I posted a question after having thought about the concept for a week or so. I posted the relevant research I had done and the sample code I used for trying out the concept. The question was long and I still feel this is a site for long questions and proper analysis of concepts. Your site tour explains:
about what you have tried and exactly what you are trying to do.
I said I found a lot about this concept during a bug fix. I explained that I had written an article about this stuff on Codeproject. I also mentioned that I have no experience with other languages. All this was done within the rules defined by you. When you say include details, it means details - code, links etc., right? Is there a thing called brief details or concise details or short details?
Your site tour further explains:
Not all questions work well in our format. Avoid questions that are primarily opinion-based, or that are likely to generate discussion rather than answers
I asked two to-the-point questions:
- Is there another name for the concept I have just described in common language?
- Why compiler does not optimize obvious semantic inconsistencies?
I deleted my question, but the moderators can grab it back I know. These two questions are not STUPID. I was told by guys that they do not want to hear anything about what I did or where I posted my research etc. They do not want the gory details. What? The site asks me to post details. Who are these people who want short, concise details? Do they even understand what detail means?
Someone said that what i had for breakfast was irrelevant to them. Another guy mentioned that my code sample was ridiculous. All this within seconds of me posting my 1000 words question (including code). This surely means that they have not read the question.
I pointed them to the following link: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254570/choosing-between-stack-overflow-and-programmers-stack-exchange
Who are these guys? What experience have they got? I can tell clearly that these guys have no experience of working in a team or mentoring. It will be really sad if they ever get employed because they surely will destroy the team they work with.
The only answer I received was not poisonous. It just said that the compiler writers have better things to do than to catch what would eventually be a runtime error. What? Really. What better things do you mean. Can you not give me examples where such runtime errors would be a disaster and compilers and tools employed for such an environment do such checking? What are the benefits of not doing such a checking etc. in normal environment?
What do you expect me to do? Post one line questions here? I could do that on StackOverflow. Had I posted something like:
How to use interfaces in C# to delegate a functionality?
I am sure I would have been voted up to seventh heaven. These answers are so readily available that the guy answering receives a lot of points with minimal effort. If they have to dig to get an answer, they go berserk.
One guy also said that you are getting a free code review done here, so better get aligned to the rules laid down by the members. NO. I was not getting my code reviewed. I was trying to discuss something that troubles all beginners. Even if I was, I need not stoop and beg.
This attitude is poisonous and needs to be corrected. These guys need serious enlightenment. Real world is different from classrooms. Learn how to behave.
I do not intend to be a part of this community. Please delete my account.
ITheDelegateis unnecessary and the amount of boilerplate involved here is ridiculous"