Is Class Synonymous with Type?

[Mark Wilden]

(I'm going to forgo responding to a lot of what you and Dave posted, as it
would only be repetitive.)

I think the difference is that I'm considering a hypothetical newbie,
not a hypothetical idiot. Were you an idiot when you didn't understand
pointers? No - just new to the idea.

I think it would take an idiot not to understand the difference between an
interface in general terms vs. the C# keyword. Not a newbie - an idiot.

When I was a newbie to pointers and MI, I was not an idiot and I didn't do
idiotic things with them. It just took me some time to completely "grok" the
subjects.

BTW, a person who asks about the difference between a type and a class is
not a newbie in my book, nor an idiot. It's a subtle concept (as evidenced
by this very thread) that most newbies wouldn't even bother themselves with.

I disagree with the logic there, because it's so easy for it to have
confused someone a) without them knowing or b) without them wanting to
display that ignorance.

I agree. However, the fact that no one has expressed confusion for those
reasons cannot be called -evidence- that the definition is confusing. The
fact is, there is no such evidence.

Given that I disagree with you on point 1, it's unsurprising that I
disagree with the conclusion.

The hippo conclusion?

the evidence of common sense

There's no such thing. Evidence refers to factual phenomena, not thinking
processes.

I've seen enough people getting confused by relatively clear
descriptions of the type system to want to err on the side of caution.

Yeah, it couldn't hurt.

///ark

 

[Mark Wilden]

But you've only addressed half of my point.

Your point was that a priori statements were less valuable than those
supported by evidence (if I understood you). I was just pointing out that
your statement was even less supported by evidence than mine.

There is also no evidence that it helped anyone, so you have no base for
your claim.

1) I'm not claiming the definition helped anyone, so this statement isn't
relevant. 2) But in fact the definition did help me.

I was suggesting that we can't know either way, with any degree of
certainty

I'm not seeking certainty, and neither are you or Jon. Nor (just to
forestall a comment I can see coming) should we try.

, unless we were to take a poll or something. Therefore, it's best to be
as clear as possible when posting since you never really no who will be
reading it.

As I said, it's literally impossible to be "as clear as possible."

As for any OP's level of expertise, what you assume as a respondent may
set the basis for the amount of detail in your reply, but any assumptions
made thereof should by no means allow a reduction in clarity in any form.

This statement just has no meaning. "In any form"??

It's not impossible to try.

Then let's see you "try" to learn French or Russian, if you think it's so
important to cater to everybody. I mean, c'mon.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

<snip>

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere productive - I hope you don't mind
if I pull out of this part of the thread at this point.

 

[Dustin Campbell]

<snip>

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere productive - I hope you don't mind
if I pull out of this part of the thread at this point.

I pulled out awhile ago for the same reason. It has become argument for the
sake of argument.

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

 

[Mark Wilden]

I pulled out awhile ago for the same reason. It has become argument for
the sake of argument.

Actually, I was wondering what you guys were doing here in the first place.
It was a very silly argument.

///ark

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.
It causes the conversations to go in circles. Instead, leave the running
conversations so we can reference each others comments and so the flow of
the conversation is more obvious to readers.

I'll give it one more shot (I see our peers have given up ...

Your point was that a priori statements were less valuable than those
supported by evidence (if I understood you).

No, my point wasn't a pseudo-definition of a priori. There is simply no
evidence either way, so I choose to "err on the side of caution" as well, to
quote Jon

I was just pointing out that your statement was even less supported by
evidence than mine.

But according to your logic, the "evidence" in support of your own
statements is actually the same as the "evidence" against you. In other
words, you think that since we have no proof that it wasn't clear to people
that we should just assume that it was (I've quoted you on this below).
Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with. Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we
understood what the OP meant. You claim that it was clear to you. So,
according to your logic, the ratio is ~3-1 against you

1) I'm not claiming the definition helped anyone, so this statement isn't
relevant. 2) But in fact the definition did help me.

Mark: "Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing."

Therefore, it may have been helpful to others as it has helped you, but it
certainly wasn't confusing to anyone - that's what you're implying. If you
don't believe that, then there is absolutely no reason for this
conversation. My point was simple: you can have absolutely no idea who it
has confused or who it has helped except for yourself.

I'm not seeking certainty, and neither are you or Jon. Nor (just to
forestall a comment I can see coming) should we try.

Actually, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to be certain about whether
people are confused or not, and I don't see why you thought that I wouldn't
have agreed.

I think I've made it quite clear that my vote is for clarity (err on the
side of caution), not try to find out what some random sample of the
population expects from us as volunteers, in terms of clarity. I KNOW that
there are many people with varying levels of skill that read newsgroup
posts. I don't just assume that there is absolutely no confusion in any
given post, as you obviously do from some of your remarks in this thread,
one of which I've quoted above.

This statement just has no meaning. "In any form"??

Yes, information comes in many different forms and clarity is part of them
all. There can be clarity (or lack thereof) in terminology, grammar, sample
code, format, etc.

I'm suggesting that any assumptions that you make about the OP's level of
expertise shouldn't have any affect on the level of clarity that you choose
in your posts, in any of the above forms that I've given as examples. I was
also suggesting that the LOD could vary slightly based on those same
assumptions.

Then let's see you "try" to learn French or Russian, if you think it's so
important to cater to everybody. I mean, c'mon.

In an English speaking newsgroup?

You're just being ridiculous.

 

[Mark Wilden]

Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.

We've been through this before, Dave. You're a "long quoter;" I'm not. Your
original words are easily available, and anyone who's followed the
conversation has already read them anyway. I only quote to provide reference
for what I'm about to say. There's no need to quote parts I don't reply to.

Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with.

Nope - that's my whole, entire, complete point. The definition was clear
to us - but some of us are worried about what I've been calling
"hypothetical idiots."

Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we understood what the OP
meant.

You're introducing a new wrinkle - that even smart folks would have trouble
with the definition. I think you need to be more careful with your pronouns.

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to respond to more.

///ark

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

You still haven't addressed some of the concepts that I've tried to explain,
only particular sentences that have limited meaning on their own. You seem
to be perfectly content picking things out of context that you feel are
easily debated, but completely ignore relevant points.

I too would prefer to do more productive things with my time, so I'm going
to finish with this post as well. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Mark Wilden]

You still haven't addressed some of the concepts that I've tried to
explain, only particular sentences that have limited meaning on their own.
You seem to be perfectly content picking things out of context that you
feel are easily debated, but completely ignore relevant points.

Obviously, I disagree. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you would refrain from
personal remarks. This is the C# newsgroup and my level of contentment is
not on-list. K?

///ark

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

Sure, as long as you agree to discontinue making assumptions about things
I've written after pulling them out-of-context:

 

[Mark Wilden]

Sure, as long as you agree to discontinue making assumptions about things
I've written after pulling them out-of-context:

In the spirit of acquiescing to refraining from beating my wife, yes, I
hereby agree.

///ark