Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Lew wrote:
Ergo the claim that the monitor doubles the allocation size is bogus.
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations wrote:
I never made or agreed with such a claim, so this is another straw man.
No, but you argued with me when I refuted that claim. So it's not any kind of
straw man, and since there wasn't an earlier one, it couldn't be "another" one
anyway.
I also never said that you did make that claim, as such. But you disagreed
with my refutation of it, putting you in that topic. And there are other
people in the world besides yourself, you self-involved little man.
Where's your numbers? Where's your data? What's good for the goose is good for
the gander...
I asked first. The one making the claim that there is 100% overhead, or any
percent overhead, needs to substantiate the claim. I've already proven the
100% claim false, as have you, but no one has proven any actual number. I
haven't asserted an actual number, so have nothing to substantiate.
Show me the numbers.
What the OP claimed is not a point against me, because I cannot be held
responsible for something someone else said. So that's irrelevant, i.e. it's a
If you disagree with the refutation of that point, then you are on that topic,
and you have an obligation to be responsible for that.
straw man, in this branch of the thread.
You keep using that term. I am not sure that it means what you think it means.
Define "the main point"? I'd define it as "whatever my opponent asserted in
Interesting that you frame this in terms of "opponents". We're not supposed
to be opponents but partners in exploration of the truth. Apparently your
purpose is to turn this into some kind of contest, and you hold an
oppositional frame. I am interested in increasing knowledge here, not doing
battle, so -
PLONK.
--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg