C++ Programming :: FAQ says no attachments


	FAQ says no attachments - time to change ? Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old antiquated rules. It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4 from: Do not post "attachments." to: Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line. Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the context of the question. .... Anyone disagree ? In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos@mariani.ws says... > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > antiquated rules. The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies. As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them, we'd never see the attachments at all. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote in comp.lang.c++: > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > antiquated rules. > It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: No, it's not. - Hide quoted text - > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4 > from: > Do not post "attachments." > to: > Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and > extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line. > Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the > context of the question. > .... > Anyone disagree ? I do. In addition to agreeing with Jerry's response, I don't open attachments from strangers. Even though I don't use a web browser as a newsreader. Besides, once the camel's nose is in the tent, you'll start seeing a lot of attachments that aren't just source code files. -- Jack Klein Home: http://JK-Technology.Com FAQs for comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/ comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html Gianni Mariani wrote: > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > antiquated rules. > It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: No. > Anyone disagree ? Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows would be very cautious opening attachments. -- Ian Collins. "Jerry Coffin" <jcof@taeus.com> wrote in message news:MPG.20ce977ee65918b89898f0@news.sunsite.dk... > In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos@mariani.ws says... >> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >> antiquated rules. > The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers > strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies. > As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them, > we'd never see the attachments at all. In some cases, servers will not even post messages containing attachments. - Hide quoted text - > -- > Later, > Jerry. > The universe is a figment of its own imagination. - Hide quoted text - Ian Collins wrote: > Gianni Mariani wrote: >> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >> antiquated rules. >> It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: > No. >> Anyone disagree ? > Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows > would be very cautious opening attachments. My newsreader (Thunderbird) shows CPP files inline. There is no need to open it. It's very convenient. Jerry Coffin wrote: > In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos@mariani.ws says... >> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >> antiquated rules. > The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers > strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies. > As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them, > we'd never see the attachments at all. Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ? It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them. On Jun 5, 6:31 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote: > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > antiquated rules. > It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4 > from: > Do not post "attachments." > to: > Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and > extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line. > Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the > context of the question. > .... > Anyone disagree ? Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup. And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best newsreading interface in the world). -- James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka@gmail.com Conseils en informatique oriente objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Smard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 - Hide quoted text - Gianni Mariani wrote: > Jerry Coffin wrote: >> In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- >> 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos@mariani.ws says... >>> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract >>> code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any >>> news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such >>> old antiquated rules. >> The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news >> servers strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' >> hierarchies. As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that >> could handle them, we'd never see the attachments at all. > Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ? > It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at > hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them. Well, I think it's not a matter of fixing... many servers are just free services, like the one that I'm using, and either include the access to binary newsgroups for a fee, or prevent it at all. It also a matter of traffic, not handling the binary newsgroups the server can reduce a lot the workload. Unfortunately, usenet it''s a quite old technology and it has got some technical limitations in it. Regards, Zeppe On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000, Gianni Mariani wrote: >Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >antiquated rules. >It's time for a change. Well, I'll not disagree any more than others already did :-) But I'm curious: why do you find that easier? (I may sort of understand the "extract" part, but as to posting... any decent newsreader will offer you to chose whether you want to attach the file or paste its contents inline) -- Gennaro Prota -- C++ Developer, For Hire https://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/ (replace 'address' with 'name.surname' to mail) James Kanze wrote: ... >> Anyone disagree ? > Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I > know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup. > And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code > embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and > posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best > newsreading interface in the world). Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I was old and crusty...) Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available now (mostly available). I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails because there are too many servers out there that will munge your emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They also got fixed very fast when the first message broke. There is nothing different in this argument. NOTHING. We'll need to rally an ISP or two to get them to fix a few settings, but this is not a big deal. So what's the deal ? - Hide quoted text - Gianni Mariani wrote: > James Kanze wrote: > .... >>> Anyone disagree ? >> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I >> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup. >> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code >> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and >> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best >> newsreading interface in the world). > Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I > was old and crusty...) > Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really > justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available > now (mostly available). > I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails > and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails > because there are too many servers out there that will munge your > emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They > also got fixed very fast when the first message broke. > There is nothing different in this argument. NOTHING. We'll need to > rally an ISP or two to get them to fix a few settings, but this is not a > big deal. > So what's the deal ? I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably paranoid about opening attachments. -- Ian Collins. - Hide quoted text - Gianni Mariani wrote: > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > antiquated rules. > It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4 > from: > Do not post "attachments." > to: > Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and > extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line. > Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the > context of the question. > .... > Anyone disagree ? I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there, simple as can be. I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but this one? What is source code? Plain text. What is this message? Plain text. I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server will do. It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of need. Why fix what ain't broke? To get an extra feature or three most won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two cents. -- [there are no x's in my email] I have the right to remain silent (and should probably use it as much as possible) Anything I type can and will be used against me in a court of idiocy I have the right to be wrong (and probably am) If I can not furnish my own wrongness I'm sure someone will provide it for me. * Gianni Mariani: > James Kanze wrote: > ... >>> Anyone disagree ? >> Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I >> know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup. >> And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code >> embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and >> posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best >> newsreading interface in the world). > Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I > was old and crusty...) I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed", then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Gianni Mariani wrote: > [...] > Anyone disagree ? Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters, which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do you really need that? Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup message] is an important part of getting the problem solved. Often the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting. We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as C++ programmers. BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't... V -- Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask Devon Null wrote: ... > I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code > inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there, > simple as can be. Here is a posting I made a while back that shows the code even though it is an attachment. Thunderbird also shows it as an attachment. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/c73876b9716f3add?&hl=en > I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but > this one? What is source code? Plain text. often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is attached. > ... What is this message? Plain > text. Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting. It's properly justified. > ... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just > send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server > will do. One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code and all. > It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of > need. Why fix what ain't broke? IMHO it is broke. Anything I spend doing where a computer can do for me is a waste of time. If I can click on your attachment and auto-compile it I would. It would lower my threshold in terms of checking other people's code. Many of the features that go unused, were put there for good reasons. Refusing to use them or at least suggesting improvements is being a luddite. > ... To get an extra feature or three most > won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two > cents. I remember the first time I saw people use a browser. "Aw - heck, I can use ftp to problem, why would I need to use html". I can see this is going to be a miracle. Go reread your previous post and tell me that this system is the best thing since sliced bread. Having to reassemble broken lines because it broke a string or a comment. Every second I do that is time I don't spend helping the poster. Jeez fellas, are you really all crustier than I ? Maybe it's time I stop wasting my time altogether. Victor Bazarov wrote: > Gianni Mariani wrote: >> [...] >> Anyone disagree ? > Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that > will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters, > which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do > you really need that? I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on. > Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup > message] is an important part of getting the problem solved. Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try to compile the file before posting. Posting a file as an attachment kind of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file. Otherwise we get what we see here, either code edited in the message, missing important detail. We still get the monster posts of code anyway. > ... Often > the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting. > We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as > C++ programmers. > BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't... I obviously need lots more. Gianni Mariani wrote: > Victor Bazarov wrote: >> Gianni Mariani wrote: >>> [...] >>> Anyone disagree ? >> Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that >> will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters, >> which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do >> you really need that? > I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I > copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on. You either take up answering questions that are too tough, or those that have not been prepared well enough (code not distilled or the error messages have not been spelled out or lines with errors have not been indicated), or something else (I'd rather not elaborate on that one). >> Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup >> message] is an important part of getting the problem solved. > Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try > to compile the file before posting. That's a given. But there is no relationship between compiling and the form of posting (inline vs attachment). > Posting a file as an attachment > kind of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file. Yes, but does it force them to try compiling it afterwards? No. The fact that people ask about their code means that they have at least tried compiling it [in its original form]. Many will actually remove something they don't want others to see before they attach files, which means more work for them. Making those files will not force them to compile, it will just create more problems for everybody: posters need to make copies of files, readers will have to copy them into temporary directories to look at them, etc. > Otherwise we get what we see here, either code edited in the message, > missing important detail. We still get the monster posts of code > anyway. And we will, still. Those who want and are able to provide decent information, have, do, and will. Those who [most likely] are unable (incapable) haven't, don't, and won't, regardless whether it's in an attachment or inline with their post. It sounds like you're looking for a better solution to your problem of having to reassemble the code when answering questions here. Do you really think it should be done by making everybody else's lives more difficult? V -- Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask On Jun 5, 3:25 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote: > Jerry Coffin wrote: > > The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers > > strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies. > > As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them, > > we'd never see the attachments at all. > Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ? > It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at > hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them. I wish my friends and relatives didn't make use of attachment technology so well - love getting huge emails with pictures/videos :-( Linking should always be preferred to attaching. Can't you put the code on an ftp or web site somewhere and link to it? On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote: > James Kanze wrote: > ... > >> Anyone disagree ? > > Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I > > know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup. > > And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code > > embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and > > posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best > > newsreading interface in the world). > Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I > was old and crusty...) Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful. There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases, however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to justify changing anything. > Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really > justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available > now (mostly available). You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just to change. > I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails > and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails > because there are too many servers out there that will munge your > emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They > also got fixed very fast when the first message broke. > There is nothing different in this argument. There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful. -- James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka@gmail.com Conseils en informatique oriente objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Smard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 On Jun 5, 3:37 pm, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote: > Devon Null wrote: > ... > > I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but > > this one? What is source code? Plain text. > often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is > attached. So change the reader. A news reader shouldn't munge text. > > ... What is this message? Plain > > text. > Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting. It shouldn't be. Google Groups had this misfeature for a very short time, but dropped it quickly, because it makes technical groups unusable. In practice, a newsreader reads news---any editing should be passed off to your favorite editor. (Unless, of course, it is your favorite editor which is reading the news---GNUS doesn't have much "passing off" to do if your favorite editor is emacs:-).) I don't know about Thunderbird, but Firefox certainly allows using other editors for the post boxed Google sends---I regularly use gvim for all of my posting. > It's properly justified. You probably mean improperly justified:-). If that's the case, change newsreaders to something decent. > > ... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just > > send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server > > will do. > One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are > plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code > and all. Just a nit, but that's not a feature of NNTP. NNTP is mainly a question of transport, and normally, messages will "expire" after a relatively short time. But some sites have always tried to archive, and of course, today, there's Google. -- James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka@gmail.com Conseils en informatique oriente objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Smard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 - Hide quoted text - Gianni Mariani wrote in message... > Jerry Coffin wrote: > > In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > > 01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos@mariani.ws says... > >> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code > >> from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news > >> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old > >> antiquated rules. > > The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers > > strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies. > > As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them, > > we'd never see the attachments at all. > Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ? > It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at > hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them. Cast my vote for NO attachments!! You want attachments because you are too lazy to copy/paste? -- Bob R POVrookie - Hide quoted text - Gianni Mariani wrote: > Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract > code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any > news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such > old antiquated rules. > It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be > changed: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.4 > from: > Do not post "attachments." > to: > Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and > extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line. > Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of > the context of the question. .... > Anyone disagree ? Yeah, it's fairly dumb. Modern technology makes it easy to copy and paste whatever text needs to go in a message. Code that is posted here needs to be reduced to a minimal state anyway. Attachments just encourage people to send big source files that no one will bother with anyway. I have my newsreader set to NOT render attachments. Brian On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote, >Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >antiquated rules. File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may reply. If your purpose in posting is posting and extracting files instead of discussion, use a group with ".binaries." in the name. David Harmon wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani > <gi3nos@mariani.ws> wrote, >> Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code >>from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news >> reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old >> antiquated rules. > File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a > newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text > of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post > will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with > the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule > that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may > reply. How can I possibly control the news reader that other posters use ? Most of my posts are in response to other OP. OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will cede the argument. It's time for me to move on.

C++ Programming

FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?