And since I know you're going to make the argument "but you can distinguish it from context!" -- Quick, is MyThing.init() calling a static method on the MyThing class, or are we calling an instance method on an instance?
If you have static and instance methods of the same name, then I think you deserve everything you get, but aside from that - In C++ you can give an instance the same name as a class. Future references to that symbol within that symbol's scope refer to the instance.
To make things clearer, you could always find a simple prefix for an instance. The reason there isn't a standard is probably simply that there's no need for one.
Here's a couple of better examples. "polish" refers to a substance used to make surfaces shiny, whereas "Polish" refers to the language spoken in Poland. "reading" is how one assimilated information in a textual form, whereas "Reading" (pronounced "Redding") is a town in England.
Asking a computer to treat 'T' the same as 't' is not a natural assumption like it is in a human - you have to put in extra code to make it do that. Therefore, you have slower compilers
You just need to convert everything to lower case. Even a fairly slow implementation of this will only take a few instructions per character. Any PC less than 10 years old could process several megabytes in less than a second.
I also note that you realize English is case sensitive. You didn't have your all caps key on. Why are you not complaining about that?
the difference here is That while this sentence IS incorrectly capitalised, You will still be able to understand it. i could even do all lowercase, OR ALL CAPS, without slowing you down too much.
Like many posters have already said, taking case out of the equation takes out a bit of information that can be put to very good use in the language semantics
This is certainly useful though. I've been using this today. Something like "object" is a useful name for a variable of type "Object". This style of code isn't always advisable, but often useful.
I think part of the problem with the question is that when people say "case insensitive" they're probably thinking to themselves, "all caps". Which would certainly cut down on some of the readability and consistency issues mentioned.
I don't. I want all lower case, with the option of capitals at the start of a new statement, but without the compiler complaining if I don't bother.
The problem is that the two are not the same, and if you really do mean case insensitive you have to put up with things like pUblIc STatiC final INT FOo=0; That pains me just to write it.
Yeah, but would you?
For example, all comments are totally case insensitive. I could add/*clASs tO HoLd GEnEric DatA*/, but why would I want to? Most people would still stick to a convention.
He said sales taxes, rather than VAT, which I guess would include cigarettes, alcohol and fuel taxes. These add up if you're a smoker, drinker and driver.
In the UK, and, I believe, all countries that have agreed to the Berne convention, copyright law also allows copyright holders to licence distribution rights to a limited territory.
A totaly out of date piece of legislation in my opinion, but I have no idea who you contact to get an international treaty reconsidered.
You are providing a mechanism whereby SPEWS can block an IP address at your router simply by adding it to their list. I think that shows that they are operating your router.
how the hell are you in a position to "demand" that their policies bend to your will?
I also demand that everyone else does not treat me as though I'm a wrongdoer if I have done no wrong. There is such a thing as politeness, or doesn't that apply to the internet?
SPEWS is accountable.
Then why don't they have a contact address? Why is it so hard to get off the list? Why do they keep blocking ranges that they know are not spammers?
If they were irresponsible and caused ISPs who filter with their lists to block loads and loads of legitimate mail (and keep in mind that SPEWS lists less than 1% of all available IP addresses), then no one would use them.
Microsoft release software with thousands of bugs, which causes a lot of virus infections and lost data, yet people use them.
They list IP blocks owned by organizations responsible for spamming time and time again. Just because you're unable to understand that an ISP not kicking off spammers is effectively supporting spammers does not mean that the methods employed by SPEWS are invalid.
And how do SPEWS make this determination? The whole thing looks very ad-hoc to me. Perhaps they made a mistake in their AUP, and have to go through legal action to get rid of the spammers. There may be other scenarios that I and SPEWS have not taken into account. Does SPEWS do any checking to find out what people are doing about the spammers? Oh, I've just realised - They're allegedly accountable. I'm sure they can simply be called, and someone can explain the situation.
Demand all you want! Like I said, it will have no effect on whether I take your packets.
That's a very anti-social attitude. Personally, I think that it's rather impolite to refuse my mail purely to punish someone else.
Whatever happened to honesty, courtesy and politeness? Does the lack of a contract mean that none of these are neccesary?
I'm not delegating any responsibility at all.
Yes you are. You are using a third party to determine what is and isn't spam.
I still operate my own network.
But subcontract the IP blocking part
I trust SPEWS, because by doing so I get far less spam. I may not get mail from you, but that's your problem, not mine.
If spam is so objectionable to you, why not simply block all email? Since you have no contractual obligation to receive anything, this should only inconvenience everyone else.
My argument is not "that everyone else should be forced to carry your mail on their networks", merely that SPEWS should be more ethical with their list, or that responsible sysadmins should not use SPEWS.
As for "jumped up nerds with too much power", I think that comments along the lines of, "It's my network", the whole attitude of "We're not responsible if IPs we list get blocked", and the fact that they have the capability of using their list to intimidate ISPs into doing things their way, suggests that they are Jumped up, nerds, and that they have too much power.
The fact that SPEWS seems to get considerably more criticism than most other blocking mechanisms telsl me that their credibility is falling.
The arguments you make are invalid, because you demand that other people volunteer to take your traffic.
No, I don't think I do. I merely demand that they have a better approach to their policy on what they allow on the network. It's only polite not to accuse non-spammers of supporting spam.
I choose not to take your packets if I have reason to believe that you or your ISP are hosting a spammer. A listing in SPEWS is one very strong indicator to me that this is the case. Nevertheless, it's up to ME to decide what comes through my router, and your approval is neither sought nor required.
Yet you choose to delegate that responsibility to an organisation that is totally unaccountable. Why is this? They list IP blocks that are not responsible for spamming time and time again. Why do you trust them?
If I make the latter choice, then by your formula SPEWS has just unblocked those addresses and will continue not to block them as long as I don't change my mind.
Nope. You've simply removed the ability for SPEWS to block these sites. Once you choose to use SPEWS, you are delegating responsibility for blocking to SPEWS.
Every sysadmin in the world could decide today to remove SPEWS from their configurations, and without any change on SPEWS' part the addresses they list would no longer be blocked anywhere (on their recommendation).
They could do. However, SPEWS knows that a number of organisations use and will continue to use their list.
Please explain how SPEWS gained administrative access to my ISP's servers and configured them in accord with SPEWS policy regarless of my ISP's policy.
They predicted that you would configure them as they "recommended", and hence by gaining acces to you, they blocked the IP. If they add an IP to their list, they know it will be blocked. The administrator is a component, just like the server.
Let me turn your argument around. If you perform no action, and a result happens, did you cause the result? Because if I reconfigure a box to consult (or not to consult) SPEWS, they likely will never know about it, and have not done anything they were not already doing, yet the behavior of the network changes. Who changed it?
Huh? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. In that case, you blocked the IP addresses. However, if SPEWS continues to have those addresses on the list, knowing full well that some servers will block them, then they will also be blocking those addresses. SPEWS does not know that that specific server will block an IP address, but they do know that if they list an address, it will be blocked by a large number of servers.
Well, if my email to your customer gets blocked, it is my business.
True, people have the right not to use SPEWS. Those who try to discourage its use are trying to educate people. Considering SPEWS seems to suggest that its purpose is to block spam, when its actual purpose is to punsih spam hosters, I think that people who use it need to be educated.
You know, people have sued companies, and won, even though their agreement would appear to excuse the company.
In this case, of course, this term only covers problems that are outside of the company's control. If the company deliberately blocks a customers email, they would be liable.
Strange. A simple web search can find a lot of people who do seem to know their stuff, and want to discourage people from using SPEWS. Some of these are people who have been blocked by a system that claims not to block, to people who have decided to stop using SPEWS because the criteria were too broad.
That's just plain false. I've been using SPEWS for almost two years. In that time, it has blocked upwards of several tens of thousands of spam messages, and a grand total of 3 "false positives."
And you are? Do you run an ISP for a major organiation, or are you a private user? Does your provider use SPEWS? Do you receive any legitimate emails from Korea or China? Does anyone who wishes to contact you have an IP address from a company that has been used by spammers?
One of the stated aims of SPEWS is to encourage legitimate customers of spam friendly ISPs to complain to their provider. If they want to do this, then surely it must be blocking legitimate email.
Most admins don't pay for their network. Either the owner of the company does, or the company's customers do.
I would suggest getting an admin whose actions are ethical and accountable. If an admin uses his power to punish people for aiding spammers - which seems to be the main aim of SPEWS - then he is acting unethically.
Slashdot Mirror
And since I know you're going to make the argument "but you can distinguish it from context!" -- Quick, is MyThing.init() calling a static method on the MyThing class, or are we calling an instance method on an instance?
If you have static and instance methods of the same name, then I think you deserve everything you get, but aside from that - In C++ you can give an instance the same name as a class. Future references to that symbol within that symbol's scope refer to the instance.
To make things clearer, you could always find a simple prefix for an instance. The reason there isn't a standard is probably simply that there's no need for one.
Here's a couple of better examples. "polish" refers to a substance used to make surfaces shiny, whereas "Polish" refers to the language spoken in Poland. "reading" is how one assimilated information in a textual form, whereas "Reading" (pronounced "Redding") is a town in England.
Asking a computer to treat 'T' the same as 't' is not a natural assumption like it is in a human - you have to put in extra code to make it do that. Therefore, you have slower compilers
/*clASs tO HoLd GEnEric DatA*/, but why would I want to? Most people would still stick to a convention.
You just need to convert everything to lower case. Even a fairly slow implementation of this will only take a few instructions per character. Any PC less than 10 years old could process several megabytes in less than a second.
I also note that you realize English is case sensitive. You didn't have your all caps key on. Why are you not complaining about that?
the difference here is That while this sentence IS incorrectly capitalised, You will still be able to understand it. i could even do all lowercase, OR ALL CAPS, without slowing you down too much.
Like many posters have already said, taking case out of the equation takes out a bit of information that can be put to very good use in the language semantics
This is certainly useful though. I've been using this today. Something like "object" is a useful name for a variable of type "Object". This style of code isn't always advisable, but often useful.
I think part of the problem with the question is that when people say "case insensitive" they're probably thinking to themselves, "all caps". Which would certainly cut down on some of the readability and consistency issues mentioned.
I don't. I want all lower case, with the option of capitals at the start of a new statement, but without the compiler complaining if I don't bother.
The problem is that the two are not the same, and if you really do mean case insensitive you have to put up with things like pUblIc STatiC final INT FOo=0; That pains me just to write it.
Yeah, but would you?
For example, all comments are totally case insensitive. I could add
He said sales taxes, rather than VAT, which I guess would include cigarettes, alcohol and fuel taxes. These add up if you're a smoker, drinker and driver.
In the UK, and, I believe, all countries that have agreed to the Berne convention, copyright law also allows copyright holders to licence distribution rights to a limited territory.
A totaly out of date piece of legislation in my opinion, but I have no idea who you contact to get an international treaty reconsidered.
Why, thanks. I'll have a pint of Spitfire, if you're ever in London;)
Just run xsleep as a background task.
Surely you didn't configure it. You simply added some lines of text to a config file. Your firewall configured itself based on that list.
You are providing a mechanism whereby SPEWS can block an IP address at your router simply by adding it to their list. I think that shows that they are operating your router.
Why is it interesting? It's true that there are a lot of people with no valid arguments on both sides.
how the hell are you in a position to "demand" that their policies bend to your will?
I also demand that everyone else does not treat me as though I'm a wrongdoer if I have done no wrong. There is such a thing as politeness, or doesn't that apply to the internet?
SPEWS is accountable.
Then why don't they have a contact address? Why is it so hard to get off the list? Why do they keep blocking ranges that they know are not spammers?
If they were irresponsible and caused ISPs who filter with their lists to block loads and loads of legitimate mail (and keep in mind that SPEWS lists less than 1% of all available IP addresses), then no one would use them.
Microsoft release software with thousands of bugs, which causes a lot of virus infections and lost data, yet people use them.
They list IP blocks owned by organizations responsible for spamming time and time again. Just because you're unable to understand that an ISP not kicking off spammers is effectively supporting spammers does not mean that the methods employed by SPEWS are invalid.
And how do SPEWS make this determination? The whole thing looks very ad-hoc to me. Perhaps they made a mistake in their AUP, and have to go through legal action to get rid of the spammers. There may be other scenarios that I and SPEWS have not taken into account. Does SPEWS do any checking to find out what people are doing about the spammers? Oh, I've just realised - They're allegedly accountable. I'm sure they can simply be called, and someone can explain the situation.
Demand all you want! Like I said, it will have no effect on whether I take your packets.
That's a very anti-social attitude. Personally, I think that it's rather impolite to refuse my mail purely to punish someone else.
Whatever happened to honesty, courtesy and politeness? Does the lack of a contract mean that none of these are neccesary?
I'm not delegating any responsibility at all.
Yes you are. You are using a third party to determine what is and isn't spam.
I still operate my own network.
But subcontract the IP blocking part
I trust SPEWS, because by doing so I get far less spam. I may not get mail from you, but that's your problem, not mine.
If spam is so objectionable to you, why not simply block all email? Since you have no contractual obligation to receive anything, this should only inconvenience everyone else.
My argument is not "that everyone else should be forced to carry your mail on their networks", merely that SPEWS should be more ethical with their list, or that responsible sysadmins should not use SPEWS.
As for "jumped up nerds with too much power", I think that comments along the lines of, "It's my network", the whole attitude of "We're not responsible if IPs we list get blocked", and the fact that they have the capability of using their list to intimidate ISPs into doing things their way, suggests that they are Jumped up, nerds, and that they have too much power.
The fact that SPEWS seems to get considerably more criticism than most other blocking mechanisms telsl me that their credibility is falling.
The arguments you make are invalid, because you demand that other people volunteer to take your traffic.
No, I don't think I do. I merely demand that they have a better approach to their policy on what they allow on the network. It's only polite not to accuse non-spammers of supporting spam.
I choose not to take your packets if I have reason to believe that you or your ISP are hosting a spammer. A listing in SPEWS is one very strong indicator to me that this is the case. Nevertheless, it's up to ME to decide what comes through my router, and your approval is neither sought nor required.
Yet you choose to delegate that responsibility to an organisation that is totally unaccountable. Why is this? They list IP blocks that are not responsible for spamming time and time again. Why do you trust them?
If I make the latter choice, then by your formula SPEWS has just unblocked those addresses and will continue not to block them as long as I don't change my mind.
Nope. You've simply removed the ability for SPEWS to block these sites. Once you choose to use SPEWS, you are delegating responsibility for blocking to SPEWS.
Every sysadmin in the world could decide today to remove SPEWS from their configurations, and without any change on SPEWS' part the addresses they list would no longer be blocked anywhere (on their recommendation).
They could do. However, SPEWS knows that a number of organisations use and will continue to use their list.
Please explain how SPEWS gained administrative access to my ISP's servers and configured them in accord with SPEWS policy regarless of my ISP's policy.
They predicted that you would configure them as they "recommended", and hence by gaining acces to you, they blocked the IP. If they add an IP to their list, they know it will be blocked. The administrator is a component, just like the server.
Let me turn your argument around. If you perform no action, and a result happens, did you cause the result? Because if I reconfigure a box to consult (or not to consult) SPEWS, they likely will never know about it, and have not done anything they were not already doing, yet the behavior of the network changes. Who changed it?
Huh? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. In that case, you blocked the IP addresses. However, if SPEWS continues to have those addresses on the list, knowing full well that some servers will block them, then they will also be blocking those addresses. SPEWS does not know that that specific server will block an IP address, but they do know that if they list an address, it will be blocked by a large number of servers.
Well, if my email to your customer gets blocked, it is my business.
True, people have the right not to use SPEWS. Those who try to discourage its use are trying to educate people. Considering SPEWS seems to suggest that its purpose is to block spam, when its actual purpose is to punsih spam hosters, I think that people who use it need to be educated.
Yes. I missed out a vital component. That my action sets of a chain of events which result in the desired result. Hence, merely incomplete.
Personally I believe most of the whiners are spammers or their proxies.
Would suggest that your only means of argument is to discredit the opponent rather than the opponent's arguments.
You know, people have sued companies, and won, even though their agreement would appear to excuse the company.
In this case, of course, this term only covers problems that are outside of the company's control. If the company deliberately blocks a customers email, they would be liable.
It's not idiotic. Merely incomplete.
Good point. Apologies to all competent ameteurs out there.
Strange. A simple web search can find a lot of people who do seem to know their stuff, and want to discourage people from using SPEWS. Some of these are people who have been blocked by a system that claims not to block, to people who have decided to stop using SPEWS because the criteria were too broad.
That's just plain false. I've been using SPEWS for almost two years. In that time, it has blocked upwards of several tens of thousands of spam messages, and a grand total of 3 "false positives."
And you are? Do you run an ISP for a major organiation, or are you a private user? Does your provider use SPEWS? Do you receive any legitimate emails from Korea or China? Does anyone who wishes to contact you have an IP address from a company that has been used by spammers?
One of the stated aims of SPEWS is to encourage legitimate customers of spam friendly ISPs to complain to their provider. If they want to do this, then surely it must be blocking legitimate email.
Most admins don't pay for their network. Either the owner of the company does, or the company's customers do.
I would suggest getting an admin whose actions are ethical and accountable. If an admin uses his power to punish people for aiding spammers - which seems to be the main aim of SPEWS - then he is acting unethically.