From: Rainer Weikusat on
John Gordon <gordon(a)panix.com> writes:
> In <4c2bbb28$0$10436$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr> Nicolas George <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> writes:
>
>> Rainer Weikusat wrote in message <87bpasfcqd.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>:
>> > The original topic happened to be 'network protocols'. Network
>> > protocols usually don't employ 'arbitrarily large' records
>
>> Like HTTP?
>
> HTTP is an application-layer protocol, not a network-layer protocol.

HTTP is actually a counterexample because the protocol definition does
not specify a maximum header length. It just states that a server
should be capable of handling any URL which could possibly fall within
its responsibility and defines an error code for 'line too
long'. Practically, HTTP headers are 'reasonably short'. But this is a
ghost discussion, anyway. People who don't understand pointer
arithmetic tend to want explicit lengths because they fear that their
already needlessly complicated index operations would become too
complicated to deal with otherwise. Similar to the Java-cult, where
working code must not be used because it is taboo unless written in
Java, this is probably a weird (and rather primitive) religion. One
can have some hope that its aherents will (at some point in time in
the future) have gained enough attributes of actual human beings to
get past 'stone the heretic!' and gain some discussion
abilities. Until then, it's best to treat them like all other kinds of
foaming public preachers.

From: Nicolas George on
Rainer Weikusat wrote in message <874ogjihfi.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>:
> People who don't understand pointer
> arithmetic tend to want explicit lengths because they fear that their
> already needlessly complicated index operations would become too
> complicated to deal with otherwise.

And people who understand perfectly pointer arithmetic want explicit lengths
because it makes the code simpler, and simpler code is better.

You should derive no pride in writing complex code when a better design
could have made it simpler.
From: John Kelly on
On 01 Jul 2010 11:43:33 GMT, Nicolas George <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org>
wrote:

>Rainer Weikusat wrote in message <874ogjihfi.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>:
>> People who don't understand pointer
>> arithmetic tend to want explicit lengths because they fear that their
>> already needlessly complicated index operations would become too
>> complicated to deal with otherwise.
>
>And people who understand perfectly pointer arithmetic want explicit lengths
>because it makes the code simpler, and simpler code is better.
>
>You should derive no pride in writing complex code when a better design
>could have made it simpler.

Yes simple is better. Einstein said something like that too.

And by now, this conversation's horse is dead. Why keep beating it.


--
Web mail, POP3, and SMTP
http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php

From: Rainer Weikusat on
Rick Jones <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> writes:
> Nicolas George <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote:
>> Fortunately, the days where network protocols were directly
>> connected to a terminal ended a good decade ago.
>
> Speaking as a member of the Luddite Lunatic Fringe I will speak-out in
> defense of protocols that a human can (attempt to) emulate via a dumb
> terminal (emulator) and telnet :)

The statement 'network protocols directly connected to a terminal'
doesn't mean anything in itself, especially not when 'terminal' (as
was originally claimed) is supposed to be something which 'randomly
generates carriage returns'. It is already unclear what this 'terminal
which randomly generates \r' is supposed to be but given that quite a
few internet protocols where designed in the late 1970s, it ought to
refer to something which was then in common use as a terminal. Such a
thing cannot run the software necessary to interact with a TCP-based
service even if a RS-232 line could coneivably used to transport IP.

Confronted with a statement which obviously doesn't make any sense,
there are generally two options:

a) request that the person who made the statement explains
what he is actually referring to.

b) try to guess a sensible meaning based on one's own
knowledge of the topic.

b) is usually a bad idea because it is conceivable that the person who
wrote the original statement was just throwing around terms he got
from somewhere. My attempt at a) resulted in the affirmation that Mr
George isn't willing to express himself comprehensibly because he
considers a being incapable of reading his mind too lowly a lifeform to
tolerate it on HIS earth (or something close to that).

Assuming that your assumption regarding a possible technical meaning
of the term combination was correct, George's statement would roughly
parse as "I [he] haven't dealt with anything related to internet protocols
either as developer or even as mere 'user support guy' for more than
a decade" (the notion to do either of both without 'connecting
protocols to terminals' in this way is absurd). Which kind-of settles
the discussion: People tend to have opinions on lots of topics they
know very little about and insofar their opinions differ from the way
things are usually done, they are usually wrong.

From: Nicolas George on
Rainer Weikusat wrote in message <871vbnm83d.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>:
> People tend to have opinions on lots of topics they
> know very little about

Fortunately, not everyone here act like you do.