I agree that for new users it has for sure changed for the better but there are things that can be done to make things easier for the more experienced users. I believe that the solution to this is not changing quote/code tags but instead adding a new tag which will simulate the old code tag and possibly with a few minor differences for the better depending on what the community thinks. This new tag would basically be just to set text in monospacing which some replies require and the ability the have bbcode inside that tag. That is how I would solve the problem so what does the community think.

> I agree that for new users it has for sure changed for the better but there are things that can be done to make things easier for the more experienced users.

As cwarn says, the change is for the better moving forward. Therefore, what's the best way to always grow and evolve and constantly get better? It's always a delicate balance trying to come up with improvements without any negative impact at all. Therefore, my policy is to ensure 100% backwards compatibility ... but it's not feasable to expect 100% backwards compatibility for features that were knowingly not being used as they were meant to be and I never endorsed or told anyone was a viable alternative to what they were trying to do. Otherwise, where would it end?

Suppose there's a bug in the system where if you type [fdsa] then it gets interpreted as a code tag. So you start using [fdsa] instead of [code] because it's easier to type even though you're aware that it isn't meant to be a real bbcode tag. If the bug is squashed, are you going to complain that we're not ensuring backwards compatibility with all your code tags?

I am simply saying that if you knowingly use features not as they are expected to be used, do not expect them to last forever. (Such as using quote tags for code or using code tags for plaintext).

However, I do understand that people want to have a way to use plaintext or just force the system to not syntax highlight and that ability is already built into the current system. You can use [code=text] if you don't want to parse bbcode or syntax highlight or just [code] if you do want to parse bbcode (and if bbcode is present, the system is smart enough to not syntax highlight).

You mean like with the old smilies?

Or the fact that we first had to use [code=cplusplus][/code] tags because [code=cpp][/code] was invalid according to you, but now we have to use [code=c++][/code] tags because the [code=cplusplus][/code] tags are now invalid?

Key word here is "knowingly". We're not "knowingly" doing anything wrong. Quite the opposite. We're explicitly FOLLOWING the directions given. There was no "bug" in any of this. These were code tags, mostly being used for code, but not always. Nowhere did it say that they should only be used for code.

We're given a link to code tags and how they work:

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/announcement8-3.html

Which contains a more in-depth link on how to use them:

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/misc-explaincode.html

Specifically, we were (and erroneously still are, according to the links, which have a [code] example with no line numbers or syntax-specific coding) explicitly given the option of using code tags with or without syntax highlighting. Since code tags seemed to be the only game in town, that's what people used for non-code too. Now apparently for "Draw a triangle" type problems, we're supposed to use [code=plain], which is still a code tag, for stuff that's not code? That's using code tags properly, but it should have been obvious not use [code]? Or we should use [code=text]? None of this is in the links. These links are in serious need of a through update if you want people to know exactly how they should post.



[code=cpp] works, but [code=cplusplus] no longer does, but you told us to change from [code=cpp] to [code=cplusplus], so when we typed [code=cplusplus] to demonstrate C++-style coding in the Java forum, it now comes up as Java syntax.

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that people are intentionally going to post code in a language other than the forum being posted as compare and contrast between languages. The "code" tag icon added [code], not [code=C++] when you pressed it, it looked fine in the Preview. so you hit "Submit". The link pinned to the forums specifically STILL has syntax-specific and non-syntax-specific examples.

Really, this is about as far removed from "knowingly" using tags incorrectly because of some "bug" as one can get. The "fdsa" analogy is in a completely different realm. You have a pinned thread that hasn't been updated apparently since 2004 and says nothing about only using code tags for code. We used code tags for non-code because that was the only tool that was in the shed. If you don't want us to use a screwdriver to pound nails, give us a hammer. I guess the hammer is now [code=text], so people will use that from now on, which solves the problem going forward, but you still have several years of posts that now look really bad.

Um, you fail. This isn't a bug, it's documented behavior that's been in place for years. You may as well just call it what it is: changing basic functionality of the forum, retroactively altering all of our posts, screw backward compatibility, and tough shit if we don't like it.

Honestly, I don't think the change itself is that big of a deal. But blaming us for not using the forum as it was "intended", despite the fact that we used it as it was documented? That's a new low.

I'm only guessing here but wouldn't for better backwards compatibility with the cplusplus tag be as simple as making another language template?