The Not_So_Great whitespace agrument

Hi PeterJensen, Re: How coding has been my sole source of income since the start of 1982, all without ever being sued or fired... and how your record compares,

you were mooching off welfare and working around 100 hours a year. Now I understand how that could be, if your coding is your sole source of income. Nobody will employ you to write any serious software, when you code like you do. Clean up your act, and you might actually be able to support yourself some day.

Oh ! No response, I see. Does that mean that you've been fired and sued a lot ?

I basically retired in 1988, after my divorce. Perhaps you actually Like slaving away three thousand hours per year, ...if so, take it, it's all yours, I don't want it.

I expect that my low annual expenses is a big reason why I've been able to hold the same job for the last 12 years, ...a record that you can only dream of.

I Do support myself, by the way, no one has ever paid my rent in those years, and I supported a family of 4 from the start of 1982 to the start of 1988. That I've received food buttistance a couple of times means nothing, that doesn't pay the rent. Low income people are legally enbreastled to it.

It takes a lot of discipline to earn-spend less, discipline that you don't have, I note.

Re: How I use VisualStudio to edit-manage articles that X.EXE downloaded-inserted into Cola.TXT as well as e-mails downloaded to In.TXT,

...Using a software IDE as an editor for a newsreader. You know, the whole point of using a compiler in the first place is so you can distribute a stand-alone app. Having the app require the compiler to function is just X is the best newsreaderemailclient I've ever known. VisualStudio is the best editor I've ever known. Cotse.NET is the best ISP I've ever heard of ( SSHTunnelsProxies, SMTPAUTH, on-the-fly e-mail aliases, etc. )

Put those three things together and you get one bad-butt tool.

Re: My desire to make X.EXE a light-weight, feature heavy, ultra-custom editor that takes up almost no room on a RamStick,

...That's got to be the understatement of the year ! However, even if that issue got resolved, X.CPP would never become portable without a complete rewrite. I meant portable as in: I can carry in on a RamStick and put it on lots of different WinXP boxen, e.g. University offices, clbuttrooms, labs, lounges, libraries, etc.

In case you didn't notice, ndumeter uses two threads, one for handling the interface, rv is only used in one thread, the primary thread. Are you claiming that the rv I added would be a problem in your code ? ...if so, you're full of it.

Even if it wasn't hard to read, it would still be bad code No, it's because you were too lazy and too inexperienced to learn even one of my macros: Loop(). That's not my problem.

instead of just immediately acting on the result. And then you have multiple exit points where none are strictly required. That will result in significantly worse executable code, no matter how good the compiler is. It won't matter much in this case because it's a rarely called code block, but in more computationally intensive sections, it can surely be felt. But I guess that makes it easier to improve, eh ? What the hell are you going on about ! ? ndumeter's event loop is waiting to handle events, like keystrokes. There's no penalty to calling continue .

I find my code to be much much more readable than to yours, but, as they say in S‹o Paulo... Pois Ž.

Re: Why the size of a bool concerns you so,

on one ( also somewhat broken ) platform. Some of us actually have to give thought to these things, or face consequences when the code runs too slow or consumes too much RAM. Again, not a big problem with this code, but I tend to use the same standard with all my code, as it's good practice.

You'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic. Unless you're saving off bools to files or something ridiculous like that, Just buttume that a bool is the natural word size of your system, 32 bits or 64. just do ! ! ( not not ) if you must get paranoid about the size.

Re: How I find my Loop(), LoopTo(), LoopXx(), IncXx() macros to be more useful than the STL,

you will never find any professional ( or even modestly send hobbyist ) coder that will agree with you on that. If you have to think about the fact that it's a macro, and work around its bugs from time to time, then it's worthless.

I don't have to think about those macros, I just just slap them out. Sure, it required some investment initially, but now I reap the rewards.

I've never once questioned that. The fact is that if you didn't know your own code very well, then it would be unmanageable, because it's essentially unreadable.

The point I've been making all along was that your code was horrible to read for anyone else, which is why I suspect you will never get to work collaboratively with anyone at all. Hiding the fact that a variable is actually a pointer is a sure way to introduce bugs when somebody other than you makes changes. Some of these bugs will become compiler errors and not be a bigger problem.

Not if you read the code and learn what the macros are doing. Learning someone elses code requires an investment.

I don't blame you for not wanting to make that investment. But just because I can understand your code more than you can understand mine doesn't mean your code is somehow better, ...Code should be judged Only by what it does.

One should invest time working out what the individual sections of code actually do . Spending time working out how you butchered the programming language is not productive time. This is the crux of the problem.

This is what I think might be going on here: Arguing over whitespace is moderately interesting, while talking about what our respective programs do isn't.

Re: What does and doesn't count in the world of pro coding,

more bugs and more time spent tracking them down. I know this because I have worked on code optimization once. Sometimes I would come across large code blocks that were never ever executed any more ( it was an evolving project ). They had been allowed to survive because it was not obvious that the code was defunct, even though that code was much better than anything you've shown so far. So, whether you believe it or not, the source code quality Really ? How many hours did you spend testing HTMTXT.EXE ? X.EXE ? Games.EXE ? Dif.EXE ? Tom.EXE ? How many hours did you spend testing Loop(), LoopXx(), LoopTo(), IncXx() ?

Re: How I judge one's competency by what his code does, not his source code,

a piece of code that still requires the compiler in order to work ? X.EXE works without VisualStudio, the settings are described in X.TXT. I could set it up to work under MSWord, for example, using VBA macros. It could also work with notepad, technically, but that would suck.

Not on planet earth it isn't... Earth to Pete... Earth to Pete.

Re: Why you get fired so much while I don't,

No, try again. Your job is much less secure than mine... why is that ?