I haven't, and won't, 'name you names'. You could have given a nice technical explanation of what Carmack did without having to call the person 'delusional', sa

I haven't, and won't, 'name you names'. You could have given a nice technical explanation of what Carmack did without having to call the person 'delusional', saying they started with 'pessimisation' then further going on to belittle them by saying you'll 'explain with less words'. Even after they go further and say their programming was a goto spaghetti hell made in 2005 as he was learning to program, you keep trying to brow beat him with your decades of knowledge and experience. Why are you angry at him? I thought the main point of the fine article wasn't just about the technical details, but also the fact that they wouldn't give up. Would you rather that he had seen his flickering game and just say 'Aw screw it, programming is crappy!' and walk away? Or do you want a signed and printed statement of your 'absolute' rightness, a full retraction from him never to compare himself with Carmack again and pg to come into this thread and strike down his comment from the top and relegate it to the bottom of the page until he spends years learning what people knew 30 years ago? Most of the people here understood what you were discussing. My first computer was a Sinclair ZX81, and I remember well those magazines you brought up. But you were really rude the way you were discussing it, and quite frankly, you were calling him names, unless you think that delusional is a nice way to refer to someone. And yes, my email is in my profile if you do want to email me privately and call me names.