4 ms·

I asked you to write up an example using stack frames and addresses independent of any language. You have yet to do it. The comment you linked to is much more

I asked you to write up an example using stack frames and addresses independent of any language. You have yet to do it. The comment you linked to is much more reasonable than that and only introduces a little more complexity. But it is still more complex in my opinion because it uses both stacks/locals and heaps/objects as well as referencing C++, and I don't think someone who confuses Java for a pass-by-reference language will understand that any better. If your goal in all of this is to try to change my opinion, you will need to keep trying. Why you would spend all this time on it is beyond me, but since I enjoy correcting your fallacies and you seem to enjoy grasping for ways to appear like you've accomplished something with all of your replies, we could be doing this for quite a while. Keep it coming.

mannykannot 12y ago
To paraphrase Ian Fleming: No, Mr. Noakes [, I don't expect you to admit to even changing your mind], I expect you to continue to offer evasions, misrepresentations, irrelevancies and self-contradictions in an attempt to rewrite the record. Your response is exactly what we could predict: after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post, you attempt to rewrite the issue by bringing in his following two paragraphs, which are about a different topic (ironically, their topic is the unsuitability of C++ for this discussion!) The first paragraph stands on its own and is not dependent on, or even supported by, on the following two paragraphs. So you really would like us to believe that your judgement is such that you find this straight-to-the-point ("you still have no way to modify the variable binding on the caller's stack") argument slightly more complicated than yours, which includes a couple of other long, snide-remarks-laden threads (something you obviously have a predilection for), and a couple in which you finally abandoned your approach, telling people to read the JLS instead? Tobani, for one, found eslaught's post helpful: "I get what you are saying." Furthermore, the most you are claiming now is only that eslaughts's post (even in its entirety, including the parts not relevant to this discussion) is just a little more complicated than yours. This is very different from your initial claim (despite your attempt to mis-characterize it as "conversational prose" when it contains an explicit argument attempting to establish a fact - see my recent post above.) Even if we consider the use of 'exponential' as misleading hyperbole, it is still a claim that any such alternative would be inordinately more complex. Therefore, the fact that you are now arguing for only a little more complexity is a tacit admission that you now realize your initial claim was mistaken. Until you are ready to demonstrate some level of courage in your convictions, there is no point in me posting an alternative explanation here, only to have you willfully misrepresent it in the same way as you did for eslaught's post. If, however, some genuine third party joins in the discussion and requests it, I will be happy to present an alternative.
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  > after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post I wasn't ignoring it - it was irrelevant. > This is very different from your initial claim No it isn't - I never claimed anything about eslaught's post, directly or indirectly, before that. > 'exponential' [...] it is still a claim that any such alternative would be inordinately more complex You repeat this as often as you can, like it's somehow your only real point here. And every time, I point out that I made no such claim. The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion. You haven't refuted that, even though I am amused that you keep trying. You also haven't changed my opinion, and as you can guess, I'm equally amused that you keep trying there too. Continue, please.
  - mannykannot 12y ago
    No problem - these replies practically write themselves. I usually have a good idea what I am going to write even before I read your next evasion, and you keep giving me new material to work with. A case in point: your attempt to claim that eslaught's explanation is irrelevant. Of course, it is not - characteristically, you have offered no counter to my explanation of how it gets directly to the point - and of course you were not thinking it was irrelevant when you tried to argue that it is marginally more complicated than your approach. Only after I pointed out that by doing so, you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position, did it occur to you that it was a mistake, and decided that you would have been better off claiming that the explanation is irrelevant, even though that claim won't stand up. So instead of expunging one of your inconsistencies, you have added another case where you contradict yourself in attempting to rewrite the record. You also claim that this isn't what you were thinking of. Well, if you didn't think through the full scope and implications of what you were writing, that would be yet another mistake on your part, wouldn't it? We are, however, now entitled to wonder why, precisely, you think you can retrospectively rule this explanation out. As I wrote before, until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite that you will not attempt to rewrite later, there's no reason for me to post an explanation here.

mannykannot 12y ago

To paraphrase Ian Fleming: No, Mr. Noakes [, I don't expect you to admit to even changing your mind], I expect you to continue to offer evasions, misrepresentations, irrelevancies and self-contradictions in an attempt to rewrite the record. Your response is exactly what we could predict: after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post, you attempt to rewrite the issue by bringing in his following two paragraphs, which are about a different topic (ironically, their topic is the unsuitability of C++ for this discussion!) The first paragraph stands on its own and is not dependent on, or even supported by, on the following two paragraphs. So you really would like us to believe that your judgement is such that you find this straight-to-the-point ("you still have no way to modify the variable binding on the caller's stack") argument slightly more complicated than yours, which includes a couple of other long, snide-remarks-laden threads (something you obviously have a predilection for), and a couple in which you finally abandoned your approach, telling people to read the JLS instead? Tobani, for one, found eslaught's post helpful: "I get what you are saying." Furthermore, the most you are claiming now is only that eslaughts's post (even in its entirety, including the parts not relevant to this discussion) is just a little more complicated than yours. This is very different from your initial claim (despite your attempt to mis-characterize it as "conversational prose" when it contains an explicit argument attempting to establish a fact - see my recent post above.) Even if we consider the use of 'exponential' as misleading hyperbole, it is still a claim that any such alternative would be inordinately more complex. Therefore, the fact that you are now arguing for only a little more complexity is a tacit admission that you now realize your initial claim was mistaken. Until you are ready to demonstrate some level of courage in your convictions, there is no point in me posting an alternative explanation here, only to have you willfully misrepresent it in the same way as you did for eslaught's post. If, however, some genuine third party joins in the discussion and requests it, I will be happy to present an alternative.

jjnoakes 12y ago
> after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post I wasn't ignoring it - it was irrelevant. > This is very different from your initial claim No it isn't - I never claimed anything about eslaught's post, directly or indirectly, before that. > 'exponential' [...] it is still a claim that any such alternative would be inordinately more complex You repeat this as often as you can, like it's somehow your only real point here. And every time, I point out that I made no such claim. The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion. You haven't refuted that, even though I am amused that you keep trying. You also haven't changed my opinion, and as you can guess, I'm equally amused that you keep trying there too. Continue, please.
- mannykannot 12y ago
  No problem - these replies practically write themselves. I usually have a good idea what I am going to write even before I read your next evasion, and you keep giving me new material to work with. A case in point: your attempt to claim that eslaught's explanation is irrelevant. Of course, it is not - characteristically, you have offered no counter to my explanation of how it gets directly to the point - and of course you were not thinking it was irrelevant when you tried to argue that it is marginally more complicated than your approach. Only after I pointed out that by doing so, you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position, did it occur to you that it was a mistake, and decided that you would have been better off claiming that the explanation is irrelevant, even though that claim won't stand up. So instead of expunging one of your inconsistencies, you have added another case where you contradict yourself in attempting to rewrite the record. You also claim that this isn't what you were thinking of. Well, if you didn't think through the full scope and implications of what you were writing, that would be yet another mistake on your part, wouldn't it? We are, however, now entitled to wonder why, precisely, you think you can retrospectively rule this explanation out. As I wrote before, until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite that you will not attempt to rewrite later, there's no reason for me to post an explanation here.