106 reputation
3
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 10 months
seen Jul 7 at 4:39

"If you will draw too much attention to the shit, shit will destroy you." -- Ok, I see. But, "There is so much evil in the world not because there are so many bad people but because good people keep silence." - Martin Luther King

The solution is the vertical (i.e. dense) city! In addition to the major nature waster, it solves all aspects of the problem (e.g. forests and heating). What is the problem? Have you ever heard that all your technological advance is based on oil, that is over?

I ask a lot of questions and "I have extreemly low tolerance for the stupid bullshit" (G. Carlin). Yes, beauty is not relative. Particularly, this means that I do not accept bullshit. Circular argument (it is so because it is so) or unrelated details are not arguments. Do you consider this rude? Go fuck. I'd rather offend people than pander to them.

pay especially close attention whenever an idea is being suppressed.

It seems to me that the idiocy is amplified by Fluff Principle here. I consider Stackexchange a best place for challenging the assumptions in popular beliefs. But, I see that people, who are unable to listen, practice ostracism. The bigots from all over the world confer to ignore my argument and preach what they know, the simple minded beliefs. For instance, why don't we have spacedelta in python, why direction makes difference between scalars and vectors, conductor must gain charge when electrons are set into motion, what is the point of accept method in visitor pattern. These are all cases where I ask to argue for the fundamental basics and all are massively downvoted. People hate to know why popular things are like they are! This is bigotry as is the macros are evil overprotection.

Stackoverflow: Debugging means localizing the bug. In 99.9% debugging exposes the bug and it is not a subject of StackOverflow. StackOverflow can only be useful if you describe some weirdness and do it very clearly. Try using logic: show how B follows from A. The code snippet must be no longer than necessary to expose the problem. Dumping his program awhole, user demonstrates that he made no attempt to localize the bug.


Sep
25
comment Why is “tight coupling between functions and data” bad?
Coupled with the fact that inheritance is evil (you must contain rather than extend) and there is no advantage in replacing conditionals with polymorphism, we can conclude that OOP is meaningles from very beginning, valjok.blogspot.com/2013/01/…
Sep
2
comment Be liberal in what you accept… or not?
How showing some case does not show that case?
Sep
2
comment Be liberal in what you accept… or not?
I wonder what is the difference between HTML and general data? The robustness principle is about communication. One writes - one reads. Why network communication is different than visual or API? I have an API example where the principle of being liberal at what we accept simplifies the life of users who are programmers, reduces the code size and, therefore, improves performances + eliminates bugs. Look stackoverflow.com/questions/18576849
Sep
2
comment Be liberal in what you accept… or not?
You are saying that fail-fast, which is opposite of "robust" is more efficient.
Aug
1
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
Can you elaborate? What makes deferred super initialization acceptable in Delphi that breaks in Java? If you've realized something important, it might be a good answer.
Aug
1
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
It was tagget 'Java' to discuss the restriction we see in that language, not to prohibit comparison with other OOP implementations.
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
You cannot create an instance of fruit before apple. You first create apple and it happens to be a fruit. In reality fruit does not exist alone, without apple. Changing fruits -> apes does not change this. Even the magic spelling IS A will not do it for you. Secondly, store2 IS NOT A store1. So, your theory of construction seems natural for an OOD practitioner, but is incompatible with reality. The fact that you have to use wrong analogy to support it just proves that.
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
If language is never wrong then having superconstructor first is as good/bad as not doing it?
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
Indeed, I ask this question because I am not great at OOD. But, those who defend the superconstructor produce logic like this, programmers.stackexchange.com/a/206657/63834 They say that vegetable must be built before cucumber because cucumber IS A vegetable and, similarly, 2nd floor is related with the 1st one! This nonsense makes me to think that learning perfect OO design destroys people minds. How do you prove that student's feeling that lang is wrong means that student is stupid? How do you prove that lang is wrong? By praising it first?
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
I say nothing about super(). I start with case where method A and B are called on initialized object. The workflow demands A first. You mistakenly call B first and break something in the object. Will this break the object? Could wrong order of calls break an initialized objects? Object constantly evolves. How can you say that it is completely initialized? Could wrong order of method invocations break the initialized object?
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
Do I break the supreclass if call first method_B then method_A whereas it required method_A then method_B? Could I brake it?
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
Ok, you say "do not call inherited methods before super is initialized". But, requirement for super() be the first is different. It says that I cannot initialize my own, newly introduced fields before calling the super(). Do you feel the difference? Secondly, your database may fail if the order of method calls is wrong. Preinitializing the parent object does not save from that. Right? The super object designer must specify the proper order of calls, including super(). That is why I say that super-first does not add anything. I do not see how your answer addresses these issues.
Jul
31
comment Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
His link goes to the question. I do not understand which answer you are talking about!? Secondly, stop recommending another language. Start telling which language is better and why. This begs for answering if superconstructor must be the first. Recomming C# does not answer this question. It is a kind of diverting from the question.
Jul
31
asked Why must a constructor's call to the superconstructor be the first call?
Jan
24
awarded  Commentator
Jan
24
comment Who are the outspoken critics of Object-Oriented design?
I wonder how it can be that all programmers on one hand admire OOP and dismiss it when say "composition over inheritance" on the other: valjok.blogspot.com/2013/01/…
Jan
17
awarded  Supporter
Jan
11
comment Is there ever a reason to do all an object's work in a constructor?
The really contestable statement is "Constructors should instantiate the fields of an object and do any other initialization necessary to make the object ready to use". Tell it to the most popular contributor.
Sep
9
awarded  Editor
Sep
9
answered Is there ever a reason to do all an object's work in a constructor?