On Aug 19, 2009, at 10:38 PM, M Pulis wrote:
My whole deal was about any PPC tasks in the OP's product's chain of
execution, as I.S. selectively missed then exaggerated the off
topic point (#5 of 8) in his surgical excerpt of my detailed
response to his questioning of my suggestion to the OP proving me
wrong, perhaps for even suggesting PPC in the first place.
Yeccch. :-P
(sigh) You're being obnoxious.
You accuse me of focusing on one thing, unrelated to the main
point, just to prove you wrong. Ignoring the egotism of that, let's
get to the meat (since this is a technical list, not digg.com).
I asked for clarification since your original message only
implicated Rosetta because of what you (and others) assumed to be a
slow-performing library startup. It was your choice to continue citing
sqlite since both posters might have this in common.
You said, "A guess based on logic and deduction, my Dear Watson."
Okay logic and deduction it is. If the code was built for PPC and run
on PPC, Rosetta is not needed. If the code was built for Intel and run
on Intel, Rosetta is not needed. Since you can't mix architectures
(something someone who knows enough about Rosetta to imagine the need
to warm it up on login could be reasonably expected to have
encountered in the documentation), that leaves only compiling for PPC
and running on Intel, or forcing the Universal Binary to run under
Rosetta on Intel. Since the OP said in his second message, "I debugged
it with some Snow Leopard magic...", that tells us that it's fairly
unlikely he'd be purposefully compiling only for PPC or forcibly
running the application under Rosetta to use the PPC code. Unlikely
but not impossible, I'll grant you that. But extremely unlikely. A
quick verification of one's build settings is all that's needed, sure,
but that's not what I was asking. I was asking you to explain your
reasoning out of curiosity (and a bit of confusion).
Your "detailed response" (a third of which contained things like,
"I'm bored" and repeated information) condenses down to about 5 or 6
interrelated points to explain your reasoning. Points 4 and 6 read
more like assertions and are based on a complete assumption. Really,
the only point that needed addressing (considering the above) was
point 5.
My original question was just that - a question. A request for you
to explain what appeared to me to be an interesting leap of logic.
Nobody said or implied your suggestion was unwelcome (you pulled that
one out of thin air). I asked you to elaborate and you became offended
when your suggestion / elaboration was shown to be wrong. It's as
simple as that.
Can we please stop the crying and keep things on a technical level?
--
I.S.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
