It works, it's not hard to figure out, but, but, but......
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
@C-Octothorpe said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
Are you saying that you'll only hire people that will spend 3 days looking at CIL to (maybe) eek out an extra 1 or 2 CPU cycles? If so, then you're either full of shit or TRWTF. I've met/worked with some very bright minds who would put Jon Skeet to shame, and they never would consider the shit you just mentioned.So knowing that value will be zeroed when members of of a class or struct (vs other languages where they may contain random data) is an " internals of the runtime"?? Not in my book. It is a key feature why they do not have to be explicitly set (and that seting to zero explicitly causes additional overhead).
I also left out one reason for access of eference type members...and that is every time the GC runs to to a scan for what objects are reachable..This becomes a (small but non zero) runtime performance issue (as does the fact that the additional fields decrease cache hit density)
These are [IMPO] key elements of software DESIGN....sure a "code monkey" may be able to ignore them and get away with it...but I would not higher someone who will have design responsibilities withou this knowledge, and my clients (when I perform screening for them) seem to agree almos universally.
I am saying that I will only hire someone with DESIGN responsibilities who was aware of potential issue of this nature, knew when to consider them, and could address them. It would be foolish (and I never said) that I woud have someone spend time ["3 days looking at CIL"] on a whim...
These situations DO occur in the real world. The system I have been working on must perform a minimum of 50K operations per second. This means an average operation time of 20uS (some will go longer, most will be shorter, as long at the 50K count is met for any 1 second sampling period). These operations are non-trival, involving significant calculations and relations between objects. Late last year we went from failing the performance test, to meeting it with a healthy margin simple by doing things such as re-organizing order of fields within object, re-ordering object creations, etc. All things that are not part of any "functional"/"behavioral" type specification, but are all part of knowing now the toolset being used (in this case .Net 4.0.1) works in detail.
Edge case != common case.
Don't bother. He's convinced everyone should waste their time with microptimizations just because his little company has to. If you try to point out that for most shops this is an uneconomical use of resources, he just lectures you about the Navy.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Edge case != common case.
Don't bother. He's convinced everyone should waste their time with microptimizations just because his little company has to. If you try to point out that for most shops this is an uneconomical use of resources, he just lectures you about the Navy.I dunno. Seems like he just wants people who are curious enough to figure this stuff out and able to deal with this sort of thing when it comes up. I would argue that his company is the edge case, so it makes sense for this to matter for him, at least when it comes to hiring relatively senior people. But yous guys can go back to your web apps and not worry about it.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Edge case != common case.
Don't bother. He's convinced everyone should waste their time with microptimizations just because his little company has to. If you try to point out that for most shops this is an uneconomical use of resources, he just lectures you about the Navy.I dunno. Seems like he just wants people who are curious enough to figure this stuff out and able to deal with this sort of thing when it comes up. I would argue that his company is the edge case, so it makes sense for this to matter for him, at least when it comes to hiring relatively senior people. But yous guys can go back to your web apps and not worry about it.
Thanks, you summed it up perfectly.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@boomzilla said:
If that's what you were getting at, then I agree 100%. The same goes for someone who knows that field initialization order matters but doesn't know the difference between a GET or POST wouldn't get past the phone screening at a dev shop doing mostly web apps.@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Edge case != common case.
Don't bother. He's convinced everyone should waste their time with microptimizations just because his little company has to. If you try to point out that for most shops this is an uneconomical use of resources, he just lectures you about the Navy.I dunno. Seems like he just wants people who are curious enough to figure this stuff out and able to deal with this sort of thing when it comes up. I would argue that his company is the edge case, so it makes sense for this to matter for him, at least when it comes to hiring relatively senior people. But yous guys can go back to your web apps and not worry about it.
Thanks, you summed it up perfectly.
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
If that's what you were getting at, then I agree 100%. The same goes for someone who knows that field initialization order matters but doesn't know the difference between a GET or POST wouldn't get past the phone screening at a dev shop doing mostly web apps.
Exactly. I rarely do "Web Work", so while I do know some of the differences, and know here to get the rest of the information, it is quite possible that I would not get past the screening at those firms. However, just because those items don't apply to the type of work I most often do, I would never start blasting that "they are unimportant" (putting it nicely) or that "people who concern themselves about such things are fools" (or worse). That type of atitude is what gets me upset. Just because something is not important to a specific person or environment, does not mean that the topic itself is unimportant across the board.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
That type of atitude is what gets me upset. Just because something is not important to a specific person or environment, does not mean that the topic itself is unimportant across the board.
What gets me upset is that millions of developers are spending time wanking over this low-level shit when they could be spending that time making their application actually usable, or stable, or moving it off Java, or any of a million more important things.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Edge case != common case.
Don't bother. He's convinced everyone should waste their time with microptimizations just because his little company has to. If you try to point out that for most shops this is an uneconomical use of resources, he just lectures you about the Navy.I dunno. Seems like he just wants people who are curious enough to figure this stuff out and able to deal with this sort of thing when it comes up. I would argue that his company is the edge case, so it makes sense for this to matter for him, at least when it comes to hiring relatively senior people. But yous guys can go back to your web apps and not worry about it.
That's not what he's saying at all. First off, note that we've become side-tracked from the entire issue which is his ridiculous, deliberate misinterpretation of "accessed" to mean "automatically initialized or scanned by the GC".
Second, I've never disputed that some people might need to know this stuff. However, he always jumps in with long, rambling "corrections" when I state something like "This is not important to 95% of people developing software" whereupon he lectures about some element of the runtime. His response is always something along the lines of "I would never hire somebody who doesn't know this stuff" which: 1) nobody gives a shit, we don't want to work for you; and 2) isn't at all relevant to the point I was making. It's ludicrous masturbation which only serves to make him feel more important.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
That type of atitude is what gets me upset. Just because something is not important to a specific person or environment, does not mean that the topic itself is unimportant across the board.
What gets me upset is that millions of developers are spending time wanking over this low-level shit when they could be spending that time making their application actually usable, or stable, or moving it off Java, or any of a million more important things.
Agreed. This should not be a priority for most developers. In most cases, dropping $100k on a kick-ass server is a better use of your money than investing hundreds of hours in micro-optimizations that may make your code brittle or difficult to maintain.
cue long, rambling explanation of GC from TheCPUWizard, followed by an assertion that "developers should know this", followed by a half-assed backpedal wherein he tries to claim that's not what he said
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It's ludicrous masturbation which only serves to make him feel more important.
But didn't you know he founded his own company? And did you know he totally lives in NYC? And guess what, he got preview access to a new Intel CPU! And he's been in the industry for decades, his experience far outstrips our own! TheCPUWizard is the best ever!
But above all, he's modest.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's not what he's saying at all. First off, note that we've become side-tracked from the entire issue which is his ridiculous, deliberate misinterpretation of "accessed" to mean "automatically initialized or scanned by the GC".
Yes, I agree that it's a side track. I've tuned out the initialization junk for the most part.
@morbiuswilters said:
Second, I've never disputed that some people might need to know this stuff.
I know. You'll note that I didn't reply to you directly.
@morbiuswilters said:
It's ludicrous masturbation which only serves to make him feel more important.
Masturbation is never ludicrous.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This should not be a priority for most developers. In most cases, dropping $100k on a kick-ass server is a better use of your money than investing hundreds of hours in micro-optimizations that may make your code brittle or difficult to maintain.
I agree with you, but if this is how you're characterizing what he said, then you're doing it wrong, because that wasn't what he was saying.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This should not be a priority for most developers. In most cases, dropping $100k on a kick-ass server is a better use of your money than investing hundreds of hours in micro-optimizations that may make your code brittle or difficult to maintain.
I agree with you, but if this is how you're characterizing what he said, then you're doing it wrong, because that wasn't what he was saying.
He's been cagey in saying what he believes. He's frequently jumped on me for saying something similar, going off about how he expects designers to know this stuff, and will then turn around and say that's not what he meant. At the very least, his repeated disagreements with me (and attempted "corrections") would contradict his other statements.
-
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
That type of atitude is what gets me upset. Just because something is not important to a specific person or environment, does not mean that the topic itself is unimportant across the board.
What gets me upset is that millions of developers are spending time wanking over this low-level shit when they could be spending that time making their application actually usable, or stable, or moving it off Java, or any of a million more important things.
Agreed. This should not be a priority for most developers. In most cases, dropping $100k on a kick-ass server is a better use of your money than investing hundreds of hours in micro-optimizations that may make your code brittle or difficult to maintain.
cue long, rambling explanation of GC from TheCPUWizard, followed by an assertion that "developers should know this", followed by a half-assed backpedal wherein he tries to claim that's not what he said
Morbs' take a look back (not just on this thread), I do not react when people post that they are refering to general cases (such as the quote above " for most developers" and "In most cases,"). I do react (and will even conceed over-react) when people post things as absolutes (e.g. "Developers should not...") when there exists even just a single provable exception. For everyone (I believe) their own personal & direct experience is what is easiest to "know" has happened, as such I relate my own experience - that is all. Since most people here dont know me personally or professionally (although it is trivial to figure out who I am, if anyone is interested, and I do get quite a few contacts from people who first came to know me from the WTF via e-mail) I try to provide some information about the background to allow the reader to have a context On those occasions where I make a mistake, I strive to promptly admit it (as happened quite recently on another thread). I do not " half-assed backpedal".
-
@blakeyrat said:
And guess what, he got preview access to a new Intel CPU!
Wow! Normally only the top 5,000 overclocking forums attain such an honor!
@blakeyrat said:
But above all, he's modest.
Honestly, I'm not trying to dogpile on the guy. He's seemed nice enough in the past and I certainly think he's reasonably smart. I definitely concede that there are things he could teach me.
What gets under my skin is his recent (or so it seems to me) shift in attitude. It's one of nit-picky, pedantic argument-for-argument's-sake. I don't enjoy having someone correct my already-correct statement with an unrelated diatribe about performance engineering that most developers don't need to worry about, and which in fact is a distraction and waste of resources for most developers.
And then when I try to suss out why he's seeming to disagree with me he plays the "smart guy acting stupid so people will think he's smart" card, bringing up something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. (PROTIP: When, in a discussion over the rationale of using lazy initialization, someone uses the word "access" to refer to a member, they are talking about programmer access, not having the memory zeroed-out or scanned by the GC. That should have been obvious. You seriously suck at reading comprehension if you can't understand how context might influence communication.)
All-in-all, I just want to let it go. I'm hoping with enough negative reinforcement I might be able to condition him to stop picking arguments with me over things nobody was talking about, and then I can go back to enjoying his presence here instead of hoping for an asteroid to hit NYC and wipe out all life.
-
@Peraninth said:
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
Embedded fall into the same category. I pulled 95% out of my ass, but it sounds correct; if you prefer, just replace it with "most developers". And I'm certainly not saying performance doesn't matter, but for most developers now it's not worrying about memory use, it's minimizing latency for network requests, making SQL queries more efficient and implementing an effective caching strategy.
The thing is, I don't think anyone was substantively disagreeing with my statement. I think TheCPUWizard just wanted to argue for argument's sake, so he chose something irrelevant to nit-pick over.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm hoping with enough negative reinforcement I might be able to condition him to stop picking arguments with me over things nobody was talking about, and then I can go back to enjoying his presence here instead of hoping for an asteroid to hit NYC and wipe out all life.
While I think that Sweet Meteor of Death has a decent platform, I'm not ready to rule out Medically Induced Coma.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm hoping with enough negative reinforcement I might be able to condition him to stop picking arguments with me over things nobody was talking about, and then I can go back to enjoying his presence here instead of hoping for an asteroid to hit NYC and wipe out all life.
While I think that Sweet Meteor of Death has a decent platform, I'm not ready to rule out Medically Induced Coma.
Why choose the lesser of two evils? I haven't been to AoS in a while.. just don't have the time nor the blood pressure medicine to follow politics.
I'll just trust the American people to make the right decision. And when they inevitably fail me and civilization collapses, I'm going to loot them so hard.
-
@Peraninth said:
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@Peraninth said:
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
It is done all of the time. There is a specific .Net framework targeted towards embedded systems, and I have work with (ok, at least evaluated) a dozen different boards (mainly robotics) that run .NET code.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
It is done all of the time. There is a specific .Net framework targeted towards embedded systems, and I have work with (ok, at least evaluated) a dozen different boards (mainly robotics) that run .NET code.
So how hard is it to get c# and .net running on embedded devices with no file system?
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
It is done all of the time. There is a specific .Net framework targeted towards embedded systems, and I have work with (ok, at least evaluated) a dozen different boards (mainly robotics) that run .NET code.
Whoosh
(I've got a smartcard that supposedly runs .net)
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@pkmnfrk said:
@Peraninth said:
...embedded systems...
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
It is done all of the time. There is a specific .Net framework targeted towards embedded systems, and I have work with (ok, at least evaluated) a dozen different boards (mainly robotics) that run .NET code.
There you go, morbs. Have fun!
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@Peraninth said:
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
Last I checked, Windows Embedded was a thing. Maybe they run a stripped-down .NET.
-
@lettucemode said:
@pkmnfrk said:
@Peraninth said:
Lets not forget about the embedded systems software developers. I would say they frequently do need to know about the "low-level shit" as blakey puts it and you can't quite throw another server on that airplane or in that car. Morbs might be right, though, and they only constitute 5% of the programmers out there but my google foo wasn't strong enough to find any kind of number on this. Also I'm not sure how many embedded programmers are working in C#. Last time I was in that field (7-8 years ago) it was still dominated by good ol' C.
Well, I can't see how anyone would use C# or .NET on an embedded device with no file system.
Last I checked, Windows Embedded was a thing. Maybe they run a stripped-down .NET.
Goddammit, people, that's a very old TDWTF in-joke. One of the front page articles had some embedded C which hard-coded a lot of data in the code files as huge binary arrays. In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." So now it's become a recurring joke.
-
@lettucemode said:
Last I checked, Windows Embedded was a thing.
Windows Embedded is just Windows 7 where you can choose which components to include in the OS.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Goddammit, people, that's a very old TDWTF in-joke. One of the front page articles had some embedded C which hard-coded a lot of data in the code files as huge binary arrays. In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." So now it's become a recurring joke.
Oo, valuable forum in-joke knowledge! I'll be a regular around here in no time.
-
I was not posting regarding the "no filesystem" (I am well aware of the joke)...but there is a vast community who has no idea the .NET is used on embedded systems. It's actually alot of fun (at least for me) to scribble up a quick C# program, and see a little robot run through the apartment...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Goddammit, people, that's a very old TDWTF in-joke. One of the front page articles had some embedded C which hard-coded a lot of data in the code files as huge binary arrays. In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary."
Subsequent research showed that the comment was misleading, because this is only true if the embedded system is first super cooled.
-
@ender said:
@lettucemode said:
Last I checked, Windows Embedded was a thing.
Windows Embedded is just Windows 7 where you can choose which components to include in the OS.True, but the "Micro Framework" has nothing to do with Windows Embedded.... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh423649.aspx (for those interested)
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
I was not posting regarding the "no filesystem" (I am well aware of the joke)...but there is a vast community who has no idea the .NET is used on embedded systems. It's actually alot of fun (at least for me) to scribble up a quick C# program, and see a little robot run through the apartment...
Well, I am aware of it (my previous post in the contrary was a joke, as indicated by the tags). So, by your own argument that what is relevant to one person (or a small minority) is automatically relevant to the majority, that means that you are completly missing the point and stating something irrelevant. Q.E.D., quid pro quo, quando omni flunkus moritaty.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
I was not posting regarding the "no filesystem" (I am well aware of the joke)...but there is a vast community who has no idea the .NET is used on embedded systems. It's actually alot of fun (at least for me) to scribble up a quick C# program, and see a little robot run through the apartment...
Well, I am aware of it (my previous post in the contrary was a joke, as indicated by the tags). So, by your own argument that what is relevant to one person (or a small minority) is automatically relevant to the majority, that means that you are completly missing the point and stating something irrelevant. Q.E.D., quid pro quo, quando omni flunkus moritaty.
FWIW: Tags do not show up in (at least in mine) e-mail updates. I have an autoposter, and rarely go to the site, so tags (and signatures) are invisible...
ps: I think seeing robots running through your apartment is ALWAYS Relevant! <grin>, now if
I just had the moneymy wife wouldn't kill me for spending the money, on a decent bipedal....
-
@morbiuswilters said:
In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." [b]And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point.[/b] So now it's become a recurring joke.
Inserted the missing bit for you. [url=http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/The-cbitmap.aspx]Here's the thread[/url]. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point. So now it's become a recurring joke.
Inserted the missing bit for you. Here's the thread. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).That part was implied; any time somebody says anything even slightly incorrect around the aspie nerds who make up this site, expect hundreds of replies correcting him. I honestly do think most of them saw the first comment but just wanted to post so show how "smart" they are.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point. So now it's become a recurring joke.
Inserted the missing bit for you. Here's the thread. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).That part was implied; any time somebody says anything even slightly incorrect around the aspie nerds who make up this site, expect hundreds of replies correcting him. I honestly do think most of them saw the first comment but just wanted to post so show how "smart" they are.
That thread is a great illustration of why everybody hates pedantic dickweeds.
-
@blakeyrat said:
That thread is a great illustration of why
everybodysome people hatesthose who misuse both pedantic and dickweed.Better.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point. So now it's become a recurring joke.
Inserted the missing bit for you. Here's the thread. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).That part was implied; any time somebody says anything even slightly incorrect around the aspie nerds who make up this site, expect hundreds of replies correcting him. I honestly do think most of them saw the first comment but just wanted to post so show how "smart" they are.
<br></p>
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point. So now it's become a recurring joke.
Inserted the missing bit for you. Here's the thread. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).That part was implied; any time somebody says anything even slightly
incorrect around the aspie nerds who make up this site, expect hundreds
of replies correcting him. I honestly do think most of them saw the
first comment but just wanted to post so show how "smart" they are.<br></p></blockquote>If there was a way to dress this post in unflattering latex and make love to it, I would.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Inserted the missing bit for you. Here's the thread. Comment #2. And #6. And #8. And #10. And #15. And #18. And #19. And #21. And #23. And #24. And then I got bored, but they were still going on page 5 (though by then some of them were just being sarcastic).
That part was implied; any time somebody says anything even slightly
incorrect around the aspie nerds who make up this site, expect hundreds
of replies correcting him. I honestly do think most of them saw the
first comment but just wanted to post so show how "smart" they are.<br></p></blockquote>In the comments somebody said something to the effect of "This wouldn't be a WTF on an embedded device with no file system because the only way to ship 'files' is to store them in the binary." And then about a hundred other people said the same thing, not waiting to see if by chance anybody else had already made the point. So now it's become a recurring joke
