In response to OneFishDown
OneFishDown wrote:
Then someone should just write an article that explains the whole thing.

usr Unfriendly

=)
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
OneFishDown wrote:
Then someone should just write an article that explains the whole thing.

usr Unfriendly

=)


http://bwicki.byond.com/ByondBwicki.dmb?UsrIsEvil

[edit]
But I should point out that OFD is most likely trying to indicate that articles are useless since this hasn't changed people's use of usr.
In response to Deadron
It was to point out that there are better ways to show where usr is acceptable than to have a demo for every possible case. Also, the article might be hard to find. Its quite easy to find the demos, but that article takes some digging to find.
In response to OneFishDown
Exactly, so the demos shouldn't be teaching bad habits.
In response to Garthor
maybe the compiler can warn when the situation arrises where usr is being improperly used?
In response to digitalmouse
digitalmouse wrote:
maybe the compiler can warn when the situation arrises where usr is being improperly used?

Not really. The problem of usr abuse is too difficult for the compiler to detect under many circumstances, and since sometimes there's no harm at all in putting it in a proc (at least, for someone who knows what they're doing), the warning would be more trouble than it was worth--and likely enough would still miss most cases of abuse.

For much the same reason you couldn't just slap a warning on every use of goto, nor could you easily make a context-sensitive warning that's correctly tell the user this:
Warning: goto should not be used for this loop; use while instead


Lummox JR
In response to N1ghtW1ng
N1ghtW1ng wrote:
Just a question sort of relating. If a demo has a virus in it is that bad in the sense of deletion of hub

If you mean hub entry, then yes. A bad demo will have its hub entry removed, or at least suppressed until it can be fixed.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
Then nip the headaches in the bud, and remove usr from the language.

~X
In response to Xooxer
Xooxer wrote:
Then nip the headaches in the bud, and remove usr from the language.

It may be worth considering whether it should be removed (at at least not have any value set) when no verb is involved.
In response to Lummox JR
I forget which one it was, but it was a Savefile editor which cost a few dimes....i'll check my records on my other key to see which one it was exactly

Edit- I checked it and didnt find it but maybe you guys have some more indepth records because this doesnt go back far enough
In response to N1ghtW1ng
What do you mean? The 'Previous 60 Days' button will go VERY far back. I mean like, befor BYOND.

Statement Starting: 8/18/97
Statement Ending: 10/17/97
In response to Airjoe
heh...can't seem to see that >.> let me check again and i'll edit my post


2/3/04 Thedarkavenger (1) savefile editor Subscription

I think thats it but i checked the hub and I saw a savefile editor by him but it wasnt like "Active" and I think it had a virus >.>


ps. I know i should of sent this to dantom like...awhile ago i was pretty new then it was on my old key >.>
In response to Lummox JR
I like how "for" and "while" are highlighted. Like subliminal messages.
In response to Xooxer
Xooxer wrote:
Then nip the headaches in the bud, and remove usr from the language.

The usr value is still highly useful, and even has good uses in certain procs. (Indeed, many things like atom/Click() are technically procs called by a corresponding client verb. Removing usr in non-verbs would cause some much worse headaches!)

The real problem is that it's too ingrained in the demos and some tutorials, as this thread makes clear. And that's because the reference on this used to be terrible: the difference between src and usr wasn't entirely clear and many of the examples even abused usr. Hopefully the tide is starting to turn.

Lummox JR
Page: 1 2