://freshmeat.net/browse/133/

http://kandid.sourceforge.net/

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 3&start=15

HTH

Would you like me to continue? Those were all found in the most recent 14 days!

If you still can't see what I'm talking about then I think that your brain needs examining.

Cheers,

James

[binutils]

sound like you didn't even post link never before. don't you?

and what is the rule here? there is no link allowed here? and is it meaningful to you wikipedia says something about hit and run post.

i could fit the bold on you. just like you did. ...

the method only difference.

let me say this: none of your business.

--
PS: your Exhibit A was wrong. you know it and didn't understand my question. think about it.

my post is supposed to help op, NOT YOU.

[Combuster]

@binutils: while some posts are trying to be helpful, half is indeed hit-n-run spamming. Which isn't too bad really if you wouldn't start trolling and going off-topic the moment you get commments on that behaviour.

@JamesM: He's baiting you. Please do ignore him.

[binutils]

half is indeed hit-n-run spamming.

Too bad knowing you thought so.
IMHO, just-in-time-link and talk and opinion are same to me, whatever they are bluffing.

--
PS: i mean all your knowledge belong to link.
link is similar with compactness

Compactness

Compactness is the property that a design can fit inside a human being's head. A good practical test for compactness is this: Does an experienced user normally need a manual? If not, then the design (or at least the subset of it that covers normal use) is compact.

Compact software tools have all the virtues of physical tools that fit well in the hand. They feel pleasant to use, they don't obtrude themselves between your mind and your work, they make you more productive — and they are much less likely than unwieldy tools to turn in your hand and injure you.

Compact is not equivalent to ‘weak’. A design can have a great deal of power and flexibility and still be compact if it is built on abstractions that are easy to think about and fit together well. Nor is compact equivalent to ‘easily learned’; some compact designs are quite difficult to understand until you have mastered an underlying conceptual model that is tricky, at which point your view of the world changes and compact becomes simple. For a lot of people, the Lisp language is a classic example of this.


Nor does compact mean ‘small’. If a well-designed system is predictable and ‘obvious’ to the experienced user, it might have quite a few pieces.

-- Ken Arnold

Very few software designs are compact in an absolute sense, but many are compact in a slightly looser sense of the term. They have a compact working set, a subset of capabilities that suffices for 80% or more of what expert users normally do with them. Practically speaking, such designs normally need a reference card or cheat sheet but not a manual. We'll call such designs semi-compact, as opposed to strictly compact.

The concept is perhaps best illustrated by examples. The Unix system call API is semi-compact, but the standard C library is not compact in any sense. While Unix programmers easily keep a subset of the system calls sufficient for most applications programming (file system operations, signals, and process control) in their heads, the C library on modern Unixes includes many hundreds of entry points, e.g., mathematical functions, that won't all fit inside a single programmer's cranium.

The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information [Miller] is one of the foundation papers in cognitive psychology (and, incidentally, the specific reason that U.S. local telephone numbers have seven digits). It showed that the number of discrete items of information human beings can hold in short-term memory is seven, plus or minus two. This gives us a good rule of thumb for evaluating the compactness of APIs: Does a programmer have to remember more than seven entry points? Anything larger than this is unlikely to be strictly compact.

Among Unix tools, make(1) is compact; autoconf(1) and automake(1) are not. Among markup languages, HTML is semi-compact, but DocBook (a documentation markup language we shall discuss in Chapter 18) is not. The man(7) macros are compact, but troff(1) markup is not.

Among general-purpose programming languages, C and Python are semi-compact; Perl, Java, Emacs Lisp, and shell are not (especially since serious shell programming requires you to know half-a-dozen other tools like sed(1) and awk(1)). C++ is anti-compact — the language's designer has admitted that he doesn't expect any one programmer to ever understand it all.

Some designs that are not compact have enough internal redundancy of features that individual programmers end up carving out compact dialects sufficient for that 80% of common tasks by choosing a working subset of the language. Perl has this kind of pseudo-compactness, for example. Such designs have a built-in trap; when two programmers try to communicate about a project, they may find that differences in their working subsets are a significant barrier to understanding and modifying the code.

Noncompact designs are not automatically doomed or bad, however. Some problem domains are simply too complex for a compact design to span them. Sometimes it's necessary to trade away compactness for some other virtue, like raw power and range. Troff markup is a good example of this. So is the BSD sockets API. The purpose of emphasizing compactness as a virtue is not to condition you to treat compactness as an absolute requirement, but to teach you to do what Unix programmers do: value compactness properly, design for it whenever possible, and not throw it away casually.

[JamesM]

@JamesM: He's baiting you. Please do ignore him.

I have no idea whether he is baiting me or not, because his posts sound like he had babelfish set to translate from the wrong language...

[Brynet-Inc]

I can't understand half of the things binutils posts, he/she/it's bit mysterious if you ask me.

[lollynoob]

He doesn't contribute and makes horrible posts, so let's just ban him already.

[Brynet-Inc]

He doesn't contribute and makes horrible posts, so let's just ban him already.

And your posts are any better? I think "banning" him is a bit overboard, you on the other hand.. I'm fine with.

[JamesM]

I don't want anyone banned, I don't want to jump on the flame bandwagon either.

You'll see my above posts aren't flaming at all, the first one especially is just pointing something out. The followups just confirm when I already wrote.

[lollynoob]

You guys are talking about banning like it's shooting his dog or something; it would just be one less bad poster on an otherwise good forum. It's no big deal, except to the person being banned, who we obviously could care less about. Stop empathizing with people on the internet who can't even type correct English.

[01000101]

no offense JamesM, but isn't this entire post a little hypocritical?

I agree, he does perform alot of hit-and-run postings, but you are obviously flaming him in this post and its sole perpose is to do just that, nothing else, and nothing productive.

I think if enough people dislike what he is doing, then kick him, else, leave it be.