> That was my bloody point from the beginning! Thanks for adding nothing to this thread.
No it wasn't, you need to reread your previous statements. The argument is based on semantics alone so you cannot defend your point of view with statements like "it does not hide a bug in your code," or that to use != for consistancy is good practice, when you yourself don't agree with it. In fact it is impossible to defend such a view with evidence.
This thread has ended peacefully.
Should have ended about two pages ago I think.
Yes. It should right at the point in which Citizen decided to jump in and transform an inocuous statement about a loop with a bug into a statement of principles.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Now what is the meaning of Life?
Could it be != 3
It couldn't be that easy to tell, but I could tell you that it's < Infinity.Originally Posted by bumfluff
Sent from my iPadŽ
It might not be a number.
How about now?Should have ended about two pages ago I think.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
