Re: static virtual is a keyhole?
"White Wolf" <[email protected]> Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:43:04 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.keyholes |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000f01c39718$77e60b40$568dba50@Evo> |
Scott Meyers wrote: [SNIP] > You'd be amazed > at the opposition I get when I float the idea -- trivially > implementable -- that web page content should take into account the > size of the viewer's window. Well, anyone who wants just give it a try. Attempt to address an issue with C++ and just give a hint that something might be done... comp.lang.c++.moderated or comp.std.c++. Just suggest it would be a good idea to *think* about it. You will have at least 5 people on your back rejecting *any* idea of even *thinking* about a change. "Arguments" against any change include: it is a non-issue (does not matter how many says it is), it is not the right solution, it is already possible (although not standard), we are thinking about a broader change which will cover that too and which is nowhere in sight)... So any shape, color and size of rationalization you can imagine. Sometimes it is well founded, sometimes it isn't. So I vehemently :-) agree with Scott that such problems of missing features has to be attacked where there is a chance to convince the audience before their "instincts" against change kick in and they stop reading. Gtratiblabla (still cannot spell it) keyholes look like such a subset. I do not know who has said it, but I also find that very assertion valid about not putting the reader into "defense mode". I think the style should be very similar to Scott's Effective series. Not telling: you do it wrong. But showing the good way to do it and describe where does the bad lead. The first comment like "I have no idea why those keyholes are there when it is so simple to remove them" will trigger the "I know my job better" attitude... The good old sales technique applies here as well, IMO. Build a need for change, build an enthusiasm for a better solution without directly addressing how bad the old is... > TKP qualifies, IMO. TCP does not. Ehem... what? TKP is "as a matter of fact" in Hungarian... but I have no idea what does it mean here. Also TCP... I guess the one I know White Wolf