List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Warren Young Date:August 16 2007 12:01pm
Subject:Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_increment
View as plain text  
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?
Thread
Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz9 Aug
  • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz9 Aug
    • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz9 Aug
      • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz9 Aug
        • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Warren Young9 Aug
          • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz11 Aug
          • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz11 Aug
            • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Graham Reitz11 Aug
              • Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz11 Aug
                • RE: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementJim Wallace12 Aug
                  • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz12 Aug
                  • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz12 Aug
                    • RE: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementJim Wallace12 Aug
                      • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz12 Aug
                      • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementWarren Young14 Aug
              • Re: Query insert() Seg Faulting using SSQLS, not sure why...Warren Young28 Dec
Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz14 Aug
  • RE: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementJoel Fielder14 Aug
    • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz14 Aug
  • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementWarren Young15 Aug
    • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz15 Aug
      • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementWarren Young16 Aug
        • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz17 Aug
    • Re: Inserting with a column that uses auto_incrementGraham Reitz15 Aug