Clear Screen?

[Stephen Howe]

Re: Clear Screen?

> Is there some reason you had three screens worth of quotes for this tiny[color=blue]
> reply?[/color]

Laziness.

I hate the griping about top posting in the newsgroup (which is a heinous
crime IMO and come the revolution, top-posters will be second against the
wall to be shot with me in the role of executioner).

But some people who gripe against top-posters commit the equally henious
crime of not pruning old conversation. Why should I have to download reams
of old conversation and then scroll through it just to see a reply? IMO they
are more guilty than top-posters (and again, come the revolution,
non-pruners will be first against the wall to be shot with me in the role of
executioner).

Stephen Howe

[Stephen Howe]

Re: Clear Screen?

> I guarantee you that I can show you several systems where C++,[color=blue]
> standard or not, cannot clear the screen. For the simple reason that
> there IS NO SCREEN. One of the reasons C++ does not support a screen
> is that it does not require one.[/color]

I agree with you. But lets go further...

Equally I can show you systems where there is NO SUCH THING AS A FILE. So
why does both C and C++ provide stdio/streams? That is an OS thing and IMO,
should be removed.

Also the assumption that dynamic memory is available via new/malloc() should
be removed. That also is an OS thing and IMO should be removed.

Stephen Howe

[Ashish]

Re: Clear Screen?


"Stephen Howe" <SPAMstephen.ho weGUARD@tnsofre s.com> wrote in message
news:3efdea68$0 $10625$ed9e5944 @reading.news.p ipex.net...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Is there some reason you had three screens worth of quotes for this tiny
> > reply?[/color]
>
> Laziness.
>
> I hate the griping about top posting in the newsgroup (which is a heinous
> crime IMO and come the revolution, top-posters will be second against the
> wall to be shot with me in the role of executioner).
>
> But some people who gripe against top-posters commit the equally henious
> crime of not pruning old conversation. Why should I have to download reams
> of old conversation and then scroll through it just to see a reply? IMO[/color]
they[color=blue]
> are more guilty than top-posters (and again, come the revolution,
> non-pruners will be first against the wall to be shot with me in the role[/color]
of[color=blue]
> executioner).
>[/color]

No problem.... here I am, shoot me, spam my email address, hack my website,
DOS attack my webserver and do whatever you feel like.
I visit this newsgroup for advise and sometimes even help others. I dont
like top posters and non-pruners too. But when people weep over not pruning
posts in some stupid off topic post, it pisses me off. Please dont read this
message, it has nothing to do with C++.

-A

[Default User]

Re: Clear Screen?



Ashish wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Default User" <first.last@com pany.com> wrote in message
> news:3EFCCDAD.A 7B2C176@company .com...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Is there some reason you had three screens worth of quotes for this tiny
> > reply?
> >[/color]
>
> Yes. A couple of reasons actually. First, it has become an off-topic thread
> and anyone who cares to read off-topic posts should probably take the
> efforts to scroll down to the bottom. Second, I am too lazy.[/color]

Neither is a good excuse.

1. We can't really rail at the top-posters when people validate their
point by failing to edit the quotes down to a reasonable subset. If a
post is worth responding to, it's worth taking the time to do it
correctly. If not, then the better solution is to not reply at all. The
fact that it was OT does not matter.

2. I find it difficult to believe that it was that much work. I used to
use trn with vi as the editor, yet always managed to trim quotes. You
use a windows based newsreader, where you merely needed to drag down on
some text and hit delete.



Brian Rodenborn