[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1345766639' post='4972807']
Please point out one thread wherein someone has "thrown their opinion around" at you, in a "hurtful fashion." I don't see it happening.

You're missing the point, and it doesn't seem like this is reconcileable. I know you don't see it happening; this is why we are still debating it. Imagine if you work hard on a science fair project, and it is so near completion, and you ask your teacher how to achieve a certain effect to finish it, and he asks, "How is this useful? What purpose does this serve?" Chances are, you won't be able to convince him, because if he cannot see how your project is of any use, he's probably going to be set in this idea. Not only will you not get help from him, but that hurts. It just does.[/quote]

Actually, I would EXPECT that a science fair project be analysed in just such a way by the judges. Haven't you ever noticed that the science fair projects that attempt to solve some sort of societal/technological problem or at the very least demonstrate aspects of it (ie. projects that have some utility) tend to rank the highest, and usually win? How often have you seen "baking soda/vinegar volcano #427 win a science fair? If I were trying to win a science fair (not just participate in - actually win), I would probably ask everyone I knew to judge my project the way the judges would. You might have picked a bad example there.

Nobody I know would find the questions you just quoted hurtful; in what way is it hurtful? Maybe I personally would have appreciated such questioning at the start of my project where it would have made the most difference, if I hadn't thought about it myself. If I had thought about it, and knew what my use cases were, I would likely relish the opportunity to wax poetical about how awesome my idea might turn out if I got it working.

Honestly, I cannot see any use for this. Why don't you explain to me what problem you're looking to solve? Or at least some use cases? I don't mean this as a slight on you or your project. I mean this as a slight against myself. I don't have the imagination to see a really solid use for it. This doesn't mean that sweet niche doesn't exist. What it does mean though is that I cannot give you good advice, because I have no idea how your project is structured. I can just throw things out there, but they might go specifically against what you're trying to do, or be invalid because of some assumptions that are obvious to someone working with the system. And until we understand how it's not the same thing as other parser generators, the best advice is 'look at existing parser generators'.

Thank you for asking in a manner conducive to the topic moving forward. The parser/generator is unique as far as I can tell; it reads in grammar, and then generates a state machine in memory, which then can be used to parse a language described by the grammar. It works a lot like more conventional parser generators, except that rather than outputting code to be compiled into a state machine, it creates a state machine in memory that the parser then follows to process the input. The best advantages of it are the ability to provide any compatible grammar without the need to recompile the parser, and to be able to change or modify grammars without recompiling. A new version of a language can be deployed without recompiling an executable that might be difficult to replace. This allows a grammar to be procedurally generated, which can then be put in to use without having to recompile the executable that's running. Additionally, several grammars can be parsed with the same executable at the same time. In summary, the major gain is to not have to recompile the executable. If a new grammar is devised during the runtime of the program, either having been read in from a file, or generated from whatever process need be, the new language can be parsed without needing to go offline. The most performance critical parsers are compiled into the executable of course, like that of a scripting language and C. I know this behavior isn't typically what one has a need for, but it is a very powerful feature that I would like to implement.

That's... not clarifying. Telastyn's post is a great because it shows why clarification is important and what needs to be clarified.

Perhaps the request for clarification needs to be clarified, itself. If it is so blunt, it looks like a backhanded remark that belittles the recipient.

Perhaps the request for clarification needs to be clarified, itself. If it is so blunt, it looks like a backhanded remark that belittles the recipient.

Everyone here has been really, really accommodating to you. Above and beyond, IMHO. If you post on to any forum seeking help, you are here, cap in hand, looking for advice from experienced people for free. And they gladly give it.

But frankly, you're really starting to sound ungrateful. Whether or not you feel "belittled" isn't their problem.

Thank you for asking in a manner conducive to the topic moving forward. The parser/generator is unique as far as I can tell; it reads in grammar, and then generates a state machine in memory, which then can be used to parse a language described by the grammar. It works a lot like more conventional parser generators, except that rather than outputting code to be compiled into a state machine, it creates a state machine in memory that the parser then follows to process the input. The best advantages of it are the ability to provide any compatible grammar without the need to recompile the parser, and to be able to change or modify grammars without recompiling. A new version of a language can be deployed without recompiling an executable that might be difficult to replace. This allows a grammar to be procedurally generated, which can then be put in to use without having to recompile the executable that's running. Additionally, several grammars can be parsed with the same executable at the same time. In summary, the major gain is to not have to recompile the executable. If a new grammar is devised during the runtime of the program, either having been read in from a file, or generated from whatever process need be, the new language can be parsed without needing to go offline. The most performance critical parsers are compiled into the executable of course, like that of a scripting language and C. I know this behavior isn't typically what one has a need for, but it is a very powerful feature that I would like to implement.

See, that's the kind of information that makes it far easier to work with your particular questions. I've read every one of your parser threads, both today (for recap) and in the past (because I'm interested in parsers), but I've never once gotten any hint as to what you're trying to accomplish.

If you could just say this kind of stuff up front, it would save us a lot of head-scratching, and apparently save you a lot of frustration as well.

Perhaps the request for clarification needs to be clarified, itself. If it is so blunt, it looks like a backhanded remark that belittles the recipient.
[/quote]

I'm going to emphasize this because I think it needs emphasis:

You are the sole person who is interpreting any of this as "backhanded" or "belittling." I think you would benefit immensely if you could get past your idea that people are out to insult you.

Nobody is trying to do anything negative. We're trying to help, and to do that, we need more information - information like I quoted above.

You may not agree that we need that information, but that doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't make us wrong - or hurtful - for trying to get that information.


Turn the tables for a moment. Suppose a small child came to you and asked for help "getting the flooby back."

Your first question is going to be "what's a flooby?"


Are you trying to insult this child? Are you being belittling or hurtful because you don't know what his flooby is? Or are you trying to see deeper into the situation so you can be helpful?



Also, entirely off topic, but why do you consider it insulting to be called female? (I will note that this is NOT what I was insinuating; that's just an expression and you have no need to fear me trying to insult you.) As a matter of fact, I find it rather perplexing and disturbing that anyone would take exception to being grouped with the female sex; is it somehow wrong or inferior to be a woman?

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1345766639' post='4972807']
Nobody is doing this to get up your skirt.

Now even the mods stoop to insults? Where I come from, Ectara is a male name.[/quote]
Where we come from "Ectara" isn't a (common) name at all and "to get up your skirt" is a common expression for annoying someone, equivalent to the similar "get under your skin." ApochPiQ wouldn't have had any idea which gender you were when replying, nor would he have intended his use of a common expression to be insulting in the case you turned out to be male. We also have a common expression for telling someone not to get upset or angry -- "don't get your knickers in a knot" -- which is used for both males and females, even though in many places the term "knickers" is commonly used only for female underwear.

Someone said earlier in the topic (or perhaps in the similar one in For Beginners, I forget which) that you should keep cultural differences in mind when engaging in an online discussion, and this is a perfect example of that; you've just taken offence at something not intended as an insult, based upon something a typical US, UK or Australian citizen would not have even known (i.e. that your screen name is a common name typically used for a boy and not simply a made-up screen name like "ApochPiQ").


It seems to me -- both from the discussion in this topic and looking at a few of your other recent ones such as the most recent parser topic -- that perhaps you could benefit from simply assuming people are not trying to be insulting or offensive, as it appears that you're in the minority in what you have taken offence at.


I do think you have a somewhat valid point, but I don't think it happens as often as you're insinuating, and I don't think it's really happening to you very much. Without context, people are going to assume that the most common approach is the correct one for your situation, and unless you're willing to take the 30-60 seconds to explain the specifics of why your situation is different there's no reason they shouldn't offer the most common solution as a response at least initially.

You're probably correct that people sometimes continue pushing that point longer than necessary, but you simply can't blame them for starting out with that advice if you don't take the time to clearly explain your position -- if they didn't start with that standard advice, they would be providing bad responses to many other users who don't share your unusual position.

Turn the tables for a moment. Suppose a small child came to you and asked for help "getting the flooby back."

Your first question is going to be "what's a flooby?"


Are you trying to insult this child? Are you being belittling or hurtful because you don't know what his flooby is? Or are you trying to see deeper into the situation so you can be helpful?

This is a valid point, but you asked "What is a flooby?", not "How is a flooby useful?" Someone that isn't guessing that you are using this to formulate the best suggestion might feel that you place no importance in getting that child's flooby back if you asked the latter.

Also, entirely off topic, but why do you consider it insulting to be called female? (I will note that this is NOT what I was insinuating; that's just an expression and you have no need to fear me trying to insult you.) As a matter of fact, I find it rather perplexing and disturbing that anyone would take exception to being grouped with the female sex; is it somehow wrong or inferior to be a woman?

This is an interesting question; it's not insulting to be called female. It is more the idea of being called something that you are not that is insulting.

It seems to me -- both from the discussion in this topic and looking at a few of your other recent ones such as the most recent parser topic -- that perhaps you could benefit from simply assuming people are not trying to be insulting or offensive, as it appears that you're in the minority in what you have taken offence at.

I'm aware that often, people aren't trying to be hurtful. This thread isn't about vengeance and extracting apologies, it is about awareness that such a thing could occur.

I do think you have a somewhat valid point, but I don't think it happens as often as you're insinuating, and I don't think it's really happening to you very much. Without context, people are going to assume that the most common approach is the correct one for your situation, and unless you're willing to take the 30-60 seconds to explain the specifics of why your situation is different there's no reason they shouldn't offer the most common solution as a response at least initially.
You're probably correct that people sometimes continue pushing that point longer than necessary, but you simply can't blame them for starting out with that advice if you don't take the time to clearly explain your position -- if they didn't start with that standard advice, they would be providing bad responses to many other users who don't share your unusual position.

I will accept this, simply because if no one accurately knew what I was doing, they wouldn't realize the simple fact that if I'm this far ahead in a very complex project, I've probably weighed all of the options, and am beyond the stage where the standard advice is the optimal suggestion.

If someone asks "how is x useful", it may well be that they've selected a not-very-tactful choice of words, but the fact is it's still up to your own attitude how you interpret it, such as:
* "can you please teach me the use of x so I may understand your viewpoint"
or
* "I am ignorant as to the use of x but would appreciate being enlightened on the subject"
or
* "x has absolutely no use and you're an idiot for thinking so"

The person who originally made the statement said both and neither of these things -- your own perception and attitude selects one of these interpretations.
You can't change the fact that many people have no tact (we can't hire tact police to make everyone polite), but you are completely in control of your own attitude (this is something you can do yourself).

Choose the first option and there's no problem. Choose the last and you're not going to have a good time on the internet.

i.e. as well as the outer battle of trying the enlighten the world, we must always continue the inner battle to keep ourselves at peace with this corrupt world. We cannot blame the world for our own lack of harmony with it. Only one's self can choose which path they follow, and if there is conflict on your path, then either that conflict is your true work, or it is a result of inharmonious choices.

If someone asks "how is x useful", it may well be that they've selected a not-very-tactful choice of words, but the fact is it's still up to your own attitude how you interpret it, such as:
* "can you please teach me the use of x so I may understand your viewpoint"
or
* "I am ignorant as to the use of x but would appreciate being enlightened on the subject"
or
* "x has absolutely no use and you're an idiot for thinking so"
The person who originally made the statement said both and neither of these things -- your own perception and attitude selects one of these interpretations.
You can't change the fact that many people have no tact (we can't hire tact police to make everyone polite), but you are completely in control of your own attitude (this is something you can do yourself).
Choose the first option and there's no problem. Choose the last and you're not going to have a good time on the internet.
i.e. as well as the outer battle of trying the enlighten the world, we must always continue the inner battle to keep ourselves at peace with this corrupt world. We cannot blame the world for our own lack of harmony with it. Only one's self can choose which path they follow, and if there is conflict on your path, then either that conflict is your true work, or it is a result of inharmonious choices.

Yes, now we're down to the heart of the thread. If I choose to ignore what they said and assume they meant well (which is hard, because I've had people explicitly spell out what they think of my ideas and notions on multiple occasions), the problem might be resolved temporarily until the next time. However there's a reason that I made a thread out of this, rather than scribbling this in to a diary: I post this in an attempt to have others consider the effect of what they might say, as it would benefit every one. Even a single word difference (How is this used? vs. How is this useful?) would get a very different reaction. It may be up to the recipient to try to make a judgement call, and guess whether or not the other person is interested at all, but it is also up to the sender to convey their message in a way that is most likely to be received as intended. This goes for people asking for help, as well as people giving help.

Actually, I would EXPECT that a science fair project be analysed in just such a way by the judges. Haven't you ever noticed that the science fair projects that attempt to solve some sort of societal/technological problem or at the very least demonstrate aspects of it (ie. projects that have some utility) tend to rank the highest, and usually win? How often have you seen "baking soda/vinegar volcano #427 win a science fair? If I were trying to win a science fair (not just participate in - actually win), I would probably ask everyone I knew to judge my project the way the judges would. You might have picked a bad example there.

I didn't pick a bad example. Notice how you changed "teacher" to "judge", again implying that I'm asking someone to appraise my work. Asking a teacher for help with completing a project is very different from asking a judge what his opinion is of your project.

Keep in mind that the posts you cite were made long before you actually told anyone what you're doing or what constraints you're under. Given that nobody had any idea what you were working on, is it really unexpected to be told you're doing something that's typically considered problematic by experts in the field?


I appreciate that you want to help people be more positive and beneficially impactful. However, there are multiple sides to every story. Maybe it was just a bad day, who the hell knows; my point is that you can't reasonably ask everyone else to be perfect all the time. Sometimes shit happens and we all just need to deal with it.