Re: FW: Error compiling gnustep-startup-0.11.0 using gcc 4.0.0

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 2005-06-22 00:49:04 +0100 Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> wrote:

> Nicola Pero wrote:
> > > > > Does this seem like a reasonable solution? Considering the code isn't 
> > > > > supposed to be used anyway? Or perhaps we should really make good on 
> > > > > our 
> > > > > promise to depreciate this code?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a harmless change.
> > > >
> > > > It's a long time since I looked at the mframe stuff though ... so I'm 
> > > > not 
> > > > sure we can simply remove all of it (which would be nice), and my 
> > > > inclination is to just leave it in place and accept patches ... 
> > > > until/unless someone gets time to look at it carefully.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you give an actual rationale for why you feel mframe should not be 
> > > removed, given that it is deprecated and seems to cause compilation 
> > > problems with EVERY new minor (not sub-minor) GCC version? Honestly, I'm 
> > > curious to hear why you think we should just keep band-aiding the problem 
> > > incessantly when it's the source of a lot of BS, and probably also a 
> > > reason why some people try GNUstep, fail to get it to work/compile, and 
> > > then give up and go use something else that functions.
> >
> >
> > Alex, you need to work on your communication skills.
>
> Once again, you need to stop assuming there's hostility where there is none.

He didn't say/imply at this point that there was any hostility ... he 
suggested that you should make your posts appear less hostile.  You can read 
what he actually wrote just above this.

My initial emotional response to your email was along the lines of "here's 
Alex attacking me for things I didn't say or imply again! ... either he has 
some personal vendetta against me, or he just can't be bothered to actually 
read and comprehend what I write".   Now, I realise that the initial 
reaction is probably more extreme than merited ... but I don't think it is 
totally unjustified.

> > I don't know about others, but to me your post looks arrogant and 
> > aggressive ... and out of place.
>
> GNUstep doesn't compile with GCC4 because of mframe, AFAIR...is it arrogant 
> or aggressive to say that I expect that it should?

If you say it an in arrogant or aggressive manner ... yes.

Let me elaborate ...
Nobody has suggested in any way that GNUstep shouldn't compile with GCC4 ... 
so if you say that it should, in such a way as to imply that the other 
person thinks it shouldn't, you are using a rhetorical device known as 
a'straw man' attack.  Basically, setting up the other person with an 
position they don't hold, for the purpose of knocking it down.  This is an 
aggressive technique of argument.  The technique works 'well' in spoken 
language, where the speed of the conversation is such that it can slip by 
unnoticed, but it seems arrogant to assume it will be unnoticed.  In any 
case, it doesn't help to illuminate a discussion.

> > Did you actually read the post that you are attacking ?
>
> Of course, I read every word multiple times, but the rationale is 
> insufficient. If it was sufficient, I would not have requested further 
> elaboration.

What rationale, and insufficient for what?
Adam asked two questions, and I gave my opinion ...

An implicit 'yes' to whether it's a reasonable solution, and the suggestion 
that, while removal is desirable, someone should take a good look at the 
mframe code before removing it.
I didn't provide rationales ... but the rationale for checking changes 
carefully is that if we don't do that we break things, and the mframe stuff 
is still tied up in various tricky parts of the code.  I didn't think that 
needed to be stated.
I also implied that I thought it relatively low priority to remove mframe (I 
didn't volunteer to do it immediately).

In your first email, you started with 'Can you give an actual rationale for 
why you feel mframe should not be removed' ... and then went on to loudly 
overstate a case (EVERY, BS etc) for removing it, and since I clearly want 
mframe to be removed, this has the appearance of either a straw man attack 
or some inability to read and comprehend my email.  If you wrote foreign 
sounding english, I would tend to assume reasonable misunderstanding, but as 
english appears to be your native tongue, and you have a history of writing 
emails in a similar manner, the appearance is more one of careless/sloppy 
reading... or perhaps I inadvertently did something to offend you at some 
point, and now all emails I write to you get the worst interpretation you 
can put on them?

Perhaps though, you understood clearly but expressed yourself unfortunately.

In which case you might have written something like -

'I think removal of mframe should be high priority, as I have the impression 
that it fairly frequently causes problems triggering bugs in different 
compiler versions etc.  As we seem to be agreed that it should go, could 
someone please make time to remove it as soon as possible?'

> It's not an angry rant. Get over it. If others misinterpret or read too 
> much 
> into a very literal question and concern, it's not an issue with me.

I'm afraid it is an issue for you ... however you feel about it, if you 
appear hostile in emails it causes problems.  I know it's an issue for me 
(having been told that I'm terse, uncommunicative unfriendly sounding etc), 
and I attempt to do something about it.  I think that meeting people in 
person at events like FOSDEM helps though ... it's easier to make allowances 
for the perceived tone of an email if you have met the person.