Pet Peeves

[Rysto]

People who think structs and classes are the same thing...

structs and classes are the same thing. The only difference is that struct defaults to using the public modifier and class defaults to using the private modifier.

[Mancho]

People who think structs and classes are the same thing...

structs and classes are the same thing. The only difference is that struct defaults to using the public modifier and class defaults to using the private modifier.

Wrong place for this, so I'll be brief. The other difference being that members of structs occupy concurrent memory, so they could be accessed as a memory space. This has particular benefits in embedded applications.

[EvanED]

Wrong place for this, so I'll be brief. The other difference being that members of structs occupy concurrent memory, so they could be accessed as a memory space. This has particular benefits in embedded applications.

No, that's not true. The same memory layout constraints for structs apply to classes, and vice versa.

BTW, it's only natural that discussions in threads like this stray into specifics like this for a few posts. It's no big deal. About the worst that can happen is I decide a split is in order.

[ash.gti]

C struts are different than C++ struts, however, in C++ strut and class function exactly the same with the exception of the default accessibility of the members.

The C strut is different in that a struct couldn't have functions associated with it and didn't have private variables.

[Ptolom]

People who assume that because you don't use the same technical terms as you means you don't understand what they're talking about. I had a guy talking at me for an hour about structs and how I was a total dipshit for not using them. Then I went and asked a friend who'd coded in Java and C about structs, and he said, "Oh yeah, they're essentially classes." All of a sudden it ALL MADE SENSE!

People who think structs and classes are the same thing...

Couldn't resist. Seriously though, when I first used visual studio and found out that MS made classes and structs the same (I had been away from C for a while), I felt like throwing a fit. Actually, I pretty much did throw a fit. They have completely different uses. Its stupid.

What? They do that! I'm outraged

[Poochy]

1. When people ask me for computer help, then proceed to look over my shoulder and get in the way or outright defy my advice because they're "not used to" the new security features I install (firewall, anti-spyware scanner, etc.)

Aunt: This isn't working on my laptop. Could you fix it for me?
Me: Sure, I'll try to figure out what's wrong with it. *starts anti-virus scan*
Aunt: *sees the word "virus" in "anti-virus" on the screen* "What does that say? VIRUS?! AAH! DO I HAVE A VIRUS?! *clutches my shoulder so tightly it hurts like mad*
Me: No, that says ANTI-virus. It's the program that gets rid of viruses. And even if you did have a virus, inflicting a shoulder injury on me would not help.

2. Stupid anti-piracy measures. See Windows Vista's Content Protection for a prime example. If your anti-piracy measures make me want to teach people to use BitTorrent purely out of spite, it's not a good idea. It's also a bad idea if you spend more time and money trying to prevent people from pirating your software than the amount of potential profits you'd lose if you just let people pirate it. And if your anti-piracy measures annoy users of legit copies, it's also a bad idea.

3. Companies who think it's a good idea to treat you like crap while you use the free/shareware/trial/demo/stupidly-crippled version of their software, in an attempt to passive-aggressive/guilt trip/fearmonger/annoy you into buying the full version. If you treat me like crap when I'm a potential customer, I'm going to assume you'll still treat me like crap if I become a full-fledged customer. Thus, I won't become your customer, and I'll take my business elsewhere. I don't mind the occasional nag screen that just asks you to hit "OK", but too many programs out there are borderline adware with that kind of crap.

Also, I second the sentiments on Mac mice. I don't think Apple has ever made a good mouse.

[Rysto]

Header files that don't include their own dependencies. It quickly leads to a vicious cycle:

1) #include <some_file.h>
2) Get a bunch of compile errors
3) Painstakingly track down the definitions of all undefined types
4) #include files that declare those definitions
5) goto (2)

Grrr......

[Berengal]

And this is just one more of the reasons languages relying on a preprocessor are broken.

Modern languages don't have one, and the very few uses a ppc still has left are too few, too rare and too easy to do in another way to justify their inclusion.

[gedtheflayer]

Not a computer thing, but sort of the science equivalent: Whenever I tell someone I'm a science major, or tell them about my research, they say "Oh, so you're curing cancer." Even if what I'm doing has nothing to do with cancer, or even human diseases.

[Nevarwinter]

I hate it when people hear that I'm studying computer science and immediately ask me if I'll teach them how to pwn other people's boxen. Yes, I know how to do so. No, I won't teach you. It would be unethical.

My pet peeve is similar. Had a friend find out I was in computer science and instantly, he suggests: Lets build a mmo! yeah. i'll code it tonight, be back in the morning with it.

[Thadlerian]

Pet peeves? Sure: All those little Windows functions that seem innocent enough on their own, but whose collective effort slowly wreck your mind. When Windows decides that you're stupid, and insists on helping you.

Like hiding all those scary file endings.

Or that "new programs have been installed" balloon that obscures the "shut down" button. Of course new programs have been installed! I installed them, goddamnit!

Or the little pop announcing "there are unused icons on your desktop".

Or in Windows XP, the add/remove programs list taking forever (OK, not forever, but with new computers you're used to things moving fast) to "populate" because Windows needs to calculate how often you use your programs. According to Windows, I rarely ever use any program.

Or any automatic error message that says "sorry". The actual meaning of "sorry" can only be communicated in one - 1 - way: Between human beings face to face.

Or the screensaver that by default logs halfway out when you return to your computer. Really great if you share the computer with others, and someone else is logged on - someone whose password you don't know - and you don't want to shut down or reboot the thing because it says they have programs running.

[EvanED]

Or in Windows XP, the add/remove programs list taking forever (OK, not forever, but with new computers you're used to things moving fast) to "populate" because Windows needs to calculate how often you use your programs. According to Windows, I rarely ever use any program.

Yeah, I never got this. I think it's dumb.

Or the screensaver that by default logs halfway out when you return to your computer. Really great if you share the computer with others, and someone else is logged on - someone whose password you don't know - and you don't want to shut down or reboot the thing because it says they have programs running.

Um, so turn it off. It's not on by default anyway. And if you use default settings in XP (or, I assume, Vista), you'll get the switch users dialog where someone else can log in. In other words, you have to change not one but two options before the problem you describe surfaces.

That feature is incredibly useful.

[Thadlerian]

Um, so turn it off. It's not on by default anyway. And if you use default settings in XP (or, I assume, Vista), you'll get the switch users dialog where someone else can log in. In other words, you have to change not one but two options before the problem you describe surfaces.

That feature is incredibly useful.

That was what I was trying to communicate, ineffectively. The switch users dialog - you have to give the password to get back into the user that was logged on when the screen saver started. Without that function, I can easily check that no important programs are running, and log out/reboot/whatever. The point is that the other person usually is finished, and has left the place without bothering to log off.

And I know it is easy to turn off. But that again has to be done from the other person's profile as well. It's easy to forget to bring it up - I recall it only when it has become a problem again.

[EvanED]

Um, so turn it off. It's not on by default anyway. And if you use default settings in XP (or, I assume, Vista), you'll get the switch users dialog where someone else can log in. In other words, you have to change not one but two options before the problem you describe surfaces.

That feature is incredibly useful.

That was what I was trying to communicate, ineffectively. The switch users dialog - you have to give the password to get back into the user that was logged on when the screen saver started.

No, you don't. Not unless you or someone else set it up that way.

XP includes the Fast User Switching feature which allows one person to get up, choose start -> logout -> switch user or something like that, and someone else can log in. The first person's programs continue running. If you tell it to lock the screen on the screen saver, this is what it does automatically.

If this isn't the behavior (and instead you get the NT-classic "press ctrl-alt-del to log in" thing), then either your computer has under 64 MB of RAM or someone changed it from the default settings.

(Admittedly, if the computer is on a domain then you need to disable fast user switching. But if you're on a domain you're also probably talking about a computer lab or office, where the dynamics change entirely from a house or dorm room setting.)

[Thadlerian]

I'm sorry, I don't follow you.
Here is what happens:
1. User X turns the computer on, logs onto his profile and does whatever it is he does.
2. User X is done, and leaves the computer as it is, without logging off.
3. After a while, the screen goes blank.
4. User Y needs to use the computer, and touches the mouse. The computer is now at a screen similar to the one where you initially log on after starting up. The available profiles are listed. Profile X is shown as "logged on", and has N programs running.
5. If user Y selects profile X, he will be asked for the password, which he usually does not know.
6. User Y logs on with profile Y.
7. User Y installs a new program or whatever, which requires him to restart.
8. User Y recieves a message that other people are logged on, and that a restart would cause them to lose so and so.
9. Thus, user Y, not knowing whether or not user X will lose anything from a restart, has a problem.

This is default on all XP computers I've used regularly, including ones which disks I have formatted and had Windows re-installed.

[EvanED]

Oh, I wasn't following you. I thought you were complaining about the fact that, if you disable fast user switching, if someone walks away you can't use the computer at all because it doesn't go back to the login screen. (Only the original user or an admin can log on, and it forces the first one off.)

How often does your problem occur? And *every* system has that problem, not just Windows. (Maybe it's a little more acute on Windows because of the increased propensity of things to require restarts, but it's still rare that a program installation really needs it.)

[enk]

XP includes the Fast User Switching feature which allows one person to get up, choose start -> logout -> switch user or something like that, and someone else can log in. The first person's programs continue running.

I just tried that and then realized I couldn't remember my Windows password (I rarely use it because I've got a boot password).

*facepalm*

Anyway... I remember now.

[Robin S]

In forums, the manual addition of a fixed line of text to the bottom of every post, despite there being a signature option in the User Control Panel. Worse still, the manual addition of such a fixed line of text in addition to an actual signature.

[Bulvox]

my pet peeves are hypocrits, and rap music.

i try to limit my own hypocracy (sp?). i just don't have the patience to deal with someone who says one thing and then does the opposite.

what's with this rap music? i mean, it makes polka sound good. that's right, you heard me, polka. and it's degrading to all of humanity, so i don't know why anyone would willingly listen to that crap.

[Endless Mike]

In forums, the manual addition of a fixed line of text to the bottom of every post, despite there being a signature option in the User Control Panel. Worse still, the manual addition of such a fixed line of text in addition to an actual signature.

Yeah, this.

I find it's fun to start signing that person's name until they get the picture.

[Berengal]

Stuff on my computer that's supposed to "just work" but doesn't. These objects are rarely easy to fix, and you'd better hope someone else also experienced the bug so google can work it's magic. Even then, the fix usually involves languages unpronouncable to the human tounge, astrology and goats.

[poxic]

Windows music.

On my home and work PCs, I have all Windows noises turned off. When I use someone else's machine, the sickly-sweet startup/shutdown music rakes over my nerves like Celine Dion singing the national anthem. (Yes, I know Brian Eno wrote it, but this is a freaking operating system, NOT an Apollo symphony. I demand that my necessary evils be SILENT.)

[Noughmad]

Windows ... necessary evil

People who are annoyed by Windows yet refuse to use anything else.

[mat-tina]

Like hiding all those scary file endings.

Like having file endings to begin with. Sure, I can understand that it simplifies globbing and all (though personally, I prefer to name related files similarly and group them in some way), but making functions of the systems depend on them is just krazy. Like this one time, for example, when I wanted to make all files without endings to be opened by the text editor by default, I couldn't, because the checkbox was greyed out!

That's another pet peeve of mine: checkboxes. And grey! And people starting sentences with a conjunction!

Hi, by the way; I'm fairly new. Can I have a hug?

[Noughmad]

That's another pet peeve of mine: checkboxes. And grey!

I hate grey anything too. If I want to do something, let me do that!

[Endless Mike]

Windows ... necessary evil

People who are annoyed by Windows yet refuse to use anything else.

Did you consider that he may not have a choice at work, and uses it at home for data portability or that there may be some work program he has to use that has no alternative? There's many very good reasons to use Windows over other OSes. Ignoring that, he's talking about using other people's computers, and personally, I would be rather annoyed if someone logged into my computer and decided to install a different OS because they didn't like my choice.

On topic: Linux zealots.

[Noughmad]

Did you consider that he may not have a choice at work, and uses it at home for data portability or that there may be some work program he has to use that has no alternative? There's many very good reasons to use Windows over other OSes. Ignoring that, he's talking about using other people's computers, and personally, I would be rather annoyed if someone logged into my computer and decided to install a different OS because they didn't like my choice.

I did (well, only after posting, but I still did). It wasn't meant to be personal, though. I know several people with that attitude, who have the option but prefer to complain, and not only about OSes.

Consider me a zealot if you wish.

[poxic]

Did you consider that she may not have a choice at work

FTFy'all

I did (well, only after posting, but I still did). It wasn't meant to be personal, though.

It wasn't taken that way (well, mostly wasn't). The OS isn''t an option at work, and the last time I made a computer purchase for home, I was seriously addicted to a non-Mac game series (Elder Scrolls for the ... goodenough?). I'm not enough of a zealot either way, but I might get a Mac for my next new rig and keep the old PC for the old games.

... provided ES:5 either doesn't happen or doesn't win hard enough. Argh.

[The Hyphenator]

In forums, the manual addition of a fixed line of text to the bottom of every post, despite there being a signature option in the User Control Panel. Worse still, the manual addition of such a fixed line of text in addition to an actual signature.

Thirded. This kills me a little bit inside every time I see that.

[Xanthir]

In forums, the manual addition of a fixed line of text to the bottom of every post, despite there being a signature option in the User Control Panel. Worse still, the manual addition of such a fixed line of text in addition to an actual signature.

Thirded. This kills me a little bit inside every time I see that.

I think I have to fourth this. Earlier I thought it wasn't a big deal, but I was recently reminded of a guy who does just that - appends a manually-written-and-always-identical sigline to each post in addition to his auto-generated sig.

I'm perfectly fine with people who write out their sigs when they go out of their way to *customize* it. Heck, I did that back in the day, signing my posts with my display name and then a caption that was relevant to the post/thread. But just writing out the same sigline every time when you clearly know *how* to use the signature option... I cannot rightly perceive the confusion of thought necessary to bring that about.

[Vempele]

I think I have to fourth this.

Fifthed. Maybe they do it because they want everyone to see it, even those who have sigs disabled? I hope there's a special spot in Hell for that kind of evil.

Posting your reply within a quote.
Quoting a whole post that quotes another whole post that...
Actually, all mindless quoting. And non-quoting (which can be a problem on forums where threaded view is the default).

[Endless Mike]

I think I mentioned that awhile ago. It annoys me because if I want to see who made a post, I look to the left! I've found that copying their behavior tends to get them to stop. or annoy them. Either works.

[John O)))]

I'm sure this is felt by many, but I hate how people think I'm obligated to fix their computer just because I know how. I get calls from people I NEVER talk to asking if I can help them "set up their laptop" or "come see what's wrong".

I don't understand what's so hard about "Setting up" a laptop in the first place. You turn it on...and...it turns on.... What the fuck is so painful about this process?

I also hate when dudes try to make their voice sound deeper than I really is.

[rei]

People who leave IM noises on.

Windows Vista Autoupdate's notification that it;s going to restart your computer not being visible while you're watching fullscreen video, causing your viewing of "Lexi Belle - Teens like it Big" to close, and then you struggle valiantly (to no avail) to keep it up
[your system, I mean. Stop lookin at me.]

Overly pedantic grammer nazis. Understood that w shud not be tlking laik ths, however smaller infractions should be ignored if only to promote good discussion over being pedantic. Sure if you manage to not derail the entire discussion with your correction go ahead, but if there's a legitimate group discussion happening you don't need to cut it off to point out that this is a rediculous run-on sentance or the fact that there is no a in sentence.


-BIGGEST- one.
Front panel connectors on motherboards, and their absolute lack of standardization. How is it that the computer industry can't agree by now to a simple plug to get your power, reset, and LEDs plugged in. Asus's Q-Connect is a step in the right direction.

[John O)))]

Overly pedantic grammer nazis. Understood that w shud not be tlking laik ths, however smaller infractions should be ignored if only to promote good discussion over being pedantic. Sure if you manage to not derail the entire discussion with your correction go ahead, but if there's a legitimate group discussion happening you don't need to cut it off to point out that this is a rediculous run-on sentance or the fact that there is no a in sentence.

Ridiculous*.


You were asking for it.

[rei]

That I was. I'm tempted to add IE6 to my list, but who in their right mind other than my employer uses that?

[Xanthir]

30% of the visitors to my company's site, which caters to relatively non-savvy users and thus is probably a pretty decent cross-section of actual internet users?

[John O)))]

That I was. I'm tempted to add IE6 to my list, but who in their right mind other than my employer uses that?

Its strange, some people just have weird taste. There's this guy I know who tried Firefox and uninstalled it because he "just didn't like it". I asked for further explanation, be he just repeated it.

The dude's not an average computer user either. He built his own computer and is pretty enthusiastic about a lot of tech stuff, he just happens to be a little naive.

[Berengal]

Yeah, when I first switched from IE I switched to Opera. I tried it for a couple of days, found I didn't like it and switched back to IE. After using IE for a couple of hours I found out Opera was much better after all and switched back again. I still felt uneasy about using it for a week or so though. I guess it's just reluctance to change...

[Dingbats]

People who refer to spelling and puncuation as "grammar". Or even "grammer".