FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[Clark Cox]

How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?

Many times. Why is that relevant?

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Hyperlinking is more technologically progressive than
attachments. Yet you insist on attachments. You luddite!

Yeah - I thought of linking, however it does not follow the message
and when my server goes down, the message becomes useless. Much
better to have it as part of the message, i.e. an attachment.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:21:52 +1000,GianniMariani


Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
commitment for them?

I think you can easily auto filter inappropriate attachments.

I often have my responses auto filtered saying I've quoted too much of
the original message. That's one of the reasons (not the only one) I
don't use c.l.c++.mod...

 

[Gianni Mariani]

That argument assumes there is technological progress to oppose. It
looks pretty clear form the responses to this thread that those who care
don't see any advantage and some see potential risks.

All the responses so far have not addressed the issues I raised.

As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
open editor than save a file and open it.

Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Gianni Mariani:

I think you can easily auto filter inappropriate attachments.

I often have my responses auto filtered saying I've quoted too much of
the original message. That's one of the reasons (not the only one) I
don't use c.l.c++.mod...

Sorry, that's incorrect.

Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
cross-posting to unsupported groups.

However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
the loop* if you don't think of the readers...

Cheers,

- Alf

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Sorry, that's incorrect.

Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
cross-posting to unsupported groups.

However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
the loop* if you don't think of the readers...

Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
for some lamo reason.

There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.

Moderation is a nice concept, I don't see it working other than in low
traffic NG's like comp.std.c++ which (for whatever reason) I expect to
have more in depth discussions.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

[ ... ]

You opine without basis in fact.

Not true. I didn't express the facts, but that's different from claiming
that there IS not factual basis.

Please elaborate. Surely one who is
enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
simple issue.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but the argument is quite
simple: this is a _discussion_ newsgroup. Attachments are not
discussion.

Yes, attachments can/could reduce some problems due to lines in source
code being wrapped by various poorly configured editors/readers, etc.
While true as far as it goes, this has little relevance. First of all,
as has already been pointed out, many of us wouldn't open attachments
from unknown sources. Second, many (most?) newsreaders assume that
attachments are binaries and treat them in a manner suitable for
binaries, not as part of the message body where it belongs (given that
this IS a discussion group, so nothing really belongs outside the body).

If you really want to ensure against munging of posted source code,
there are better ways. Years ago, on Fidonet, a number of people noted
roughly the same problem. One of the solutions that was posted was a
program called csplit.c. This had a number of advantages over
attachments. First and foremost, the source code stayed in the body of
the message, and remained in a reasonably readable format. Second, since
it was still simple text, there was no way for anybody to hide something
people really don't want, as is trivial with an attachment. Third, it
actually did other "cleanup" on the code to make it ready for posting
(e.g. it automatically expanded tabs to a specified number of spaces,
since readers often don't display tabs quite the same as a programming
editor).

The method you're advocating is quite invasive and accomplishes little.
Other methods can minimize the invasiveness while accomplishing
considerably more.

I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.

You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
Explain what is so invasive to you.

 

[Ian Collins]

Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?

Sometimes, but I'd wager most attached code would have DOS line endings
I've have to filter out. I'd rather fix a small snippet than wade my
way through scores of lines of someone else's code.

We should encourage posters to post the smallest example that shows
their problem, as others have said, this helps them find their own
solution. If we accept attachments, I bet we'd get loads of "my program
doesn't work" postings with large code attachments.

The main issue isn't technical, it is human.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

On 2007-06-05 17:03:47 -0700, Gianni Mariani <[email protected]> said: ....

Many times. Why is that relevant?

I almost never find code a simple cut-n-paste.

Here is a very recent classic example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en

 

[James Kanze]

OK. I think this may be our difference in opinion. I do think there
are many good reasons to have source code attachments.

a) One click - save file - compile is simpler than open file, copy,
paste, correct the justification mangling etc.

If I'm going to reply, I've already got the original posting in
vim. So I don't even have to click to get a window up with the
original code, and prepare it for compilation.

b) Posting back a response is simply select drag-drop.

??? Posting back a response means writing something, no?

c) Attached code is more easily identified in the archives making it
easier (theoretically in the future) to search for.

Except that this isn't the right group for that. The goal here
isn't to post code that someone might find useful; it is to
answer questions, and otherwise discuss issues concerning the
language.

I'd like to see how you justify that statement.

What is there to justify? It's certainly easier to follow class
diagrams, etc., in some sort of graphic representation than in
ASCII art. But since, once again, this group is concerned with
the language, and not more general software design issues, it's
not that important.

I think it's obvious but maybe my earlier comments give you a
better idea.

I've not seen any reason as to why it would be better. Either
you're newsreader isn't up to par, or you don't know how to
configure it, so you want everyone else to suffer.

The inference being file attachments are not ?

Correct. I don't see any real utility for them in this group.

 

[James Kanze]

Owen Jacobson wrote:

People typically resort to such personal insinuations when they
don't have technical arguments to support their point of view.

Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes
technological progress with no substantive reasoning is a
luddite by the very (modern) definition of the term.

If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in
you, then this is something you need to deal with. Good luck
with that.

In other words, you have the right to insult people, but they
don't have the right to argue back.

In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
this news group when it comes to attaching code.

Such as? The current situation seems close to ideal to me.
Putting the code in a separate attachment causes no end of extra
work if I want to look at it and comment it.

Note that according to the charter of this group, the goal of
posted code isn't that I copy it on to my machine to use it as
third party library. The goal is discussion---I want that code
right there in my editor with the rest of the message, so that I
can comment it.

I have made
references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve".

I haven't heard anyone say that there's no need to improve.
What I've heard is people saying that allowing attachments would
not be an improvement. Which is certainly true with regards to
the charter of the group.

[...]

I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest.

You never do, do you?

Maybe I could do a
better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
think.

And not listening to what other people thing.

My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
posting on this NG.

I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.

Somehow, I doubt that you've posted anywhere near as much as I
have over the years.

Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
been fraudulent in some way.

I don't think he meant it quite that strongly. At least as I
understand it, "intellectual dishonesty" isn't quite the same
thing as fraud, and is often used to cover the idea that you're
not considering the arguments of others fairly.

Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest".

I think it's a particular use of English; I don't think anyone
is accusing you of misrepresenting your ideas.

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Gianni Mariani:

Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
for some lamo reason.

Just talk to the moderators. Communicate. Nothing gets fixed without
communication. I mean, there's an address to write to, and if one
moderator makes a bad decision, which of course happens, he'll (we're
all male: girls, where are you?) be told so by the others, and amend his
decision. As for me -- currently I'm the most likely to process your
articles, but I've only been doing this since last fall so I wasn't the
mod you encountered -- you can take that discussion in public if you
want, because I'm all for communication and Doing Things Right. ;-)

There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.

Yes and no. We have an [already stated] rejection reason, but we
haven't been applying it much, so there are many threads, mostly basic
questions, where a large number of almost identical answers are posted
and appear roughly at the same time. However, that also serves as a
quality check and provides some confidence that the answers are correct.

[snip]


Cheers,

- Alf

 

[dave_mikesell]

All the responses so far have not addressed the issues I raised.




Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?- Hide quoted text -

So use a source code formatter, like SourceFormatX.

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.

Just be careful -- there's also a (semi-?) standard UNIX CSPLIT that
does something only vaguely related. Including "Fred Cole" (the author)
in the search may help sort things out.

You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
Explain what is so invasive to you.

It requires a substantial change on the part of anybody who wishes to
(for example) follow-up to anybody who encloses their code in an
attachment instead of where it belongs.

 

[Clark Cox]

I almost never find code a simple cut-n-paste.

Here is a very recent classic example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en

In-line
Pro: Immediately visible (I can comment on the code without leaving my
newsreader)
Pro: Most compatible (I can read it in *any* newsreader; even a in a
raw "telnet newsserver 119")

Attachment
Pro: No formatting issues
Con: Must save to a file, then open in a text editor to even *see* the code
Con: If I want to comment on the code, I have to copy the code into my
response anyway (if it were in-line in the OP, then I would get this
"for free" by quoting)

 

[Gianni Mariani]

* Gianni Mariani: ....

Just talk to the moderators. Communicate. Nothing gets fixed without
communication. I mean, there's an address to write to, and if one
moderator makes a bad decision, which of course happens, he'll (we're
all male: girls, where are you?) be told so by the others, and amend his
decision. As for me -- currently I'm the most likely to process your
articles, but I've only been doing this since last fall so I wasn't the
mod you encountered -- you can take that discussion in public if you
want, because I'm all for communication and Doing Things Right. ;-)

IIRC I had a strong suspicion it was an auto reject and so I didn't
think at the time I was going to get anywhere nor did I feel compelled
at the time to bother since I was simply dabbling in clc++mod. If this
was the only reason I may have pursued it further.

There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.

Yes and no. We have an [already stated] rejection reason, but we
haven't been applying it much, so there are many threads, mostly basic
questions, where a large number of almost identical answers are posted
and appear roughly at the same time. However, that also serves as a
quality check and provides some confidence that the answers are correct.

If anyone would moderate with a reject of "[already stated]" I'd be
pretty annoyed. If I spend any time pushing out an answer just to have
a moderator reject because of propagation delay, it would likely be the
last time I would post there. Likewise, I stopped posting when it was
rejected for excessive quotation.

I'm quite happy with my own filter on clc++. I find the answers are
faster and generally the same quality on clc++. Between the regulars
on clc++, I think most post with merit are replied to with an adequate
answer in minutes.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

So use a source code formatter, like SourceFormatX.

Do a brainless cut-n-paste of the code from this recent post and push it
through your formatter and post what it produces.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/90d4ed6872222c5d?&hl=en

 

[Gianni Mariani]

People typically resort to such personal insinuations when they
don't have technical arguments to support their point of view.

Now who is being dishonest? Can you really tell me you don't know why I
think your opinion is as a result of an unreasonable fear of adopting a
better "techonology" and hence by definition luddite ? If after reading
my posts on this thread you still don't understand, I'll spell it out
again, maybe I'll use simpler words.

I don't think I'm beating around the bush here, I'm being bluntly
honest. If you're offended, don't be, I don't mean it as an insult,
just my observation. As I see it, in my perspective, in my opinion,
it's pretty black and white, y'all just don't get it yet. Yep, I've
often been on one side of the table, alone, with 20 very bright people
on the other side, while I am explaining what will happen or what
they're doing in a very different perspective than what they see. The
result is I'm having everyone yell at me that I must be too short
sighted. Very seldom have I been wrong. Maybe I'm wrong on this one,
so what ? It's not the end of the world. Please, don't think I'm
putting myself under scrutiny because I like it. I really thought this
was going to be a no brainer.

"Guys, let's use attachments - DUH!" I say. "Are you off your brain?" is
not a response I expected. I thought the evidence was going to be too
compelling.

Everyone has given an opinion but I seem to be the only one who ever
tried it recently.

In other words, you have the right to insult people, but they
don't have the right to argue back.

Can I assume you're insulted ? Sad, very sad. I don't think you need
me to explain "self confidence".

Such as? The current situation seems close to ideal to me.
Putting the code in a separate attachment causes no end of extra
work if I want to look at it and comment it.

Try the alternative and get back to me.

Note that according to the charter of this group, the goal of
posted code isn't that I copy it on to my machine to use it as
third party library. The goal is discussion---I want that code
right there in my editor with the rest of the message, so that I
can comment it.

Re-read the FAQ. Esp.
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.8

"compileable" code. I often cut-paste-compile-check errors.

I haven't heard anyone say that there's no need to improve.

Huh ? Reread your posts and tell me what you're saying is not "I like
it the way it is - warts? - what warts? - and all". That's how I
interpret sentences like: '...I have absolutly no problem "extracting"
bits of source code...'. (see your previous post). Something like this
was going through the brains of the people in 1811. "... I have
absolutely no problem making stockings by hand ...".

I seldom am accused of change for the sake of change so don't try that
guilt trip. Won't work. Try the alternative and tell me it's worse
with good facts.

What I've heard is people saying that allowing attachments would
not be an improvement. Which is certainly true with regards to
the charter of the group.

Refer back to FAQ.

[...]

I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest.

You never do, do you?

It took me a couple of ticks but I got it. Funny. Seeing you as a
comedian does give me new insight.

And not listening to what other people thing.

That's a classic accusation from a bad listener. Dripping with irony
today are we?

Somehow, I doubt that you've posted anywhere near as much as I
have over the years.

I don't want to start a tit-for-tat. The argument was simply that I
think I have a valid opinion and I've seen more fertile pastures.

I don't think he meant it quite that strongly. At least as I
understand it, "intellectual dishonesty" isn't quite the same
thing as fraud, and is often used to cover the idea that you're
not considering the arguments of others fairly.

You have yet to give me anything to change my opinion other than
asserting yours. This arrangement usually does not bear fruit.

I think it's a particular use of English; I don't think anyone
is accusing you of misrepresenting your ideas.

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false.
(wikipedia).

Where are we unclear here ?

I do believe that posting compileable code in a .cpp attachment is a
"Good Thing™".

I've tried it, I like it way better than cut-n-paste.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Clark Cox wrote:
....

In-line
Pro: Immediately visible (I can comment on the code without leaving my
newsreader)
Pro: Most compatible (I can read it in *any* newsreader; even a in a raw
"telnet newsserver 119")

Often it's important to compile the code yourself.

Attachment
Pro: No formatting issues
Con: Must save to a file, then open in a text editor to even *see* the code
Con: If I want to comment on the code, I have to copy the code into my
response anyway (if it were in-line in the OP, then I would get this
"for free" by quoting)

Here is a post I made a while back with an attachment.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/3afd50e9a21d17f4?&hl=en

Your comments are not all supported by the evidence.

Maybe we need better features in a newsreader but we certainly won't get
there without moving off the mark.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
....

It sounds like you're looking for a better solution to your problem
of having to reassemble the code when answering questions here.

That is one of the goals.

... Do
you really think it should be done by making everybody else's lives
more difficult?

Maybe short term, some lives will have a few issues, in the long run, I
think we will all be better for it.