Re^3: Win32 limit to number of calls to system()?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Win32 limit to number of calls to system()? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 12, 2011 at 18:28 UTC
Yes, because clearly an unbounded number of processes is the fastest way to do things. :P False premise: All PDF creation is IO-bound. Also, short negative comments that explain nothing are the best way to get your point across. I've given up explaining to this guy, cos he never listens, never debates and never learns. His only purpose in posting is the peurile pursuit of XP. And, no matter how clear the refutation of his garbage is, he know that by posting anything, as an early first level response to a front-paged post, enough people will blindly click and he'll gain a few XP.	[reply]
Re^5: Win32 limit to number of calls to system()? by Anonymous Monk on Sep 12, 2011 at 19:16 UTC
Don't think of it as explaining to whom you're replying, then... Think of it as explaining to the OP and everybody else. I suspect there are a more than a few sympathy ++s when there are unexplained hostile responses.	[reply]
Re^6: Win32 limit to number of calls to system()? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 12, 2011 at 19:22 UTC
I suspect there are a more than a few sympathy ++s when there are unexplained hostile responses. I don't doubt it, but I don't give a monkey's how much XP he earns. my only concern is highlighting the crap. See the highlighted note in my sig. If more of those capable of seeing through his crap would counter it, then my posts might no longer be seen as a personal tirade. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]