DoSuperMethodA without amiga.lib side posts

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Thomas,

Meynaf is wrong. He know's he's wrong. He's just arguing with you for entertainment. While there's nothing wrong with that, you could both choose something more worthwhile to argue about.

Regards,

The rest of the internet.

No i am right and this post of yours is just trolling.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by meynaf

No i am right and this post of yours is just trolling.

You're now trying to start something with someone who wasn't even speaking to you.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

You're now trying to start something with someone who wasn't even speaking to you.

Speaking about me is enough.
If you don't want to start something with me, just stop doing that.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Speaking about me is enough.
If you don't want to start something with me, just stop doing that.

What?

Really?

This?

Grow up.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

What?

Really?

This?

Grow up.

Are you serious? Meynaf and Thomas have a different opinion, that's all there's to it, but you accuse meynaf of knowing that he is wrong and just arguing for entertainment. Perhaps you need to consider what you're saying here.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Are you serious? Meynaf and Thomas have a different opinion, that's all there's to it, but you accuse meynaf of knowing that he is wrong and just arguing for entertainment. Perhaps you need to consider what you're saying here.

You, sir, have failed to read or understand this thread.

[meynaf]

Next trolling post will be reported immediately. This is all i can do about it.

I am not arguing for entertainment - it ain't entertaining at all, actually.
But just to show any reader that the dominant opinion isn't necessarily the only one, let alone the best.

I am often using names in code, but not always. As sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not.

Often the name is just cryptic or too general and does not say much about what it is.

As an exemple, can you (anyone) tell me what "Count" is and which structure it belongs ?
Can you tell by memory, after many years without using them, what "MaxLocMem", "MaxExtMem", "DispCount" and "SysFlags" are ?
Or what are "pr_CIS", "pr_COS" ?
Or "bsblthd", "bsblttl" ?
I don't think so.
This shows "self documenting" is a delusion.
A comment is REQUIRED to tell the reader what these are.

Now consider the following :

 jsr -636(a6)		; d0 = NewObjectA (a0=class, a1=classID, a2=taglist)

It documents the bloody thing a lot better than just using the LVO doesn't it ?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Do you actually know whether $18 is the right offset? If so, how?

Yes, because I looked it up, which I don't like doing because I find it a pain, but it's still correct.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

And if not, how would you find out without debugging?

You can just double check those numbers. Not a big deal, just annoying.

Look, I get where you're coming from and I don't think you're wrong, but meynaf isn't either. He limits this to a small part of his code, namely an OS framework, which gets reused over and over again.

The advantage of his approach is clearly that he limits dependencies to a single file which itself doesn't have any dependencies what so ever. It's not an approach I like, but I can certainly appreciate the idea behind it and don't see what's so bad about it.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Next trolling post will be reported immediately. This is all i can do about it.

Fine. Please report now.

Originally Posted by meynaf

I am not arguing for entertainment - it ain't entertaining at all, actually.
But just to show any reader that the dominant opinion isn't necessarily the only one, let alone the best.

It's actually the opposite, the best opinion in this case happens to be the dominent.

Originally Posted by meynaf

I am often using names in code, but not always. As sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not.

Often the name is just cryptic or too general and does not say much about what it is.

If a name is cryptic, etc. then this is a good case for a a comment.

Originally Posted by meynaf

As an exemple, can you (anyone) tell me what "Count" is and which structure it belongs ?
Can you tell by memory, after many years without using them, what "MaxLocMem", "MaxExtMem", "DispCount" and "SysFlags" are ?
Or what are "pr_CIS", "pr_COS" ?
Or "bsblthd", "bsblttl" ?
I don't think so.
This shows "self documenting" is a delusion.
A comment is REQUIRED to tell the reader what these are.

This is not the same thing at all. You are not helping your case.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Now consider the following :

 jsr -636(a6)		; d0 = NewObjectA (a0=class, a1=classID, a2=taglist)

It documents the bloody thing a lot better than just using the LVO doesn't it ?

Again,

Feel free to report this post.

By suggesting to people that it is better to look up, work out, calcaulate, whatever, that the value -636 is the offset where you need to jsr to, and then just throw away that information, is just plain bad advise.

I stick to my belief that you only continue in this thread to try to wind people up.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

I stick to my belief that you only continue in this thread to try to wind people up.

How shortsighted.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by Thorham

The advantage of his approach is clearly that he limits dependencies to a single file which itself doesn't have any dependencies what so ever. It's not an approach I like, but I can certainly appreciate the idea behind it and don't see what's so bad about it.

Then, if this is so important, which is plainly isn't, why not simply reproduce the constants in this file, or would that have the unwelcome side effect of making the code easier to understand?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Then, if this is so important, which is plainly isn't, why not simply reproduce the constants in this file, or would that have the unwelcome side effect of making the code easier to understand?

Sure, you could, but it doesn't make anything easier to understand, because of the comments that are already there. It's just a convenience, a nice one, but still just a convenience.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Fine. Please report now.

So you admit you were trolling ? Wow.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

It's actually the opposite, the best opinion in this case happens to be the dominent.

Don't be so sure of that. Code more and make your own with experience, instead of just following others.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

This is not the same thing at all. You are not helping your case.

Why wouldn't it be the same thing ?

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

By suggesting to people that it is better to look up, work out, calcaulate, whatever, that the value -636 is the offset where you need to jsr to, and then just throw away that information, is just plain bad advise.

I'm not throwing away any information.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

I stick to my belief that you only continue in this thread to try to wind people up.

I am not asking anyone to change their coding style, i'm just defending mine. Can't you see the difference ?

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by Thorham

comments that are already there

The comments were not already there. There was no code there. The comments were presumably typed at the same time that the code was. Over and over. Pointlessly and more pointlessly.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Then, if this is so important, which is plainly isn't, why not simply reproduce the constants in this file, or would that have the unwelcome side effect of making the code easier to understand?

Why not reproducing the constants in this file, you ask ?
The answer is : to avoid namespace pollution.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by meynaf

So you admit you were trolling ? Wow.

Really? You got that from that? You idiot.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Don't be so sure of that. Code more and make your own with experience, instead of just following others.

20 years of professional software development, 10 years of development manager experience, now retired and coding only for fun until the ski slopes open. But sure, I'll code more and make my own with experience.

Or, maybe, $18 everywhere. Sure, that's much better.

Originally Posted by meynaf

I am not asking anyone to change their coding style, i'm just defending mine. Can't you see the difference ?

Why do you feel the need? Someone just offered you some very good advice based on their own professional experience, but instead you wanted to start this?

[Ernst Blofeld]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Why not reproducing the constants in this file, you ask ?
The answer is : to avoid namespace pollution.

That would only be an issue if you were including your code rather than linking it. But, you've got better coding habits that that, surely?

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Really? You got that from that? You idiot.

I said i would report trolling post and you said "just report". The link is easy to make.
But now you're even insulting, and guess what : this has been reported.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

20 years of professional software development, 10 years of development manager experience, now retired and coding only for fun until the ski slopes open. But sure, I'll code more and make my own with experience.

Experience of other languages is of little use for asm...
But yes, please make your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Or, maybe, $18 everywhere. Sure, that's much better.

No, not "everywhere". Read the thread again.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Why do you feel the need? Someone just offered you some very good advice based on their own professional experience, but instead you wanted to start this?

I didn't start this !
Read again.
I had a question, then an answer with a suggestion.
I replied with simple explanation why the suggestion wasn't applicable.
And then a whole house fell on me.

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

That would only be an issue if you were including your code rather than linking it. But, you've got better coding habits that that, surely?

Linking is impossible in that case. Code is very adaptative, linkers can't do that.

Now if you think i'm so bad a coder who can't do things properly, i suggest you have a look at this page :
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=85200
Count my name there.
All these of course use my system framework includes - which provide automatic error handling and even resource tracking.
And they all work fine.
With numbers inside.
Not using a linker.

[Ernst Blofeld]

I prefer to always use the numbers. Makes debugging easier because it does only know numbers and this better matches the source, which in turn does not depend on anything external and assembles faster.

Reposting your words for clarification.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Ernst Blofeld

Reposting your words for clarification.

Right, my "always" was clumsy. It's "always" but just for OS stuff.