FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[Gianni Mariani]

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-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachment s."

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 ?

[James Kanze]

On Jun 5, 3:37 pm, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mari ani.wswrote:

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:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[BobR]

Gianni Mariani wrote in message...

Jerry Coffin wrote:

In article <4664e716$0$224 37$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au >, gi*******@maria ni.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

[Default User]

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-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachment s."

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

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mari ani.wswrote,

>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.

[Gianni Mariani]

David Harmon wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mari ani.wswrote,

>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.

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 5, 1:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mari ani.wswrote:

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...)

Gianni,

I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.

[Default User]

Gianni Mariani wrote:

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.

Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.

It's time for me to move on.

First sensible thing you said.


Brian

[Gianni Mariani]

Owen Jacobson wrote:
....

>
Gianni,

I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.

Owen,

Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.

If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in you, then
this is something you need to deal with. Good luck with that.

In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
this news group when it comes to attaching code. I have made
references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve". If we all have
that kind of attitude, no progress will be made.

I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Maybe I could do a
better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
think. My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
posting on this NG.

I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.

Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
been fraudulent in some way. Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest" .

G

[Gianni Mariani]

Default User wrote:

Gianni Mariani wrote:

>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.

Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.

It demonstrates that we have a very different perspective. I think I
see yours, I don't think you see mine.

When I look at both perspectives, I see the balance of the merits in the
perspective I advocate.

What exactly don't you think I get ?

>

>It's time for me to move on.

First sensible thing you said.

Probably.

[Gianni Mariani]

Ian Collins wrote:

Gianni Mariani wrote:

....

>So what's the deal ?

I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
paranoid about opening attachments.

Most of the reasons to be paranoid are not justified with attachments of
source code. Most browsers will show the code (without line breaks)
without needing explicitly open the attachments.