|
|
| Applications |
| Mailing Lists |
| Miscellaneous |
| Operating Systems |
| Programming |
Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_increment
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 08:01:01 EDT
Graham Reitz wrote:
>
> Wow man, there is no reason for this.
I think you're misreading the tone of the message, an easy thing to do over a text medium. It should be read as a strong, calm argument. (That's "argument" as in making a reasoned point, not "argument" as in "being a pugnacious ass". :) )
> You're obviously upset about something other than 'just' my comments.
I don't know about "upset", but yes, in your newbiness, you are a bit of a bull in a china shop just now. Anyone who's been here a while could have predicted immediate rejection for some of your suggestions. The fact that you made them anyway demonstrates an insensitivity to the way things are done here, which doesn't help your case.
It's common practice to lurk on a list for a while before offering suggestions, to avoid problems like this.
> I hope that whatever is going on in your life improves.
Actually, my life is fine right now, but thanks for your concern.
> I think we would both agree that comments like, "Your library
> sux," is completely inappropriate and definitely not constructive, but
> that didn't happen here.
Didn't say it did. In "X sux", X == "MYSQLPP_SSQLS_NO_STATICS" and suchlike, not "MySQL++".
Study the "eyeball" thread. There are many criticisms of my code in it, most of which caused me no distress at all, including almost all of the ones I disagreed with.
The only one that really agitated me is the guy pointing out that the template is not thread-safe (fine) and saying this is "wrong" (not fine). It is not wrong. It is simply a design choice. If he'd said "you could make it thread-safe by making the refcount inc/dec operations atomic", that would have been fine. It would be a logical argument, offered as a choice, with the "right" answer depending on context. I still would have disagreed with it, because I think the context where it makes sense is unrealistic, but I wouldn't have been upset about it.
Condemning something as "wrong" when in fact it's a choice from a set of valid alternatives is an "X sux" sort of argument.
There are no absolutes in design. That's what makes it design and not engineering. To properly criticize a design, you have to start from the premise that the current design was motivated by rational choices that make sense in some context, even if you can't see it. You can then offer an alternative which may make more sense in a different context. Then the designer just has to choose between your new alternative and the status quo, possibly with the question of which context is more common thrown into the mix. This avoids the attack on the designer's ego.
If I didn't have an ego, it couldn't get bruised, and there would be no need for all this circumlocution. But if wishes were changes, I could have a pony, too.
I am reminded of my response to your "50 columns" thread. I was implicitly criticizing your design, but in the very way I'm recommending here. I said I didn't understand it, and asked you to give me context to understand it. Even after two unanswered challenges, I'm still open to the possibility that you could show me that context and that I'd be converted in my thinking. This is why I didn't say "there is no valid reason to have 50 columns in a table". I have a strong opinion that valid reasons for such a design are hard to come by, but I haven't ruled out the possibility that you have such a reason.
Do you see the practical difference between these approaches?
-- MySQL++ Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=lists@pantek.comReceived on Thu Aug 16 13:32:30 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 10:03:03 EDT
|
Contact Us Legal Notices Order Services Online Pantek Home Privacy Policy IT news Site Map Pantek Library |