Vorspire
Knight
A) You're a lazy dev, that's obvious and I'm not talking about perimeters, a perimeter is a line of length that forms the boundary of a given geometric structure... Just because a keyword exists, doesn't mean you should use it. One of the biggest flaws in older OOP was the messy use of goto clauses, go look it up, it's a miracle that .NET even has a goto instruction.
B) There are no excuses for your poor design choices, but by all means, continue. -I have a proven track record for giving help and advice in an informative and relational context that is factual and, wherever I don't fully know what I'm talking about, I will state so, but you have the Mr. Know-It-All mentality.
C) I didn't say you *should*, but I'm not going to write an example with 200 lines of code, just because you don't understand the context of minimization. I didn't say you were right, I said that it's blindingly obvious to a smart developer, but no matter, the example is still flawless, besides the fact that, for some reason, you think a loaf of bread is a vegetable (IE, you think it will break because an asserted list of Types that are known to have 0-argument constructors *may*, for some reason, have extra arguments - which is logical absurdity)
D) You do realise that for every object reference and assignment you make, it uses memory? I'm sorry if my clean code can't be understood by you, because you can't keep track of an endless amount of named variables. Those extra arguments don't even exist, so why would I plan to compensate for them? -Talk about going OTT with protection out of paranoia.
*) Readability, again, because I keep named variables to a minimum, must be really hard for you to comprehend if you're complaining about it, besides, who are you to judge readability when every person has their own unique writing style? I have mine, you have yours, you don't see me ragging on your programming style (yet). Also, I don't see where you've actually contributed any actual examples to this thread, you're just talking about concepts and throwing out buzz-words whenever possible.
*) As for your respect, don't make me laugh, why would I care if you respect me? You do nothing for me, you haven't released anything that I would consider useful (to me), so tell me, why should I respect you? - Here's one reason; I know you're a contributor to this community, but that's about it, your attitude is as poignant as your lack of correct grammar and spelling (your avatar admits that clearly, so I'm not just having a random dig).
*) My way is not necessarily better and I didn't say it was, I said I would prefer to handle it that way, but both sets of code achieve exactly the same thing within a nano-second of each other, so you're making something out of nothing. I don't get where you come off saying my way is less effective, but I'll give you a few years to come up with an explanation, because you haven't provided one yet.
*) There are plenty of reasons why the Activator is better than the "new" keyword, one being that the constraints placed upon the "new" keyword are that you must provide a constant, hard-coded, constructable type reference, obviously you're stuck in a box, because you'll realise that the key to developing a major system relies on dynamics - the ability to manipulate the data without the need for over-extensive editing, to provide an API that can be logically extended without the need to modify the original code, a concept most likely unheard of to you.
*) Sorry, I'm still laughing at the respect part.
*) I'm still laughing at your entire post and lack of factual information to back up your ludicrous and absurd claims.
*) Looks like you're the one with the arrogance problem, I actually take the time to learn the language, to the point where I can achieve what I want without sticking to "the basics" of programming.
*) Just to prove a FURTHER point about your knowledge, here's an extract from your OmniAI package:
Code:
private static int[] m_RandomLocations = new int[] { -1, -1, -1, 0, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, 1, 1, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, -2, -2, -2, -1, -2, 0, -2, 1, -2, 2, -1, -2, -1, 2, 0, -2, 0, 2, 1, -2, 1, 2, 2, -2, 2, -1, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 2 };The perfect example of "you have no clue about the language you're using" - why would you need to instantiate an array of integers in this manner, for that purpose? This is just absurd. Seriously, you judge me for instantiating a single array in a tiny little example in a thread, when your official system release does it with the most useless of intentions?
Also, another note on readability, it's obvious you're insecure in your development because you quadruple-line-break absolutely everything, you want to fight over coding styles? Fine, I could tear your entire system down, line by line and tell you why each part of it is wrong or how it sucks, simply because it's styled differently to my own choice, or you used a different technique to achieve the same thing.
*) Your attitude reeks of Orb, go back there or pull that giant stick out of your ass if you're going to stay here.
*) Stop trying to fill Jeff's boots, you'll never make it, he actually knew what he was talking about.
Just to clarify;
I'm not high and mighty, I don't think I'm better than you (or anyone), but what I do know is that I've contributed 10 times more to *this* community than you can shake your single system and tweaks thread at and have more experience in general programming than you have in your little finger and that's a fact, not an egotistical statement. -If you think for one moment that I'm stuck in the UO box, then you're sadly mistaken, I've written fully fledged windows applications and adhere to a strict guideline standard during code development, it's a must when you get PAID FOR IT.
Now get off my back with your worthless, demeaning and facetious remarks - and I'll do the same.
