Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[scott]

coryb@magmacom.com wrote:

> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
> is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  

How does it cause problems?

Over the past 10 years, programming as an activity has
pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers
to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore,
because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects
in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex.

As a result, it's stratified. People who know asm and stuff are
writing OSes, components, and stuff. People use these 
parts to assemble working systems at a high level.

Scott
--
Look at Softbase Systems' client/server tools, www.softbase.com
Check out the Essential 97 package for Windows 95 www.skwc.com/essent
All my other cool web pages are available from that site too!
My demo tape, artwork, poetry, The Windows 95 Book FAQ, and more. 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Charles W. Hall]

Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.   The
internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level
language.  The operating system software is designed by experts to
properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
swapping, and scheduling.  These are not the domain of the programmer.
Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
operation of the car or computer system.

Charles Hall

scott@softbase.com wrote:

> coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
>
> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but
> there
> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are
> ignorant of
> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> > operating systems, etc.
>
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>,
Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
>know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.   The

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no benefit
from knowing it.

>internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
>correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level
>language.  The operating system software is designed by experts to
>properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
>swapping, and scheduling.  These are not the domain of the programmer.

Not knowing how the paging works could lead the programmer to make
poor choices for accessing some large structure.

Scheduling is often the domain of the programmer; if you are working
with threads, it is useful to know what priority inversion is and
what strategies can be used to alleviate it.

>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
>internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
>operation of the car or computer system.

That is a poor analogy, because the operator of the car is a mere user.  He or
she is not constructing components to be added to the car.

If someone were adding an air-conditioning system to the car, I might
well expect them to be familiar with the electrical system.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jahfre]

I can hardly quit chuckling about this one . . . good thing no one expects
programmers or engineers to know how to use metaphors.

Anyway,  to the point, there is a big difference between understanding the
architecture of the system on which a software application is going to be
running and the general statement that programmers are ignorant of the assembly
code and internals of the operating system.

The difference between traditional engineers and a software engineer is that
the software engineer has to actually produce something that works and can be
tested.  Not every programmer is a software engineer.  Some are simply
programmers.

I apologize to you engineers out there who may have actually taken a system you
have designed and produced the final product from you engineering output.  I'm
sure some have.  I'm also sure that those who have know exactly what I'm
talking about.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Art/Jeannie Daly]

I have found that "English" pays the most...tho I have heard if you can 
program in Kanji you got 'er licked!

sorry,
art

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ian Chivers]

In article <6atbro$jnd$1@brie.direct.ca>, bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>,
> Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
>>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
>>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
>>know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
>>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.   The
> 
> Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no benefit
> from knowing it.
> 
>>internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
>>correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level
>>language.  The operating system software is designed by experts to
>>properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
>>swapping, and scheduling.  These are not the domain of the programmer.
> 
> Not knowing how the paging works could lead the programmer to make
> poor choices for accessing some large structure.
> 

whilst it may be possible NOT to know anything about the
internal storage of arrays, this certainly helps when your
problem has to handle large 2d and above arrays.

handling the indices the wrong way would give very bad
cache performance, and knowing something about page sizes
certainly helps when looking at how badly your program may 
perform.

if you are involved in mixed language programming then
knowledge of this is essential. you'd be processing
the wrong data.

ian chivers
king's college london

> Scheduling is often the domain of the programmer; if you are working
> with threads, it is useful to know what priority inversion is and
> what strategies can be used to alleviate it.
> 
>>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
>>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
>>internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
>>operation of the car or computer system.
> 
> That is a poor analogy, because the operator of the car is a mere user.  He or
> she is not constructing components to be added to the car.
> 
> If someone were adding an air-conditioning system to the car, I might
> well expect them to be familiar with the electrical system.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Edwin Purvee]

Kaz Kylheku wrote in message <6atbro$jnd$1@brie.direct.ca>...
>In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>,
>Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
>>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
>>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
>>know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
>>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.   The
>
>Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no
benefit
>from knowing it.
>

There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry.  For high
intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are
creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast
enough.

Ed
epurvee@mail.snu.edu

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:41:23 -0500, Edwin Purvee <epurvee@mail.snu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no
>benefit
>>from knowing it.
>>
>
>There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry.  For high
>intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are
>creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast
>enough.

Please don't reply to this thread. It is year old articles that have been
reposted by someone's broken MS Exchange server.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Mesken]

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:27:45 GMT, kaz@ashi.FootPrints.net (Kaz
Kylheku) wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:41:23 -0500, Edwin Purvee <epurvee@mail.snu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no
>>benefit
>>>from knowing it.
>>>
>>
>>There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry.  For high
>>intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are
>>creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast
>>enough.
>
>Please don't reply to this thread. It is year old articles that have been
>reposted by someone's broken MS Exchange server.

Yeah, but it's still true. There's still a great use for Assembly :-)

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Mad Hamish]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall"
<charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:

>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
>know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.

For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical.

>   The
>internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
>correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level
>language. 

True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware directly and there
isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar to
assembler. 

> The operating system software is designed by experts to
>properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
>swapping, and scheduling. 

Seen windows recently <g>

> These are not the domain of the programmer.

who shaved the barber?

>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
>internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
>operation of the car or computer system.
>
	Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like
criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. 

>> coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
>>
>> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but
>> there
>> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are
>> ignorant of
>> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>> > operating systems, etc.
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dennis Weldy]

Mad Hamish wrote in message <34ea25fa.2254805@newsroom.tassie.net.au>...
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall"
><charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
>
>>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
>>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
>>internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
>>operation of the car or computer system.
>>
> Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like
>criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals.

I agree with the above statement, although I assume programmer was a typo
and user was actually meant ;-). While it can be very difficult to get a
through understanding of proprietary systems, it is still a good idea to
read the OS concepts books and Internals-type books so thatnyou will have a
basic understanding of whats going on. It will help you be fluent in the
OS/Platform.

Dennis
>
>>> coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but
>>> there
>>> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are
>>> ignorant of
>>> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>>> > operating systems, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[mei]

Mad Hamish wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall"
> <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
> 
> >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done
> >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to
> >know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program in
> >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.
> 
> For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical.
> 
> >   The
> >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
> >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level
> >language.
> 
> True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware directly and there
> isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar to
> assembler.
> 
> > The operating system software is designed by experts to
> >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
> >swapping, and scheduling.
> 
> Seen windows recently <g>
> 
> > These are not the domain of the programmer.
> 
> who shaved the barber?
> 
> >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
> >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
> >internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
> >operation of the car or computer system.
> >
>         Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like
> criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals.
> 
> >> coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but
> >> there
> >> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are
> >> ignorant of
> >> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> >> > operating systems, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >


I agree with mad Hamish. Besides how could anyone not want to know hoe the internals 
work. That's half the fun!

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Charles W. Hall]

mei wrote:

> Mad Hamish wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall"
> > <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote:
> >
> > >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and
> done
> > >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for
> programmers to
> > >know these sort of things anymore.  There is no reason to program
> in
> > >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases.
> >
> > For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical.

As I pointed out, there are specialized cases where assembler is
appropriate.  However,

> >
> > >   The
> > >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a
> > >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high
> level
> > >language.
> >
> > True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware
> directly and there
> > isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar
> to
> > assembler.

Yes, but if you need to access hardware directly these days, you are no
longer considered to be a high level language programmer.  My comments
were intended to point out the growing differences and specializations
that have developed in the computer industry.

> >
> > > The operating system software is designed by experts to
> > >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging,
> > >swapping, and scheduling.
> >
> > Seen windows recently <g>

<Grin>. I said designed by experts-- the implementation can leave a lot
to be desired.  I had systems such as IBM's MVS and Digital's OpenVMS in
mind--where teams of trained professionals have been working years to
optimize the operating system.  Microsoft Windows in nowhere near as
good nor as clean an implementation, but it still provides these
functions.

> >
> > > These are not the domain of the programmer.
> >
> > who shaved the barber?
>

I shave myself and that doesn't make me a barber.<grin>  What's been
happenning is a redefinition of terms as the industry grows more
specialized.   I would no longer class anyone who works on O.S.
internals as a "programmer" as that term has become so generic as to be
almost meaningless.  Software engineer would seem to be appropriate,
although the mechanical engineers I know have some definite opinions on
us software types appropriating the word engineer.

> >
> > >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the
> operating
> > >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not
> understanding the
> > >internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
> > >operation of the car or computer system.
> > >
> >         Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the
> internals is like
> > criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals.

Nope. Your reference to a racing team completely misses the point I was
trying to make.  The usual programmer today does not care how an
operating system does its work, as long as it is reliable.  Just as the
typical auto owner doesn't understand the inside of the engine or
transmission.  He doesn't need to know--but he does need to know that if
he steps on the gas or brake they will perform as expected--and who to
contact when they don't.

> I agree with mad Hamish. Besides how could anyone not want to know hoe
> the internals
> work. That's half the fun!

  What's fun to you is boring drudgery to others.  I long ago stopped
assuming that all people in the computer industry think alike--and
started having more fun!!

Charles

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Rennie Allen]

Mad Hamish (h_laws@postoffice.utas.edu.au) wrote:

[...]

> >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating
> >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the
> >internals of the car's motor.  It is not necessary for successful
> >operation of the car or computer system.
> >
> 	Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like
> criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. 

Personally, I would be more inclined to draw the analogue this way:

criticising a programmer (generic) for not knowing the fundamental 
principles of O/S's and processor architecture, is like criticising a 
automobile suspension system designer, for not knowing the fundamental 
principles of a internal combustion engine design and construction.

While he may not have direct day to day exposure to the internals of the 
engine, it seems ludicrous given his background, and close association 
(and necessary inter-operation) with the ICE, that he wouldn't have a 
solid understanding of its design and construction.  

> >> coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but
> >> there
> >> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are
> >> ignorant of
> >> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> >> > operating systems, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >


--
Rennie Allen                                       <rgallen@qnx.com>
QNX Software Systems Ltd.
175 Terence Matthews Crescent                      (613) 591-0931    (voice)
Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8                    (613) 591-3579      (fax)

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

scott@softbase.com wrote in message
<6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us>...>Over the past 10 years, programming as
an activity has
>pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers
>to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore,
>because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects
>in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex.

To the extent that these layers actually manage complexity they
have been of use.  To a great extent, however, they have introduced
unnecessary complexities of their own.  Indeed, it is to the interest
of companies developing and selling these layered systems and
environments to do just that.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Graham Broadbridge]

In comp.lang.cobol scott@softbase.com wrote:
: coryb@magmacom.com wrote:

: > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
: > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
: > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
: > operating systems, etc.  

: How does it cause problems?

You have to ask ?

: Over the past 10 years, programming as an activity has
: pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers
: to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore,
: because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects
: in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex.

: As a result, it's stratified. People who know asm and stuff are
: writing OSes, components, and stuff. People use these 
: parts to assemble working systems at a high level.

Some of us still are capable of writing Assembler, COBOL, and Java.

We may not be the master of all, but sometimes a general working knowledge
in all of them is a huge asset when used with specialised 
knowledge in a couple :-)

I for one wish that CS graduates had a better level of the actual machine
operations.  And this is coming from a 70's IBM 'pull of the street and
test for aptitude' programmer :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Graham Broadbridge			Home 	<grahamb@peachy.apana.org.au>
 Marsfield  NSW				Work 	<grahamb@nsw.unilink.oz.au>
 Australia				AmprNet	<vk2yui@gw.vk2yui.ampr.org>
						<vk2yui@amsat.org>
 Netmeeting:					peachpitt.apana.org.au
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

So all programmers should know their "roots"? Well, most programmers don't
know
how a transistor works, and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. So how far
does someone have to dive in before they are "wellrounded"?

Point is, this "stratification" is essential to getting work done. On the
shoulders of others...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Richard Kenner]

In article <6bpoea$rd1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> "dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> writes:
>So all programmers should know their "roots"? Well, most programmers don't
>know how a transistor works, and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. So
>how far does someone have to dive in before they are "wellrounded"?

The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
better to know more than to know less.

It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the
knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level,
but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of
architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*,
the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling
issues and constraints.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> better to know more than to know less.

BLEARGH!

Read this sentence again, please:

 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'

I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
it... now, repeat after me:

'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'

Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?

In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
and 'are' am be pluralismers.

What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Frank A. Adrian]

The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>Richard Kenner wrote:
>>
>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>> better to know more than to know less.
>
>BLEARGH!
>
>Read this sentence again, please:
>
> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>
>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>it... now, repeat after me:
>
>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>
>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>
>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>
>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>

*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
"BLEARGH!"  In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
for quite a while longer.

In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
franka@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Hermann]

In comp.lang.ada Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
                                                                 ^^^^^^^
BTW, "generic" is one of the most charming and uselful keywords in Ada   ;-)

> singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> for quite a while longer.

The he/she-, his/her-nonsense will stop iin the far future
when women will be truly emancipated, IMHO

-- 
Peter Hermann  Tel:+49-711-685-3611 Fax:3758 ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de
Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen
Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>>Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>
>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>>> better to know more than to know less.
>>
>>BLEARGH!
>>
>>Read this sentence again, please:
>>
>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>>
>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>>it... now, repeat after me:
>>
>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>>
>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>>
>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>>
>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>
>
>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
>"BLEARGH!"

At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?

> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
>for quite a while longer.
>
>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.

Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.

Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?

DD


 >--
>Frank A. Adrian
>First DataBank
>frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
>franka@europa.com (H)
>This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
>its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
>company.
>
>
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Frank A. Adrian]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>
>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.

To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears than
the use of the plural "they".  Even though others have proposed
alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that holds
sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.  As I see the
current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to the
level of your suposed challenge.  If you find the situation intolerable, I
apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
matter.

>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?

I admit neither.  Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
ascribe to laziness.  I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search for
this chimerical solution you prattle on about.  If you have a problem with
common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
franka@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>>
>>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
>
>To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears than
>the use of the plural "they".

Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your
ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original
line exactly)

'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer
is said to be'

Ever seen such a usage?

> Even though others have proposed
>alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that holds
>sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.

The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently.

> As I see the
>current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to the
>level of your suposed challenge.

Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to
'lower yourself'?

> If you find the situation intolerable, I
>apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
>not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
>matter.

By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I
point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you
may respond as you already have.

 >
>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
>
>I admit neither.

You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you
changing this now?

> Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
>is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
>ascribe to laziness.

What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you
were aware and which you neglected?  It was there if you looked;
not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh?

> I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
>the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
>respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
>sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search for
>this chimerical solution you prattle on about.

So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the
brayings og an ass... how lovely.

> If you have a problem with
>common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.

If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as
well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong,
just admit it and go along with your life.


DD
k

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Frank A. Adrian]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>...
>In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>>>
>>>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>>>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>>>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>>>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>>>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>>>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
>>
>>To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears
than
>>the use of the plural "they".
>
>Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your
>ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original
>line exactly)
>
>'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer
>is said to be'
>
>Ever seen such a usage?

Of course, but again, to my ears, it does not sound superior.  In fact, the
use of the passive "is said to be" is much less pleasing than the active and
simpler "they are".  When you suggested a solution, I assumed you were
referring to an active generic singular pronoun replacement.  I take your
use of passive voice to be a cheat.

>> Even though others have proposed
>>alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that
holds
>>sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.
>
>The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently.

Absolutely - as a bad example of passive voice where active voice would
suffice.

>> As I see the
>>current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to
the
>>level of your suposed challenge.
>
>Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to
>'lower yourself'?

No, only that responding to your attempts to turn a simple post into a
linguistic pissing match lowers myself.


>> If you find the situation intolerable, I
>>apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
>>not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
>>matter.
>
>By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I
>point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you
>may respond as you already have.

My, my.  The attempt to put to an end what is at this point obviously a
linguistically based troll is now a "paucity of intellectual energy".  I
deny this as I deny that this thread has any further intellectual value.

>>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>>>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
>>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
>>
>>I admit neither.
>
>You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you
>changing this now?

I admitted I could not at the moment find such a usage.  I did not admit
that one did not exist.

>> Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
>>is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
>>ascribe to laziness.
>
>What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you
>were aware and which you neglected?  It was there if you looked;
>not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh?

As I said, I was not aware at the moment.  You kindly pointed out a usage
which, due to its poor style had slipped my mind.  Your uncharitable
response to my lapse of memory as laziness says more about your character
than mine, I fear.

>> I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
>>the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
>>respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
>>sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search
for
>>this chimerical solution you prattle on about.
>
>So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the
>brayings og an ass... how lovely.

I refer more to a solution for an active voice general singular pronoun.
And I still believe that such a solution is chimerical (clever of you to try
to change the goal in mid-argument, though).

>> If you have a problem with
>>common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.
>
>If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as
>well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong,
>just admit it and go along with your life.

Well, good enough is often good enough.  In important things I do strive for
excellence.  In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to
them.  In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end -
the points of the combatants are clear: You believe that there is such thing
as canonical "proper English usage" and you believe that sticking to this
usage is worth the use of poor writing style (which you would term "good
writing style").  I believe that there is only "common English usage" and
that in an ernest attempt to convey information in a palatable and engaging
way, this common usage is wholly acceptable, even when it means bending a
few supposed "proper English usages".  I believe that linguistic history and
most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side.  It is
clear from the insulting nature of your posts that you wish only to engage
me in your attempts to lengthen this rather unartful linguistic troll.  I
refuse to be engaged further.  We are no longer amused.  Go back under your
bridge, Troll...
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
franka@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>>>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>>>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>>>>
>>>>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>>>>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>>>>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>>>>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>>>>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>>>>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
>>>
>>>To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears
>than
>>>the use of the plural "they".
>>
>>Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your
>>ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original
>>line exactly)
>>
>>'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer
>>is said to be'
>>
>>Ever seen such a usage?
>
>Of course, but again, to my ears, it does not sound superior.  In fact, the
>use of the passive "is said to be" is much less pleasing than the active and
>simpler "they are".  When you suggested a solution, I assumed you were
>referring to an active generic singular pronoun replacement.  I take your
>use of passive voice to be a cheat.

So, a new rule, in midstream... very well, remove the passive voice and
change it to the active, I am flexible:

'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer"
is'

Simple enough, for most folks.

>
>>> Even though others have proposed
>>>alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that
>holds
>>>sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.
>>
>>The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently.
>
>Absolutely - as a bad example of passive voice where active voice would
>suffice.

The active has been applied... next?

>
>>> As I see the
>>>current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to
>the
>>>level of your suposed challenge.
>>
>>Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to
>>'lower yourself'?
>
>No, only that responding to your attempts to turn a simple post into a
>linguistic pissing match lowers myself.

To question your assertions is a contest of urination?

>
>
>>> If you find the situation intolerable, I
>>>apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
>>>not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
>>>matter.
>>
>>By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I
>>point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you
>>may respond as you already have.
>
>My, my.  The attempt to put to an end what is at this point obviously a
>linguistically based troll is now a "paucity of intellectual energy".  I
>deny this as I deny that this thread has any further intellectual value.
>
>>>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>>>>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
>>>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
>>>
>>>I admit neither.
>>
>>You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you
>>changing this now?
>
>I admitted I could not at the moment find such a usage.  I did not admit
>that one did not exist.
>
>>> Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
>>>is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
>>>ascribe to laziness.
>>
>>What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you
>>were aware and which you neglected?  It was there if you looked;
>>not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh?
>
>As I said, I was not aware at the moment.  You kindly pointed out a usage
>which, due to its poor style had slipped my mind.  Your uncharitable
>response to my lapse of memory as laziness says more about your character
>than mine, I fear.

When you can leave behind such turgid prose as 'braying ass' and 'pissing
match' perhaps you might be shown more charity; the objection to the
passive voice has been removed... next?

>
>>> I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
>>>the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
>>>respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
>>>sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search
>for
>>>this chimerical solution you prattle on about.
>>
>>So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the
>>brayings og an ass... how lovely.
>
>I refer more to a solution for an active voice general singular pronoun.

You have that now.

>And I still believe that such a solution is chimerical (clever of you to try
>to change the goal in mid-argument, though).
>
>>> If you have a problem with
>>>common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.
>>
>>If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as
>>well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong,
>>just admit it and go along with your life.
>
>Well, good enough is often good enough.  In important things I do strive for
>excellence.

So now it is a question of importance?  Whenever was *that* mentioned, but
for now?

> In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to
>them.

Especially when you are so readily proven wrong... sounds like a barrel of
laughs, to me!

> In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end -

Usefulness to whom, pray tell?

>the points of the combatants are clear: You believe that there is such thing
>as canonical "proper English usage" and you believe that sticking to this
>usage is worth the use of poor writing style (which you would term "good
>writing style").

I have never stated any 'beliefs'; please inform us how you have divined
these 'secrets of my soul'.

> I believe that there is only "common English usage" and
>that in an ernest attempt to convey information in a palatable and engaging
>way, this common usage is wholly acceptable, even when it means bending a
>few supposed "proper English usages".

That's nice... lazy, but nice.

> I believe that linguistic history and
>most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side.

Any evidence for these beliefs beyond your assertions?

> It is
>clear from the insulting nature of your posts that you wish only to engage
>me in your attempts to lengthen this rather unartful linguistic troll.

'Clarity' is in the mind of the beholder; I merely wish to see how
gracefully you admit to being in the wrong when it is readily
demonstrated.

> I
>refuse to be engaged further.

No engagement needed, just an admission of your error.

> We are no longer amused.

Plural majestatus est... or should I have said 'Plural Majestatus Est,
Your Highness'?

> Go back under your
>bridge, Troll...

So, then... from this I am to conclude that anyone who tenaciously proves
you to be incorrect is a Troll?  How... droll!

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

Sounds like some of you programmers need to "learn" about being more polite.
That's the kind of "well-rounded" I'd like to see. Give it up. Please see a
recent post about how the most stupid threads always seem to receive the
most responses.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ethics Gradient]

In article <6bvgli$3ie$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat <macdonaldrj@bv.com>
writes
>Sounds like some of you programmers need to "learn" about being more polite.
>That's the kind of "well-rounded" I'd like to see. Give it up. Please see a
>recent post about how the most stupid threads always seem to receive the
>most responses.
>

And for that matter get sent to the most NG's that don't really care...

-- 
Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class
mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon
Thane Software
email:  ethics@bigfoot.com      
http://www.variance.demon.co.uk
Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

"It's full of people" 
- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steven B Mohler]

If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a
porgramming newsgroup.  Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar
and linguistics, I do know one thing.  This is not the place for them you have
given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing.  I hope taht you
are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is.  Now I do believe
that you have wasted enough of my time.  Good bye.

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:

> In article <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
> Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >>In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
> >>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >>>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >>>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> >>>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >>>>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> >>>>
> >>>>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> >>>>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> >>>>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> >>>>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> >>>>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> >>>>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> >>>
> >>>To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears
> >than
> >>>the use of the plural "they".
> >>
> >>Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your
> >>ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original
> >>line exactly)
> >>
> >>'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer
> >>is said to be'
> >>
> >>Ever seen such a usage?
> >
> >Of course, but again, to my ears, it does not sound superior.  In fact, the
> >use of the passive "is said to be" is much less pleasing than the active and
> >simpler "they are".  When you suggested a solution, I assumed you were
> >referring to an active generic singular pronoun replacement.  I take your
> >use of passive voice to be a cheat.
>
> So, a new rule, in midstream... very well, remove the passive voice and
> change it to the active, I am flexible:
>
> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer"
> is'
>
> Simple enough, for most folks.
>
> >
> >>> Even though others have proposed
> >>>alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that
> >holds
> >>>sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.
> >>
> >>The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently.
> >
> >Absolutely - as a bad example of passive voice where active voice would
> >suffice.
>
> The active has been applied... next?
>
> >
> >>> As I see the
> >>>current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to
> >the
> >>>level of your suposed challenge.
> >>
> >>Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to
> >>'lower yourself'?
> >
> >No, only that responding to your attempts to turn a simple post into a
> >linguistic pissing match lowers myself.
>
> To question your assertions is a contest of urination?
>
> >
> >
> >>> If you find the situation intolerable, I
> >>>apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
> >>>not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
> >>>matter.
> >>
> >>By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I
> >>point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you
> >>may respond as you already have.
> >
> >My, my.  The attempt to put to an end what is at this point obviously a
> >linguistically based troll is now a "paucity of intellectual energy".  I
> >deny this as I deny that this thread has any further intellectual value.
> >
> >>>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> >>>>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
> >>>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> >>>
> >>>I admit neither.
> >>
> >>You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you
> >>changing this now?
> >
> >I admitted I could not at the moment find such a usage.  I did not admit
> >that one did not exist.
> >
> >>> Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
> >>>is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
> >>>ascribe to laziness.
> >>
> >>What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you
> >>were aware and which you neglected?  It was there if you looked;
> >>not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh?
> >
> >As I said, I was not aware at the moment.  You kindly pointed out a usage
> >which, due to its poor style had slipped my mind.  Your uncharitable
> >response to my lapse of memory as laziness says more about your character
> >than mine, I fear.
>
> When you can leave behind such turgid prose as 'braying ass' and 'pissing
> match' perhaps you might be shown more charity; the objection to the
> passive voice has been removed... next?
>
> >
> >>> I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
> >>>the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
> >>>respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
> >>>sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search
> >for
> >>>this chimerical solution you prattle on about.
> >>
> >>So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the
> >>brayings og an ass... how lovely.
> >
> >I refer more to a solution for an active voice general singular pronoun.
>
> You have that now.
>
> >And I still believe that such a solution is chimerical (clever of you to try
> >to change the goal in mid-argument, though).
> >
> >>> If you have a problem with
> >>>common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.
> >>
> >>If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as
> >>well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong,
> >>just admit it and go along with your life.
> >
> >Well, good enough is often good enough.  In important things I do strive for
> >excellence.
>
> So now it is a question of importance?  Whenever was *that* mentioned, but
> for now?
>
> > In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to
> >them.
>
> Especially when you are so readily proven wrong... sounds like a barrel of
> laughs, to me!
>
> > In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end -
>
> Usefulness to whom, pray tell?
>
> >the points of the combatants are clear: You believe that there is such thing
> >as canonical "proper English usage" and you believe that sticking to this
> >usage is worth the use of poor writing style (which you would term "good
> >writing style").
>
> I have never stated any 'beliefs'; please inform us how you have divined
> these 'secrets of my soul'.
>
> > I believe that there is only "common English usage" and
> >that in an ernest attempt to convey information in a palatable and engaging
> >way, this common usage is wholly acceptable, even when it means bending a
> >few supposed "proper English usages".
>
> That's nice... lazy, but nice.
>
> > I believe that linguistic history and
> >most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side.
>
> Any evidence for these beliefs beyond your assertions?
>
> > It is
> >clear from the insulting nature of your posts that you wish only to engage
> >me in your attempts to lengthen this rather unartful linguistic troll.
>
> 'Clarity' is in the mind of the beholder; I merely wish to see how
> gracefully you admit to being in the wrong when it is readily
> demonstrated.
>
> > I
> >refuse to be engaged further.
>
> No engagement needed, just an admission of your error.
>
> > We are no longer amused.
>
> Plural majestatus est... or should I have said 'Plural Majestatus Est,
> Your Highness'?
>
> > Go back under your
> >bridge, Troll...
>
> So, then... from this I am to conclude that anyone who tenaciously proves
> you to be incorrect is a Troll?  How... droll!
>
> DD



--
___________________________ ____           _         ______ |
 \                              \        /   \___-=O`/|O`/__|
  \         Steven B Mohler      \_______\          / | /  (0}
  / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net   /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
 /                              /         *             \ | |
/______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Mad Hamish]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:15:22 -0500, Steven B Mohler <hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net>
wrote:

>If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a
>porgramming newsgroup.  Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar
>and linguistics, I do know one thing.  This is not the place for them you have
>given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing.  I hope taht you
>are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is.  Now I do believe
>that you have wasted enough of my time.  Good bye.
>
Absolutely, all because of a couple of grammatical nazis. It's just like having
Hitler on the net.







































having applied Godwin's law hopefully this thread will die.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Richard Kenner]

In article <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> docdwarf@clark.net () writes:
>'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer" is'
>
>Simple enough, for most folks.

I really hate to get involved in this relatively silly and definitely
off-topic thread, but since my offhand use of language started it, I thought
I'd make a short comment here.

The reason I don't like a construction like that above is that it
repeats the subject noun and that sort of repetition is discourage in
well-written English. I do believe that "they are" is generally
acceptable at this point, but "that person is" is also an acceptable
way to write it, though English (unlike other languages) tends to,
over time, shorten common usages (e.g, "cellular phone" to
"cellphone") and so "that person is" is unlikely to survive long
compared to "they are".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
> In article <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> docdwarf@clark.net () writes:
> >'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer" is'
> >
> >Simple enough, for most folks.
> 
> I really hate to get involved in this relatively silly and definitely
> off-topic thread, but since my offhand use of language started it, I thought
> I'd make a short comment here.
> 
> The reason I don't like a construction like that above is that it
> repeats the subject noun and that sort of repetition is discourage in
> well-written English.

In order to prevent confusion subject-noun repetition is not
discouraged, I believe, viz. 'John bought the widget with Fred but John
paid the greater share'.


> I do believe that "they are" is generally
> acceptable at this point, but "that person is" is also an acceptable
> way to write it, though English (unlike other languages) tends to,
> over time, shorten common usages (e.g, "cellular phone" to
> "cellphone") and so "that person is" is unlikely to survive long
> compared to "they are".

Writing for 'The Ages' now, are we?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steven B Mohler]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:

> In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> >>Richard Kenner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> >>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> >>> better to know more than to know less.
> >>
> >>BLEARGH!
> >>
> >>Read this sentence again, please:
> >>
> >> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> >>
> >>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> >>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> >>it... now, repeat after me:
> >>
> >>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> >>
> >>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> >>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> >>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> >>
> >>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> >>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> >>
> >>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> >>
> >
> >*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> >age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> >language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> >purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> >"BLEARGH!"
>
> At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
>
> > In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> >upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> >linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> >purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> >away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> >singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> >for quite a while longer.
> >
> >In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>
> Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
>
> Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
>
> DD
>
>  >--
> >Frank A. Adrian
> >First DataBank
> >frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
> >franka@europa.com (H)
> >This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> >its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
> >company.
> >
> >
> >


Laziness is not really a negative thing.  May i remind you that it is laziness
not necessity that brought around most of the inventions in the world today.  A
machine that made it possible to do millions of calculations per second is not a
neccesity but a time saver for people that prefer there time to be spent doing
more important things.  You may not think this is lazy but i sure as hell do.
Lazy people are always the ones to do the work best the first time around
knowing that screwing up is just making more work for yourself in the future so
maybe instead of aruging over wether i should call you he or she you could go
fix something in this world that people like you have screwed up so much.
--
___________________________ ____           _         ______ |
 \                              \        /   \___-=O`/|O`/__|
  \         Steven B Mohler      \_______\          / | /  (0}
  / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net   /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
 /                              /         *             \ | |
/______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Steven B Mohler wrote:
> 
> docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
> 
> > In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > >The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > >>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > >>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > >>> better to know more than to know less.
> > >>
> > >>BLEARGH!
> > >>
> > >>Read this sentence again, please:
> > >>
> > >> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > >>
> > >>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > >>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > >>it... now, repeat after me:
> > >>
> > >>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > >>
> > >>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > >>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > >>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > >>
> > >>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > >>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > >>
> > >>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > >>
> > >
> > >*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > >age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > >language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > >purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > >"BLEARGH!"
> >
> > At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> >
> > > In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > >upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > >linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > >purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > >away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > >singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > >for quite a while longer.
> > >
> > >In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> >
> > Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> >
> > Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> >
> > DD
> >
> >  >--
> > >Frank A. Adrian
> > >First DataBank
> > >frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
> > >franka@europa.com (H)
> > >This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> > >its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
> > >company.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> Laziness is not really a negative thing.

Change that 'really' to 'necessarily' and I would agree with you, in the
same ay to cut open a person's belly is not necessarily a negative:

1) Done by a thief in order to facilitate robbery - usually negative.

2) Done by a surgeon to remove an appendix - usually positive.

Context can be important, true... although this statement disagrees with
the strict Kantians adhering to the Categorical Imperative.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ethics Gradient]

In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>>>Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>>>> better to know more than to know less.
>>>
>>>BLEARGH!
>>>
>>>Read this sentence again, please:
>>>
>>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>>>
>>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>>>it... now, repeat after me:
>>>
>>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>>>
>>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>>>
>>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>>>
>>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>>
>>
>>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
>>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
>>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
>>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
>>"BLEARGH!"
>
>At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
>readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
>symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
>
>> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
>>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
>>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
>>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
>>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
>>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
>>for quite a while longer.
>>
>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
>
>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
>
>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
>
>DD
>
>
> >--
>>Frank A. Adrian
>>First DataBank
>>frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
>>franka@europa.com (H)
>>This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
>>its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
>>company.
>>
>>

This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.

-- 
Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class
mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon
Thane Software
email:  ethics@bigfoot.com      
http://www.variance.demon.co.uk
Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

"It's full of people" 
- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Flaagg]

In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient 
<ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...

> In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> >>>
> >>>BLEARGH!
> >>>
> >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> >>>
> >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> >>>
> >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> >>>
> >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> >>>
> >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> >>>
> >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> >>>
> >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> >>>
> >>
> >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> >>"BLEARGH!"
> >
> >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> >
> >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> >>for quite a while longer.
> >>
> >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> >
> >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> >
> >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> >
> >DD
> >
> >
> > >--
> >>Frank A. Adrian
> >>First DataBank
> >>frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
> >>franka@europa.com (H)
> >>This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> >>its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
> >>company.
> >>
> >>
> 
> This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.

Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:

There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it 
-or- put it there.

mhm9x2
http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Flaagg wrote:
> 
> In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient
> <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...
> 
> > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> > >>>
> > >>>BLEARGH!
> > >>>
> > >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> > >>>
> > >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > >>>
> > >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> > >>>
> > >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > >>>
> > >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > >>>
> > >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > >>>
> > >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > >>"BLEARGH!"
> > >
> > >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> > >
> > >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > >>for quite a while longer.
> > >>
> > >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> > >
> > >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> > >
> > >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> > >
> > >DD
> > >
> > >
> > > >--
> > >>Frank A. Adrian
> > >>First DataBank
> > >>frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
> > >>franka@europa.com (H)
> > >>This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> > >>its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
> > >>company.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.
> 
> Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> 
> There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> -or- put it there.

Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Flaagg]

In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

> Flaagg wrote:
> > 
> > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient
> > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...
> > 
> > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > > >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>BLEARGH!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > > >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > > >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > > >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > > >>"BLEARGH!"
> > > >
> > > >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > > >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > > >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> > > >
> > > >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > > >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > > >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > > >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > > >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > > >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > > >>for quite a while longer.
> > > >>
> > > >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> > > >
> > > >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > > >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > > >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > > >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > > >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > > >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> > > >
> > > >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > > >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > > >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> > > >
> > > >DD
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >--
> > > >>Frank A. Adrian
> > > >>First DataBank
> > > >>frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
> > > >>franka@europa.com (H)
> > > >>This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> > > >>its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
> > > >>company.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.
> > 
> > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> > 
> > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> > -or- put it there.
> 
> Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

Yes.

mhm9x2
http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Flaagg wrote:
> 
> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
> 
> > Flaagg wrote:
> > >
> > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient
> > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...
> > >
> > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > > > >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > > >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > > >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > > >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>BLEARGH!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > > >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > > >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > > >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > > >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > > >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > > > >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > > > >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > > > >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > > > >>"BLEARGH!"
> > > > >
> > > > >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > > > >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > > > >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> > > > >
> > > > >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > > > >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > > > >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > > > >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > > > >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > > > >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > > > >>for quite a while longer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> > > > >
> > > > >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > > > >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > > > >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > > > >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > > > >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > > > >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > > > >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > > > >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> > > > >
> > > > >DD
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >--
> > > >
> > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.
> > >
> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> > >
> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> > > -or- put it there.
> >
> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?
> 
> Yes.

You're sure about that?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Flaagg]

In <34E8FB6B.3235@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

> Flaagg wrote:
> > 
> > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
> > 
> > > Flaagg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient
> > > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...
> > > >
> > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> > > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > > > >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > > > >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > > > >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>BLEARGH!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > > > >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > > > >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > > > >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > > > >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > > > >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > > > > >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > > > > >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > > > > >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > > > > >>"BLEARGH!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > > > > >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > > > > >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > > > > >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > > > > >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > > > > >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > > > > >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > > > > >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > > > > >>for quite a while longer.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > > > > >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > > > > >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > > > > >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > > > > >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > > > > >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > > > > >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > > > > >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >DD
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >--
> > > > >
> > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> > > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.
> > > >
> > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> > > >
> > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> > > > -or- put it there.
> > >
> > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> You're sure about that?

No.

mhm9x2
http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Flaagg wrote:
> 
> In <34E8FB6B.3235@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
> 
> > Flaagg wrote:
> > >
> > > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
> > >
> > > > Flaagg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient
> > > > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says...
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
> > > > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> > > > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > > > > >>>Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > > > > >>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > > > > >>>> better to know more than to know less.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>BLEARGH!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Read this sentence again, please:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > > > > >>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > > > > >>>it... now, repeat after me:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > > > > >>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > > > > >>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > > > > >>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
> > > > > > >>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
> > > > > > >>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
> > > > > > >>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
> > > > > > >>"BLEARGH!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
> > > > > > >readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
> > > > > > >symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
> > > > > > >>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
> > > > > > >>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
> > > > > > >>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
> > > > > > >>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
> > > > > > >>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
> > > > > > >>for quite a while longer.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
> > > > > > >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
> > > > > > >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
> > > > > > >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
> > > > > > >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
> > > > > > >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> > > > > > >acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
> > > > > > >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >DD
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >--
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
> > > > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.
> > > > >
> > > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> > > > > -or- put it there.
> > > >
> > > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > You're sure about that?
> 
> No.
> 
How sad... I fear I have lost my white, powdered wig; there'll be the
Devil toupee.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Anthony Jenkins]

Flaagg wrote:

> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

> > Flaagg wrote:

> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:

> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> > > -or- put it there.

> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

> Yes.

The true question would be is it toasted?

-- 
Anthony L. Jenkins
(770)541-1500 ext. 117
mailto:anthonyj@softwarebuilders.com
http://www.netzip.com

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Sakurambo]

Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
Anthony Jenkins wrote:

> Flaagg wrote:

>> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

>> > Flaagg wrote:

>> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:

>> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
>> > > -or- put it there.

>> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

>> Yes.

> The true question would be is it toasted?

I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses.

Try Red Leicester.

Sakurambo
--
   ____  _
   /__   _]|
  / \/  |_ |
 /  /\   _)|

You're a load of useless bloody loonies!

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Vinay Mutha]

testing

Sakurambo wrote:

> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
> Anthony Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Flaagg wrote:
>
> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
>
> >> > Flaagg wrote:
>
> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
>
> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
> >> > > -or- put it there.
>
> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > The true question would be is it toasted?
>
> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses.
>
> Try Red Leicester.
>
> Sakurambo
> --
>    ____  _
>    /__   _]|
>   / \/  |_ |
>  /  /\   _)|
>
> You're a load of useless bloody loonies!

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[WeeSaul]

testing

Vinay Mutha wrote:

>testing

>Sakurambo wrote:

>> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
>> Anthony Jenkins wrote:

>> > Flaagg wrote:

>> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

>> >> > Flaagg wrote:

>> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:

>> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it
>> >> > > -or- put it there.

>> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

>> >> Yes.

>> > The true question would be is it toasted?

>> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses.

>> Try Red Leicester.

>> Sakurambo
>> --
>>    ____  _
>>    /__   _]|
>>   / \/  |_ |
>>  /  /\   _)|

>> You're a load of useless bloody loonies!

I can accept that...


WeeSaul mhm15x5 .-D
I can...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Sakurambo]

Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
WeeSaul wrote:

> testing

> Vinay Mutha wrote:

>>testing

>>Sakurambo wrote:

>>> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
>>> Anthony Jenkins wrote:

>>> > Flaagg wrote:

>>> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...

>>> >> > Flaagg wrote:

>>> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:

>>> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't mak
>>> >> > > -or- put it there.

>>> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?

>>> >> Yes.

>>> > The true question would be is it toasted?

>>> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses.

>>> Try Red Leicester.

>>> Sakurambo
>>> --
>>>    ____  _
>>>    /__   _]|
>>>   / \/  |_ |
>>>  /  /\   _)|

>>> You're a load of useless bloody loonies!

> I can accept that...


It's a random tagline.

Honest


Sakurambo
--
   ____  _
   /__   _]|
  / \/  |_ |
 /  /\   _)|

If you think that you can truncate my sig to 75 chars, then you can just fu

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Sakurambo wrote:
> 
> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
> WeeSaul wrote:
> 
> > testing
> 
> > Vinay Mutha wrote:
> 
> >>testing
> 
> >>Sakurambo wrote:
> 
> >>> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium,
> >>> Anthony Jenkins wrote:
> 
> >>> > Flaagg wrote:
> 
> >>> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says...
> 
> >>> >> > Flaagg wrote:
> 
> >>> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this:
> 
> >>> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't mak
> >>> >> > > -or- put it there.
> 
> >>> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke?
> 
> >>> >> Yes.
> 
> >>> > The true question would be is it toasted?
> 
> >>> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses.
> 
> >>> Try Red Leicester.
> 
> >>> Sakurambo
> >>> --
> >>>    ____  _
> >>>    /__   _]|
> >>>   / \/  |_ |
> >>>  /  /\   _)|
> 
> >>> You're a load of useless bloody loonies!
> 
> > I can accept that...
> 
> It's a random tagline.
> 
> Honest

This is not a pipe.

Maybe.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dave Hillstrom]

On 18 Feb 98 22:06:11 +0000, Sakurambo <cherry@tomobiki.dcu> wrote:

>Sakurambo
>--
>   ____  _
>   /__   _]|
>  / \/  |_ |
> /  /\   _)|
>
>You're a load of useless bloody loonies!

Nyk, you can be soooo sweet when you try.

<swoon>

- Dave Hillstrom    mhm15x4   meow    minion1b   wsd1
"Meowrrrreow!"
           - Flip, Calico Kitten Extraordinaire

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[WeeSaul]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:10:56 +0000, Ethics Gradient
<ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes
>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
>>>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>>>>Richard Kenner wrote:

>>>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>>>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>>>>> better to know more than to know less.

>>>>BLEARGH!

>>>>Read this sentence again, please:

>>>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'

Correct English translation:
The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" he is.
("he" used in a non-gender specific way)
<see below>

>>>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>>>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>>>>it... now, repeat after me:

>>>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'

>>>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>>>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>>>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?

>>>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>>>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.

>>>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?


>>>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
>>>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
>>>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
>>>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
>>>"BLEARGH!"

>>At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a
>>readily acceptable substitute.  Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another
>>symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'?

>>> In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
>>>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
>>>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
>>>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
>>>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
>>>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
>>>for quite a while longer.

>>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.

>>Mr?  Why do you call me 'Mr'?  Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr
>>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this
>>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement.  I say, further, that you
>>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any
>>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is
>>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate.

>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
>>acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the
>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?

>This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where
>Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside.

Thank you so very much...
The English language pays far better than C++ or Java...

Learn the language, use it well, my children...


WeeSaul mhm15x5 .-D
Sorry, didn't read the rest of the post...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ethics Gradient]

In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian
<frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> writes
>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>>Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>
>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>>> better to know more than to know less.
>>
>>BLEARGH!
>>
>>Read this sentence again, please:
>>
>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>>
>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>>it... now, repeat after me:
>>
>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>>
>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>>
>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>>
>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>
>
>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
>"BLEARGH!"  In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
>for quite a while longer.
>
>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.

And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling
or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may
ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it
is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling
perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. 

And it's nasty.

-- 
Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class
mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon
Thane Software
email:  ethics@bigfoot.com      
http://www.variance.demon.co.uk
Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

"It's full of people" 
- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paulo Pena]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:09:08 +0000, Ethics Gradient
<ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling
>or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may
>ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it
>is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling

recieved != received
"i" before "e" except after "c"

>perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. 
>
>And it's nasty.
>
>-- 
>Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class
>mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon
>Thane Software
>email:  ethics@bigfoot.com      
>http://www.variance.demon.co.uk
>Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
>
>"It's full of people" 
>- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.
>
>
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena) writes:
 > recieved != received
 > "i" before "e" except after "c"

Except when it's weird.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[D J Mann]

In article <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl>, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
>In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena)
> writes:
> > recieved != received
> > "i" before "e" except after "c"
>
>Except when it's weird.

Or its name is Keith.

David Mann

--------------------------
please reply to jacobus (shift-2) pacbell point net
--------------------------

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <6chq2d$hp8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>,
D J Mann <liloldme@junkmail.net> wrote:
>In article <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl>, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
>>In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena)
>> writes:
>> > recieved != received
>> > "i" before "e" except after "c"
>>
>>Except when it's weird.
>
>Or its name is Keith.

Or Sheila. 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Stevenson]

tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

> >>>> "i" before "e" except after "c"
> 
> >>> Except when it's weird.
> 
> >> Or its name is Keith.
> 
> > Or Sheila. 
> 
> Or they're neighbors.

Regarding neighbours, my English teacher told me the rule only applies
to the sound 'ee' (with the exception of weird). One can put 'i' after
'e' easily in a lot of present participles: being, seeing...

-- 
Paul Stevenson  -  http://psynet.net/pa  -  pa@psynet.net

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Paul Stevenson wrote:
> 
> tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
> 
> > >>>> "i" before "e" except after "c"
> >
> > >>> Except when it's weird.
> >
> > >> Or its name is Keith.
> >
> > > Or Sheila.
> >
> > Or they're neighbors.
> 
> Regarding neighbours, my English teacher told me the rule only applies
> to the sound 'ee' (with the exception of weird). 

Was your teacher named O'Reilly?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **]

In <6chq2d$hp8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net> D J Mann:
|> In <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl> Dik T. Winter:
|> >In <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> Paulo Pena:
|> > > recieved != received
|> > > "i" before "e" except after "c"
|> >
|> >Except when it's weird.
|> 
|> Or its name is Keith.
|> 
Or alias of wyrd.   :)

Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens)     ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO **

1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account.
2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn.
3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE.
4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748.

Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Mailuser]

Ethics Gradient <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian
><frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> writes
>>The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>>>Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>>>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>>>> better to know more than to know less.
>>>
>>>BLEARGH!
>>>
>>>Read this sentence again, please:
>>>
>>> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>>>
>>>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>>>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>>>it... now, repeat after me:
>>>
>>>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>>>
>>>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>>>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>>>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>>>
>>>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>>>and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>>>
>>>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>>
>>
>>*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and
>>age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral
>>language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language
>>purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go
>>"BLEARGH!"  In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle
>>upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral
>>linguistic proposal "te or tis".  And, although most fuddy-duddy language
>>purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go
>>away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic
>>singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here
>>for quite a while longer.
>>
>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant.

>And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling
>or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may
>ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it
>is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling
>perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. 

>And it's nasty.

>-- 
>Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class
>mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon
>Thane Software
>email:  ethics@bigfoot.com      
>http://www.variance.demon.co.uk
>Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

>"It's full of people" 
>- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Will Rose]

The Goobers (docdwarf@erols.com) wrote:
: Richard Kenner wrote:
: > 
: > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
: > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
: > better to know more than to know less.

: BLEARGH!

: Read this sentence again, please:

:  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'

: I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
: "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
: it... now, repeat after me:

: 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'

: Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
: plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
: remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?

: In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
: and 'are' am be pluralismers.

No.  The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'.
It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught,
but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England.
The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed.


Will
cwr@crash.cts.com

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote:
[snippismus]
>
>No.  The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'.
>It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught,
>but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England.
>The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed.

I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in
BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind.
I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to
post an example?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jeff York]

"Alan Brown" <abrown5@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:

>Come on, DD.  Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language
>the way the "well-educated in England" speak it.  

Methinks Sirrah,  that thou hast a fine misaprehension of the Queen's
English as she are spoke proper like...  :-)

--
Jeff.
jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)

... There's pleasure sure in being mad
    That none but madmen know...
                               Dryden

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <34e43c04.259082867@news.u-net.com>,
Jeff York <jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com> wrote:
>"Alan Brown" <abrown5@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:
>
>>Come on, DD.  Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language
>>the way the "well-educated in England" speak it.  
>
>Methinks Sirrah,  that thou hast a fine misaprehension of the Queen's
>English as she are spoke proper like...  :-)

How and much!  There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons
are to be ripened, certainly?  Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's
new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest
centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from
benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated.

Hello!

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[M.L. Scott]

On 13 Feb 1998 14:39:59 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:

>>How and much!  There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons
>>are to be ripened, certainly?  Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's
>>new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest
>>centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from
>>benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated.

I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with *most* of this. although I
suspect that some of it may be a joke.

Michael

/* 
    Law/mathematics student extraordinaire
    University of Queensland, Australia
    E-mail: s340350@*SPAMGUARD*student.uq.edu.au
    (try to find extraneous part, then delete same part)

*/   

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

M.L. Scott wrote:
> 
> On 13 Feb 1998 14:39:59 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:
> 
> >>How and much!  There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons
> >>are to be ripened, certainly?  Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's
> >>new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest
> >>centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from
> >>benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated.
> 
> I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with *most* of this. although I
> suspect that some of it may be a joke.

What, doubting of veracity in statement?  Clearness of new-dew morning,
lion's-claw of Truth!  Possibly the tractors are included in the bill of
lading; perhaps the Minister of Culture's declaration of a Special
Museum surprises.

Hello!

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Alan Brown wrote:
> 
> Come on, DD.  Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language
> the way the "well-educated in England" speak it.
> 
I've tried to watch MTV but have found it tolerable only with the sound
off... will that help?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[tgg]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2793 bytes --]


docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
|In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote:
|[snippismus]
|>
|>No.  The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'.
|>It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught,
|>but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England.
|>The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed.

|I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to
|post an example?

You could find it from your desk... Use the Websters dictionary at 
www.m-w.com to find...

Main Entry: they
Pronunciation: '[th_]A
Function: pronoun, plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse their, masculine plural
demonstrative & personal pronoun; akin to Old English th�t that
Date: 13th century
<snip>
2 : PEOPLE 2 -- used in a generic sense <as lazy as they come>
usage They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to
on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun
requires an antecedent, however. The indefinite they is used in all
varieties of contexts and is standard.

usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third
person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as
everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by
using the plural pronouns <and every one to rest themselves betake --
Shakespeare> <I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly --
Jane Austen> <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy -- W. H.
Auden>. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of
indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons
<'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them
partial, should o'erhear the speech -- Shakespeare> <a person can't help
their birth -- W. M. Thackeray> <no man goes to battle to be killed. -- But
they do get killed -- G. B. Shaw>. The use of they, their, them, and
themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well
established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts.
This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they
sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and
their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

============================================================================
            The above are my own views, not the views of HP
  Tom Gardner               Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd, 
  tgg@hpl.hp.com	    Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND.
  Fax: +44 117 9228924      Tel: +44 117 9799910 ext. 28192
============================================================================

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

tgg@hpl.hp.com wrote:
> 
> docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
> |In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote:
> |[snippismus]
> |>
> |>No.  The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'.
> |>It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught,
> |>but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England.
> |>The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed.
> 
> |I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to
> |post an example?
> 
> You could find it from your desk... Use the Websters dictionary at
> www.m-w.com to find...

I had previously admitted my error when a similar posting was made
citing the OED... last I looked Webster's was more for American English,
though, and the assertion was for BritSpeak.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[tgg]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
|I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in
|BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind.

False. That's bad grammar in the UK.

============================================================================
            The above are my own views, not the views of HP
  Tom Gardner               Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd, 
  tgg@hpl.hp.com	    Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND.
  Fax: +44 117 9228924      Tel: +44 117 9799910 ext. 28192
============================================================================

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

tgg@hpl.hp.com wrote:
> 
> docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
> |I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in
> |BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind.
> 
> False. That's bad grammar in the UK.

How curious... if that is the case then I've frequently heard bad
grammar used on the BBC International Broadcasts and in issues of The
Economist.  Is this a recent change in the rules which hasn't percolated
up to the 'fuddy-duddy' levels inhabited in these August Organizations?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[martin dowie]

The Goobers wrote:
> 
> How curious... if that is the case then I've frequently heard bad
> grammar used on the BBC International Broadcasts and in issues of The
> Economist.  Is this a recent change in the rules which hasn't percolated
> up to the 'fuddy-duddy' levels inhabited in these August Organizations?
> 
> DD

sorry, you place too much trust in the Beeb to get that
sort of thing right. the other evening i heard one the
the bbc's reports refering to "mexico and other such
towns" - it appears that a geography lesson or two could
follow on from the grammer lesson...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Eric Clayberg]

The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
<34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> Richard Kenner wrote:
> > 
> > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > better to know more than to know less.
> 
> BLEARGH!
> 
> Read this sentence again, please:
> 
>  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> 
> I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> it... now, repeat after me:
> 
> 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> 
> Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> 
> In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> 
> What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?

You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
"they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
(including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.

-Eric

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dietmar Stumpe]

Eric Clayberg wrote:

> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > Richard Kenner wrote:
> > >
> > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > better to know more than to know less.
> >
> > BLEARGH!
> >
> > Read this sentence again, please:
> >
> >  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> >
> > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > it... now, repeat after me:
> >
> > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> >
> > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> >
> > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> >
> > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>
> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
>
> -Eric

I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
to use political correctness. LOL

- Dietmar

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

Dietmar Stumpe wrote:
> 
> Eric Clayberg wrote:
> 
> > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
> > <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > > better to know more than to know less.
> > >
> > > BLEARGH!
> > >
> > > Read this sentence again, please:
> > >
> > >  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > >
> > > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > it... now, repeat after me:
> > >
> > > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > >
> > > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > >
> > > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > >
> > > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> >
> > You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
> > upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
> > "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
> > (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
> > writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
> > school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
> > yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
> >
> > -Eric
> 
> I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
> to use political correctness. LOL
> 
> - Dietmar

I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they"
if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only
reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced
with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was
considered politer and more respectful.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Entwistle]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 
> Dietmar Stumpe wrote:
> >
> > Eric Clayberg wrote:
> >
> > > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
> > > <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
> > > > Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
> > > > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
> > > > > better to know more than to know less.
> > > >
> > > > BLEARGH!
> > > >
> > > > Read this sentence again, please:
> > > >
> > > >  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
> > > >
> > > > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
> > > > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
> > > > it... now, repeat after me:
> > > >
> > > > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
> > > >
> > > > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
> > > > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
> > > > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
> > > >
> > > > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
> > > > and 'are' am be pluralismers.
> > > >
> > > > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
> > >
> > > You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
> > > upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
> > > "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
> > > (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
> > > writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
> > > school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
> > > yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> >
> > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
> > to use political correctness. LOL
> >
> > - Dietmar
> 
> I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they"
> if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only
> reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced
> with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was
> considered politer and more respectful.
> 
> Patricia

When did BLEARCH! enter the english language?

Mike

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <34E28393.5E83B809@san.rr.com>,
Michael Entwistle  <mikent@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
[much snippage]
>> > > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
>> > > >
>> > > > BLEARGH!
[more snippage]
>
>When did BLEARCH! enter the english language?

Why, 'blearch' never entered the language, that is why I didn't use it...
'bleargh' was introduced in the early 1960's by Charles M Schulz in his
comic strip... I seem to recall it was a favorite of Lucy Van Pelt when
kissed by a dog.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Chris Gray]

In article <34E27698.BD17B223@acm.org> Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> writes:

> I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they"
> if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only
> reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced
> with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was
> considered politer and more respectful.

Aye, thou hast a point there.  But many peoples do likewise: a Frenchman
sayeth "vous", a German "Sie" (or "Ihr"!), a Norseman "De" ...


-- 

  Chris Gray

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Stephen Taylor]

Dietmar Stumpe wrote:

>> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
>> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
>> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
>> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
>> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
>> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
>> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.

> I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
> to use political correctness. LOL

Political correctness? I'd call this 'politeness'.

The phrase 'political correctness' is just a rock people use to hit
other people with when they're too intellectually lazy to argue
coherently with them.

In this instance, using 'they' as a genderless replacement for 'he'
loses precision with respect to number (bad) while gaining accuracy with
respect to gender (good). The language will be lost because of this?

> - Dietmar


                                      Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Taylor                          steve@afs.net.au
Applied Financial Services
Phone: +61 3 9670 0233
Fax:   +61 3 9670 5018

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[John W. Lewellen]

Stephen Taylor wrote:
> 
> Dietmar Stumpe wrote:
> 
> >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
> >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
> >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
> >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
> >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
> >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
> >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
> 
> > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
> > to use political correctness. LOL
> 
> Political correctness? I'd call this 'politeness'.
> 
> The phrase 'political correctness' is just a rock people use to hit
> other people with when they're too intellectually lazy to argue
> coherently with them.
> 
> In this instance, using 'they' as a genderless replacement for 'he'
> loses precision with respect to number (bad) while gaining accuracy with
> respect to gender (good). The language will be lost because of this?

The language - and everything else - is lost when someone will go to
absurd lengths to avoid the potential of giving offense to someone else.

There is a relatively easy solution:  redefine "he" "his" "him" etc. to
refer to both men and women (i.e. singular person, male or female), keep
"she" etc. as referring to a female exclusively (or change it, but since
it's already around, why not use it), and define "khe" (or some other
letter prefix that's easy to pronounce) "kis" "ker" etc. as referring to
a male exclusively.  If you *really* want equality in reference, then
make the language convenient to do so.  This way you can also avoid all
the arguments about women being diminished by their references being
tack-ons to men's references.  (Case in point.)

Regards,

- John L.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Lewellen         Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab.|
| Lewellen@aps.anl.gov  Opinions expressed above are solely mine     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rubenstein]

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:53:06 -0500, Dietmar Stumpe
<balou@for-president.com> wrote:

>
>
>Eric Clayberg wrote:
>
>> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
>> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>> > Richard Kenner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>> > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>> > > better to know more than to know less.
>> >
>> > BLEARGH!
>> >
>> > Read this sentence again, please:
>> >
>> >  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>> >
>> > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>> > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>> > it... now, repeat after me:
>> >
>> > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>> >
>> > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>> > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>> > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>> >
>> > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>> > and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>> >
>> > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>
>> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
>> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
>> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
>> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
>> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
>> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
>> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
>>
>> -Eric
>
>I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
>to use political correctness. LOL

Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
antecedants  going back to the 14th century.
--
Michael M Rubenstein

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snippage]
>
>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.

Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this
instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too.  My OED is a
moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might
turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence
this wold?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rubenstein]

On 12 Feb 1998 15:10:02 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:

>In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[snippage]
>>
>>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
>>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
>>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.
>
>Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this
>instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too.  My OED is a
>moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might
>turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence
>this wold?

Certainly, I'm always happy to provide citations..  From the OED entry
for "their":

	3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting

	a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every 
	one, etc. Also so used instead of �his or her�, when the 
	gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron.

	2; nobody 1 b, somebody. (Not favoured by grammarians.)

	13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon, 
	Ai[th]er wit [th]er ouen light.

	c1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) l, Iche mon in thayre degre.

	14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (K�lbing) Many a Sarazen lost their 
	liffe.

	...
	1545 Abp. Parker Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it 
	agreed among us that every president should assemble their 
	companies.

	1563 Win_et Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman being 
	lang absent fra thair party.

	...
	1643 Trapp Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey hath their 
	fashions, and garnishes.

	1749 Fielding Tom Jones vii. xiv, Every one in the House were 
	in their Beds.

	1771 Goldsm. Hist. Eng. III. 241 Every person..now recovered 
	their liberty.

	a1845 Syd. Smith Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do 
	something with their existence.

	1848 Thackeray Van. Fair xli, A person can�t help their birth.

	1858 Bagehot Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their 
	senses would describe Gray�s �Elegy� as [etc.].

	1898 G. B. Shaw Plays II. Candida 86 It�s enough to drive 
	anyone out of their senses.

Funny.  I never thought of Shaw as "archaic."

From the entry for "they":

	2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal 
	by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (=

	�he or she�).

	See Jespersen Progress in Lang. [section] 24.

	1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163 b, Yf..a psalme scape 
	ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or 
	twayne.

	1535 Fisher Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer 
	forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them 
	selues.

	1749 Fielding Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, 
	as how could they help it.

	1759 Chesterfield Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of 
	a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.

	1835 Whewell in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the 
	Church, if they would.

	1858 Bagehot Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a 
	moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of

	ordinary propriety.

	1866 Ruskin Crown Wild Olives [section] 38 (1873) 44 Now, 
	nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing.

	...

I have rendered thorn as [th] and the stylized S usually used for
"section" as [section].  I've also elided cross references to quotes
in other definitions.
--
Michael M Rubenstein

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Michael Rubenstein wrote:
> 
> On 12 Feb 1998 15:10:02 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:
> 
> >In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >[snippage]
> >>
> >>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
> >>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
> >>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.
> >
> >Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this
> >instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too.  My OED is a
> >moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might
> >turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence
> >this wold?
> 
> Certainly, I'm always happy to provide citations..  From the OED entry
> for "their":
> 
>         3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting
> 
>         a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every
>         one, etc. Also so used instead of �his or her�, when the
>         gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron.

[snippage of citings]

Well and good, then... I sit corrected and greatly appreciate your
diligence and effort.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Michael Rubenstein wrote in message
<34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
...
>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.

The OED contains references of all kinds of usage.  It is not a
recommendation that the usage is listed there.  I'm sure that
there are numerous other usages listed there which no one
would recommend.

On the other hand, most uses of plural pronouns for singular
antecedants that are listed actually have a pseudo-grammatical
basis.  There are a number of words that are syntactically
singular, but whose usual application is to a large number of
people.  It is in these cases (and rarely any others) that
uses of plural pronouns for 'singular' antecedents often
occurred in the past.  These are words like "everyone",
"no one", "someone", "anyone", etc..

In general, the use of plural pronouns for the singular generic
does nothing except reduce the efficiency of the language
for its primary purpose: communication.  It's not more polite.
Indeed, the idea that it's impolite to use the traditional generic
was *invented* by political activists who wanted a divisive
rhetorical tool (it's actually deliberately impolite to complain
about someone's use of the traditional generic).

Now, there *were* (and still are) real sexist abuses of the language.
To use feminine singular pronouns for generic individuals of only
certain professions is sexist.  To say "the teacher ... she",
"the nurse ... she", or to refer to the generic secretary with
"your girl can contact my girl" - these are all sexist.  The correct
traditional generic is to use the masculine singular for the
generic member of *any* profession or group (with the obvious
exception of mothers, wives, daughters, etc.).  I believe that
if these genuinely sexists uses of the language weren't ever
used, the whole issue would never have arisen.

--
J. Giles

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rubenstein]

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:09:21 -0700, "James Giles"
<jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Michael Rubenstein wrote in message
><34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>...
>>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
>>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
>>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.
>
>The OED contains references of all kinds of usage.  It is not a
>recommendation that the usage is listed there.  I'm sure that
>there are numerous other usages listed there which no one
>would recommend.
>
>On the other hand, most uses of plural pronouns for singular
>antecedants that are listed actually have a pseudo-grammatical
>basis.  There are a number of words that are syntactically
>singular, but whose usual application is to a large number of
>people.  It is in these cases (and rarely any others) that
>uses of plural pronouns for 'singular' antecedents often
>occurred in the past.  These are words like "everyone",
>"no one", "someone", "anyone", etc..
>
>In general, the use of plural pronouns for the singular generic
>does nothing except reduce the efficiency of the language
>for its primary purpose: communication.  It's not more polite.
>Indeed, the idea that it's impolite to use the traditional generic
>was *invented* by political activists who wanted a divisive
>rhetorical tool (it's actually deliberately impolite to complain
>about someone's use of the traditional generic).
>
>Now, there *were* (and still are) real sexist abuses of the language.
>To use feminine singular pronouns for generic individuals of only
>certain professions is sexist.  To say "the teacher ... she",
>"the nurse ... she", or to refer to the generic secretary with
>"your girl can contact my girl" - these are all sexist.  The correct
>traditional generic is to use the masculine singular for the
>generic member of *any* profession or group (with the obvious
>exception of mothers, wives, daughters, etc.).  I believe that
>if these genuinely sexists uses of the language weren't ever
>used, the whole issue would never have arisen.

Of course the OED is descriptive and makes no claim to prescribe
correct usage.  In fact, in the definition for "their", which I've
quoted in another post, it describes the usage as "not favored by
grammarians."

However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never
even claimed to know what  that means).  It should have been clear
that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost,
but it is important to use political correctness."  As the OED shows,
this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of
the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it
credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl."

--
Michael M Rubenstein

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Michael Rubenstein wrote in message
<34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
...
>However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never
>even claimed to know what  that means).  It should have been clear
>that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost,
>but it is important to use political correctness."  As the OED shows,
>this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of
>the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it
>credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl."

I looked through your list and could find none that actually used the
plural pronoun to refer to a single person.  They referred to non-empty
collections of people that just happened to be introduced in a preceeding
clause with a *grammatically* singular phrase (eg. "Many a Sarazen lost
their life").  Clearly, the plural pronoun is referring to the many people
that fit the initial noun phrase.

The modern "political correctness" advacates would use the plural pronoun
even when the antecedent is clearly singular.  The worst of the bunch
consist of such completely unnecessary combinations as "a man lost
their wife" or "a girl had their bike stolen."  Here, the pronoun referring
to the poor widower could clearly have lost "his" wife with no sexism
implied.  And you really wonder who owned the bike the girl was
associated with: your initial thought is that maybe the word order
is wrong and it should have said "the girl had their stolen bike."

What do you suggest is the meaning of "The pilot is in command of the
flight crew and they are responsible for the safe operation of the plane."?
If you were to say that the whole flight crew was collectively responsible
for safety, you'd be wrong.  The pilot is individually responsible for the
safe
operation of the aircraft.  The singular/plural ambiguity is more important
than any percieved sexism in the language.  Adopting plural pronouns for
the singular generic merely decreases the efficiency of the language.

Oh well.  It's happened before (changes making the language less efficient).
It'll probably happen again.

--
J. Giles

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rubenstein]

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:06:47 -0700, "James Giles"
<jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Michael Rubenstein wrote in message
><34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>...
>>However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never
>>even claimed to know what  that means).  It should have been clear
>>that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost,
>>but it is important to use political correctness."  As the OED shows,
>>this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of
>>the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it
>>credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl."
>
>I looked through your list and could find none that actually used the
>plural pronoun to refer to a single person.  They referred to non-empty
>collections of people that just happened to be introduced in a preceeding
>clause with a *grammatically* singular phrase (eg. "Many a Sarazen lost
>their life").  Clearly, the plural pronoun is referring to the many people
>that fit the initial noun phrase.
>
>The modern "political correctness" advacates would use the plural pronoun
>even when the antecedent is clearly singular.  The worst of the bunch
>consist of such completely unnecessary combinations as "a man lost
>their wife" or "a girl had their bike stolen."  Here, the pronoun referring
>to the poor widower could clearly have lost "his" wife with no sexism
>implied.  And you really wonder who owned the bike the girl was
>associated with: your initial thought is that maybe the word order
>is wrong and it should have said "the girl had their stolen bike."
>
>What do you suggest is the meaning of "The pilot is in command of the
>flight crew and they are responsible for the safe operation of the plane."?
>If you were to say that the whole flight crew was collectively responsible
>for safety, you'd be wrong.  The pilot is individually responsible for the
>safe
>operation of the aircraft.  The singular/plural ambiguity is more important
>than any percieved sexism in the language.  Adopting plural pronouns for
>the singular generic merely decreases the efficiency of the language.
>
>Oh well.  It's happened before (changes making the language less efficient).
>It'll probably happen again.

Obviously you are very bothered by this.  So bothered that you didn't
notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall
into that category.  It was not talking about a specific individual.
How is

	The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they 
	are.

different from
	
	A person can�t help their birth.

I'm afraid I just don't share your concern about the "efficiency" of
the language.  We've survived the use of the plural pronoun for the
second person singular.  From the OED definition of "you":

	Originally the accusative and dative plural of the second 
	personal pronoun: see thou for the declension of the 2nd pers.

	pron. in OE. and ME. Between 1300 and 1400 it began to be used

	also for the nominative ye, which it had replaced in general 
	use by about 1600. During the 14th century it also appears as 
	a substitute for the singular obj. thee and nom. thou, being 
	originally used in token of respect in addressing a superior, 
	but later also to an equal, and ultimately generally: cf. thou

	1. Thus you is now the general pronoun of the second person, 
	nominative or objective, singular or plural.]

Languages change.
--
Michael M Rubenstein

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Michael Rubenstein wrote in message
<34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
...
>Obviously you are very bothered by this.  So bothered that you didn't
>notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall
>into that category.  It was not talking about a specific individual.

Evidently you didn't read my articles.  I didn't address the original
example at all.  And no, the original example doesn't bother me.
In fact, I use that kind of phrase all the time ("if everyone would
raise their glasses in a toast").

What does bother me is people using the plural when it actually
makes their statement *false*.  Such as the sample I wrote about
the pilot's responsibilities.  Another thing that bothers me is usage
which scrambles the meaning so badly that it can't be followed
clearly: "the man lost their wife to cancer."  Whose wife?  Was
the man (who is the subsect of the sentence) one of those married
to her?  Is this a story about cancer or bigamy?  (This example was
heard on CNN.)

Finally, what bothers me is to be told that my occasional use
of the traditional generic is sexist.  It isn't.  Indeed, it is the reader
who makes such an accusation that is being impolite.  The reader
who interprets the use of the traditional generic as sexist is the
one making the decision to exclude women from the domain of
those the writing is about.  This is true regardless of the intent of
the writer.

--
J. Giles

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[K. C. Putnam]

I have read this thread particularly with regard to the "sexist" 
thing.  Even the "he or she" is not perfect.  It omits those of
questionable or ambiguous gender.  My solution is to combine all
of the pronouns into one.  Sheheit!  Say it real fast.

Casey

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[gypsy]

K. C. Putnam <casey@logic.net> wrote in article
<34E9A0CE.1F70@logic.net>...
> I have read this thread particularly with regard to the "sexist" 
> thing.  Even the "he or she" is not perfect.  It omits those of
> questionable or ambiguous gender.  My solution is to combine all
> of the pronouns into one.  Sheheit!  Say it real fast.
> 
> Casey
> 

	I, too, have been following this thread...and while some very convincing
arguments have been made on all sides, still haven't been convinced.
	(Although I agree with the sentiment contained in sheheit :))
	This particular "glitch" in english grammar will never really be resolved
to anyone's satisfaction.  One of the greatest disadvantages of general
public literacy is that language doesn't mutate/evolve as quickly as it has
in times of wide spread illiteracy.  Predominantly, this is due to
"authorities" putting down in print "the rules".  
	Just like any Computer language you care to examine, English is a
"multi-function" language...what I am trying to say is that there are many
different ways of saying the same thing (QED).  It is, despite all Grammar
School Teachers' best efforts, completely up to the speaker how the point
is gotten across...
	Personally, I use "he is", "he or she is", "one is", and "they are"
depending a) on my mood, and b) on my listener-- as the point of
communicating is to get the point across and the best way to do so is to
determine which method of speech will best achieve that depending on the
audience.

'Kay then...that's my 2 cents worth...which is about all it's worth :)
-- 
Lucretia M. Pruitt
gypsy@planet10.dimensional.com

********************************************
"I was talking to myself about a piece of
code the other day...and we were wondering
if we should get a third opinion on it..."
LMP
********************************************

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Benz]

Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Languages change.

What, AGAIN!???  I'm just getting used to ANSI prototypes!!!!  Tell that
!@#$%^ standards committe
to keep *their* hands off *my* C syntax!!!

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:52:54 GMT, miker3@ix.netcom.com (Michael
Rubenstein) uttered:

>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.

Webster's - which Americans seem to prefer to the OED - lists the
singular use of "they" as "Nonstandard". :-) It also lists the word as
being of Scandinavian origin, a common base for several English words.
(We did get around a bit around SY 1000. :-) )

-- 
"Between our dreams and actions lies this world."
   - Bruce Springsteen, "Dead Man Walking"
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen       toriw@online.no

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <34E25602.4F93EF49@for-president.com>,
Dietmar Stumpe  <balou@for-president.com> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Clayberg wrote:
>
>> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
>> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>> > Richard Kenner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>> > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>> > > better to know more than to know less.
>> >
>> > BLEARGH!
>> >
>> > Read this sentence again, please:
>> >
>> >  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>> >
>> > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>> > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>> > it... now, repeat after me:
>> >
>> > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>> >
>> > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>> > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>> > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>> >
>> > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>> > and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>> >
>> > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>>
>> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
>> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of
>> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
>> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
>> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
>> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
>> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.
>>
>> -Eric
>
>I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important
>to use political correctness. LOL

I do not know where 'politics' of any sort fits into this, I *do* know
that a perfectly acceptable substitute for this antecedant/consequent
disagreement exists... but for some reason was not used.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>,
Eric Clayberg <clayberg@smalltalksystems.com> wrote:
>The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
><34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>...
>> Richard Kenner wrote:
>> > 
>> > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.
>> > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always
>> > better to know more than to know less.
>> 
>> BLEARGH!
>> 
>> Read this sentence again, please:
>> 
>>  'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.'
>> 
>> I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a
>> "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED
>> it... now, repeat after me:
>> 
>> 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.'
>> 
>> Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'?  'Antecedants' and 'their' are
>> plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to
>> remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no?
>> 
>> In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they'
>> and 'are' am be pluralismers.
>> 
>> What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays?
>
>You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
>upon what is being taught in schools these days.

That is precisely why I asked that particular question.

>The sex-neutral use of
>"they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
>(including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
>writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
>school).

Would you be so kind as to post an example of this?

> I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school
>yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it.

We shall see... thanques for the info!

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[docdwarf]

In article <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>,
Eric Clayberg <clayberg@smalltalksystems.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6bv2oe$8sp@clarknet.clark.net>...
>> In article <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>,
>>
>> >You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based
>> >upon what is being taught in schools these days.
>> 
>> That is precisely why I asked that particular question.
>> 
>> >The sex-neutral use of
>> >"they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage
>> >(including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business
>> >writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B'
>> >school).
>> 
>> Would you be so kind as to post an example of this?
>
>For someone how is so concerned about the purity and preciseness of
>language, I'm surprised you would ask such an ambiguous question.

The World is full of lovley surprises... what is Life without a bit of
Uncertainty?

>What are
>you referring to by "this"? Do you mean:
>
[snippage]
>
>3) An example of it being taught in a business writing course?

Exactly.

>Mine was
>over seven years ago, so I am not inclined to dig any of that stuff out of
>the attic (assuming I still have it). I do recall quite clearly that the
>word "they" was taught to be an acceptable gender-neutral *singular*
>pronoun for business communication.

This is the crux of my problem... memory is a rather... 'malleable' medium
whereas a text is a bit more enduring.  There can easily be a bit of
difference between 'I remember the book as saying' and looking into the
actual texts, hence my request.

>I recall it so clearly because (at the
>time) it struck my ear as being odd as well.

It strikes me oddly as well, which is why I ask for a text to which I
might refer rather than the vagaries of memory.

>The usage is so common now
>that I don't even notice it and actually use it myself when the need
>arises.

The ability to change is also wonderful, aye.

>
>Languages are living things. New words enter them and old words fall out of
>use all the time. New meanings and usage patterns for old words are
>introduced regularly (if not the dictionary folks would have been out of
>work long ago).

I could not agree more; were this not the case we would all be speaking as
did Chaucer.

>What you might perceive as a crisis for the language, I
>perceive as a natural evolution.

I do not recall my calling anything a 'crisis'... a 'crisis' is an
'AAAIIIEEEE!!!', I used a simple 'BLEARGH!'.

>Just as our ancestors would be appalled at
>how we have distorted the language over the years, so must we be appalled
>at how our children will continue to distort the language in the future
>(and the present <g>).

As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

>As I said before, you might as well get used to it.

Compare and contrast (another... distasteful and overused phrase) this
sentiment with Thomas' admonition about not going gently into the night...
hee hee hee.


DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rot13 Klein]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
    As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Who uses  German anymore, Enlish has become the lingua franca

:-)

If a French female dog could talk, would *they object to being called
    'Le chien'  ?

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

Michael Rot13 Klein wrote:
> 
> docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
>     As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
> 
> Who uses  German anymore, Enlish has become the lingua franca

You mean it is no longer Spanish?  Quelle fromage!

> 
> :-)
> 
> If a French female dog could talk, would *they object to being called
>     'Le chien'  ?

If a French female dog could talk *she* might object to being called
'le' anything.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

> It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the
> knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level,
> but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of
> architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*,
> the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling
> issues and constraints.

  A general knowledge of solid state physics would probably require a
knowledge of quantum physics, which in turn may give the possesor of
such knowledge great influence with the science of programing computers
relying on quantum uncertainty to carry out their calculations... I mean
sure Gates will write a VB compiler for it, but for those of us who take
our software seriously it *may* be possible to introduce entirerly new
and *better* methods of software engineering.

    In the same way, one would be prudent to keep an eye on DNA
computing in the near future, even if you do need to use a bit of
bio-chem to understand it. If my father had stuck with his job as a
typesetter, I would probably be too poor now (yeah I still live with my
folks) to afford this computer.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
These views do not nessesarily
reflect the views of
the CIA... er... *ahem*
Larry's Pizza,
Cnr Main, Harboyle St, Il.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joseph T. Adams]

Richard Kenner (kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu) wrote:
: 
: It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the
: knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level,
: but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of
: architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*,
: the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling
: issues and constraints.

Sheesh.  Any first-year psych student knows that (a) bipolar =
manic depressive, and (b) MOS = metal oxide semiconductor, an
alternative form of therapy prescribed when lithium doesn't work.  :)

Seriously, I used to understand all about analog electronics, but the
microprocessor revolution totally wiped out the field - electronic
engineering - in which I had originally trained.  Needless to say, I
adapted to the brave new digital world, as we all have.  But I adapted
one level of abstraction at a time - first TTL gates, then CMOS, then
simple CPUs, then advanced CPUs (68x00) with assembly, then Basic,
then dBase, then VFP, back to C/C++/Java which I somehow missed, on to
2- and 3-tier distributed databases running on heterogenous platforms,
and now a fairly eclectic (hodgepodge?) mix of every level of
abstraction that is appropriate to the task at hand. 

I don't remember what the hell "bipolar" really means or which way
electrons really flow, although for some odd reason I still remember
what flip-flops and emitter followers look like.  :)  But having once
had that information, I do at least remember where to look it up if I
need to know.  Similarly, while I very seldom have need to write
assembler, I know that if I ever needed to, I could.  There is
something to be said for having at least rudimentary knowledge of
*how* things work.  Let's face it, there are tons of VB and Java
programmers out there who learned programming by writing Excel macros.
That's not a slight against VB or Java or for that matter Excel; but
honestly, I don't think those folks will ever replace academically
and/or professionally trained software engineers.  They operate at very
high levels of abstraction, which is absolutely fine, but someone has
to operate at the lower levels if for no other reason than to build
and optimize the tools which everyone else depends on.

I myself like the higher levels of abstraction - except when I need to
tweak things for maximum performance, or directly control hardware. 
But it's really cool to be able to pick my own spot on that ladder,
and to be able to climb forwards or backwards and still have at least
the beginnings of a clue about what's going on.  :)


Joe

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Richard Kenner]

In article <6carua$hoi$1@nerd.apk.net> joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) writes:
>I myself like the higher levels of abstraction - except when I need to
>tweak things for maximum performance, or directly control hardware. 
>But it's really cool to be able to pick my own spot on that ladder,
>and to be able to climb forwards or backwards and still have at least
>the beginnings of a clue about what's going on.  :)

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making.  Programmers are more 
effective when they have the ability to descend arbitrarily deeply into
the system to figure out why something doesn't work.

Of course, that ability is often sabotaged nowadays by lack of
availability of the require documentation: if an application blows up
on a PC, all you can do is throw your hands up no matter how much CS
and EE knowlege you have.

But if you're running GNU/Linux or GNAT/RTEMS or similar Free Software
on a piece of hardware that your company has designed, so you have all
the require documentetion, being able to operate at any level makes
one quite valuable.

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
>
>
>James Giles wrote:
...
>> There's no excuse for this attitude
>> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
>> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
>> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
>> efficient.
>
>And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...

Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
stage.  He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.  He just
figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
the lesson was clearly understood.

If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
1000 (or higher).

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:

>
>steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
>>
>>
>>James Giles wrote:
>...
>>> There's no excuse for this attitude
>>> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>>> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
>>> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
>>> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
>>> efficient.
>>
>>And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...
>
>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>stage.

The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
has very little relevance here.

> He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
>was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
>'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.

Please state your sources.

> He just
>figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
>systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
>To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
>the lesson was clearly understood.

Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system
built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything
from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he
didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll.

>If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
>of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
>would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
>1000 (or higher).

What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean
systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)?
When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:
...
>>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>>stage.
>
>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
>has very little relevance here.

On the contrary.  The stage was the choice between, first CP/M
and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation)
and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine
if you bought the mini).  That was the percieved choice of business users
circa 1980.  DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the
other choice.  They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.
Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional
personel to support UNIX but not DOS.

I remember this because I was there.  I was rather amused by the
debate at the time because it didn't have much to do with me: at
work I used mainframes (which no one in those days would have
suggested using UNIX on) and at home I was a hobbyist without
the means to buy either a mini or a high-cost workstation.  A few
years later I had a SUN on my desk at work though (can't say I was
impressed, but it did have a really big screen).

>Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system
>built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything
>from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he
>didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll.

To be sure, UNIX has better security than DOS and Windows (which have
none at all) but it's not really very secure.  In any case, when I mentioned
security as a desirable asset, I had in mind comparing the system to
other multi-user systems.  Only one UNIX implementation I've ever heard
of met Orange Book category B requirements (at the lowest level of
category B and only with enormous changes to how it did security).
Systems exist (or used to, before the UNIX revolution) which meet
category B and impose less of a burden on users in terms of confusion
and maintenence than UNIX security does.

And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's
*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems
software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software.  What kind of
a defense is that?  Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that
assessment (including the person who originally said it).

...
> [...]  The ratio of installed systems to system
>>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
>>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
>>1000 (or higher).
>
>What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean
>systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)?

CTSS (Cray, at DOE labs) used to support several thousand users
with a system maintenence staff of about a half a dozen.  And, that
was not a mass-produced system, but an internally produced one
(you'd expect an in-house system to have *more* maintenence
problems, not less).  UNIX installations supporting this number of
users invariably require many times the support staff.  (In spite of
the fact that they're now running a vendor-supplied and vendor-supported
UNIX, I understand the labs have *more* of their own personel doing
system support than before.)  Furthermore, the users in such an
environment tend to be more demanding (full contact programming:
their applications are always right on the edge of what's actually
computationally feasible on the fastest hardware available) and
UNIX doesn't provide the same performance and reliability as CTSS
did.

>When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive.

Yes, and UNIX manages to be both a burden and non-secure at the
same time.  For example, having each file independently specify access
permissions *sounds* like a convenient thing, but it increases the burden.
Most people forget to set or check their settings and/or set all their files
with the same privilages.  Doing so fails to use even what security UNIX
has.

Of course, the access privilages of files are a way in which the users
themselves can contribute to system insecurity, but they aren't in
themselves they main causes of UNIX being insecure.  That rests
in a lot of other bad design decisions.

I'm not saying that security never introduces a burden on the user,
but it is possible to design a security system that is less burdensome
than what UNIX has and yet is more secure.

Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; that ideas
for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've
described *might* have merit.  The only people I can think of who'd actually
oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are
to maintain the existing ones.

Well, argue it out among yourselves and Happy Holidays.  I'm
leaving and probably will not see another round of this "discussion".

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:

>
>Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>...
>>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>>           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:
>...
>>>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>>>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>>>stage.
>>
>>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
>>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
>>has very little relevance here.
>
>On the contrary.  The stage was the choice between, first CP/M
>and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation)
>and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine
>if you bought the mini).

Unix wasn't even a major player at the time, certainly not for business
systems. It tended to be a secondary OS available for systems supplied
by companies like DEC who pushed their own major OSs such as VMS. Unix
was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities.

> That was the percieved choice of business users
>circa 1980.  DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the
>other choice.

Nonsense. Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed.
It came well down on the list of "other choices" for business systems.

> They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
>the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.

What is your definition of "relaiblae"?

>Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional
>personel to support UNIX but not DOS.

If you are talking about more than one system administrator you are talking
about a large system well out of DOS's league, or you are talking about
hardware and networking issues which DOS couldn't even support at all.

...

>And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's
>*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems
>software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software.  What kind of
>a defense is that?  Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that
>assessment (including the person who originally said it).

I certainly agree there. In my experience Unicx systems stay up until you
have a reason to take them down.

...

>Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
>me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
>than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect;

Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific
comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the
(anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying
that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was.

>that ideas
>for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've
>described *might* have merit.  The only people I can think of who'd actually
>oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are
>to maintain the existing ones.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[paulr]

Well actually, most of the "advanced" features in DOS *were* copied 
almost directly from UNIX, which Microsoft happened to have a stake in 
at the time. (i.e. Xenix) 

A *lot* of things we take from granted come from UNIX, and UNIX servers
are very hot- the only things that easily overmatch them are mainframes,
and even there they are giving ground. :) 

-Paul


: >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
: >me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
: >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect;

: Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific
: comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the
: (anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying
: that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[arnie sherman]

to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:

i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++,
even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in
graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc. 

whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
future.

any thoughts?
thanks
arnie sherman

arnie@diac.com
http://www.diac.com/~arnie
please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dann Corbit]

arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>...
>to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
>
>i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
>would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
>rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
>shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ?
Depends on what you want to do.

>i am guessing c & c++,
>even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
>programming environment.
Once you have learned smalltalk, C++ will be fairly easy to learn (though
templates will be something of a departure).  Once you know C++, C will be
easy to learn.  Why not learn them all?  It's really not all that difficult to
pick up a new programming language.  Each language has strengths and
weaknesses.  The more you know, the better you will be as a programmer.
Besides that, each teaches some new concepts that you can carry over to your
design skills.

>additionally, i am primarilly interested in
>graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc.
Sounds like C, C++, and Assembly to me, but I suspect that some of that goes
on in most programming disciplines.

>whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
>to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
>reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
>future.

Why not learn Java too?  Go pick up a book from your local library.  In one
day or so, you will know if you want to pursue it.

Look through your local Sunday paper.  Find out what kind of work the
programmers in those disciples do in your area.  If it sounds like something
you would enjoy, focus on that target.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[John Slaman]

Which language will make you employable in the shortest amount of time ?

    Microsoft's Visual Basic 5

Why
- easy to learn
- large market
- it's in demand (because systems written in VB need to be rewritten every
couple of years)

Words of caution
- you will never be respected (and rightly so)
- it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the people
doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).

Regards



arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>...
>to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
>
>i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
>would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
>rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
>shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++,
>even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
>programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in
>graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc.
>
>whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
>to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
>reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
>future.
>
>any thoughts?
>thanks
>arnie sherman
>
>arnie@diac.com
>http://www.diac.com/~arnie
>please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jedi]

 "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> wrote:

> John Slaman <john.slaman@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article
> <68dm0i$brv1@news.fiberlink.net>...
> > 
> >     Microsoft's Visual Basic 5
> > 
> > Words of caution
> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the

This is not true, in our shop the COBOL programmers and the VB programmers
are paid the same. Anyone with knowlege and skill is respected. We
encourage cross-training at all levels. There is movement usually from
COBOL programmer to VB programmer. I haven't seen any return back once
they leave the Mainframe developing arena. One thing I have seen is once a
COBOL programmer learns VB, there seems to more of a chance of that
programmer finding a better position with another company. Learning VB
will definitely add to your worth as a programmer.

> people
> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> > 
The majority of our people who are hiring were once programmers. 


> 
> - Never respected by clods like you perhaps.  You don't know what you are
> talking about.
> - The pay is excellent IF you know what you are doing and are not just
> another bozo who read a 21 days book.  New Technology + High demand = $$$. 

You have to start somewhere. 

> If you can architect enterprise scale n-tier solutions with VB you can
> write your own ticket right now.  You don't know what you are talking
> about.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Highlander Consulting]

Dan wrote:

> > Words of caution
> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> people
> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).

I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,
learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
that.

Robert Herrick

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
Highlander Consulting  <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>
>> > Words of caution
>> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
>> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
>> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
>> people
>> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
>
>I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
>self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
>However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
>offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
>have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I

I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)

>think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
>programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
>make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
>its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
>common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,

But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?

Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
a software development position?

>learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
>language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
>you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
>motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
>the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
>my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
>that.

Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's.
Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code
it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a
problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential.
Just no software experience. 

Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
and immediately perform in that job as well.

Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Carsten Arnholm]

Kaz Kylheku <bill@cafe.net> wrote in article
<699ndn$4fn$1@brie.direct.ca>...
> In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do
with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone
getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)
> 
> >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many
other
> >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that
necessary to
> >make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down
into
> >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to
acheive a
> >common goal is more important than learning a particular language. 
Sure,
> 
> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?
> 
> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?

or: Would you automatically recommend a degree in CS for an analytical
chemistry position ? The argument goes both ways, does it not ?

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Highlander Consulting]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)

I didn't say that I wasn't a hacker or that I didn't have any computer experience.
My point was that earning a CS degree doesn't imply good programming skills.

> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?

Yes, I think that those skills are among those necessary to be a good programmer.
If a programmer has no ability to analyze problems and create a logical solution,
then he is not a good programmer.

> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?

No, but that also wasn't my point.

> Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
> revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
> three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
> with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
> and immediately perform in that job as well.

There was no insinuation that anyone with a chemistry PhD can land a software job.
The insinuation was that learning a language and learning to program effectively
are two different tasks.

> Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
> someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
> afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
> training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
> master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

I think that any company that *wouldn't* hire somebody who could suck up a
four-year degree in 6 months is the obtuse one!

Robert Herrick

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Charles F Hankel]

On 11 Jan 1998 06:04:39 GMT, bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:

> In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
> Highlander Consulting  <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Dan wrote:
> >
> >> > Words of caution
> >> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> >> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> >> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> >> people
> >> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> >
> >I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
> >self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
> >However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
> >offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
> >have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
> 
> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)
> 
> >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
> >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
> >make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
> >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
> >common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,
> 
> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?
> 
> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?
> 
> >learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
> >language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
> >you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
> >motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
> >the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
> >my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
> >that.
> 
> Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's.
> Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code
> it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a
> problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential.
> Just no software experience. 
> 
> Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
> revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
> three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
> with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
> and immediately perform in that job as well.
> 
> Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
> someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
> afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
> training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
> master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

I seem to recall that the degree level was once described as follows:

	BS	Bullsh*t
	MS	More Sh*t
	PhD	Piled Higher and Deeper

Is there any truth in this?

Charles
PhD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Groves]

Computer Science - pure computer science - is an exercise in
manipulating type domains.  Its very mathematically
intensive and not for the faint hearted.

Its about abstract things like Finite State Automata, Lambda
transitions and language grammars.

If you told a Chemisty graduate that you supply the computer
to the program, he probably wouldn't understand it fully...


These large IT companies who accept graudates from virtually
any disapline and send them on C++ training courses are
harming the IT industry - I believe we're paying the price
for that now...

Paul.
BTW.
Why was this crossposted to an Ada group?  Looking for a
half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half")

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 01:38:19 GMT, Paul Groves <paulyg@clara.net> wrote:

>Why was this crossposted to an Ada group?  Looking for a
>half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half")

It was crossposted over a year ago. You are responding to an old article that
was regurgitated by some goofball's MS Exchange server a week or two ago.  The
offending party took no initiative in sending out cancellation requests for the
guiltyleaked articles, and probably wouldn't have a clue how.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

Highlander Consulting wrote:
> 
> Dan wrote:
> 
> > > Words of caution
> > > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> > people
> > > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> 
> I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
> self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
> However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
> offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
> have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
> think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
> programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
> make a good programmer.  

Many, many, years ago I landed my first programming job on the basis
of a mathematics degree, a couple of programming classes, and doing
very well on a test of problem decomposition that my employer was
using as part of the interview process.

A couple of years later I went back to college part-time to get my
MSCS, even though I did not need it for any immediate career purposes.
It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I learned a lot that
I would not have guessed or worked out for myself about data
structures, how programming languages are put together etc.

I became a much better programmer, not so much for the degree, but for
what I learned while getting it.

Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
that is communicated in a good CS degree course.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Barrabazz]

Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?

Greetx


Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article
<34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>...
> Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
> even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
> that is communicated in a good CS degree course.
> 
> Patricia
> 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

I don't think it is the only way, though it is a simple and convenient
one. The problem with obtaining the same body of knowlege without
going through an actual course is answering the question "What is that
I don't know about computing, and ought to know?".

[Follow-ups limited to comp.lang.java.misc just because it happens to
be the first newsgroup in the list, and I got some e-mail from someone
who does not think the topic of how to improve one's programming
skills appropriate to comp.lang.ada]

Patricia

Barrabazz wrote:
> 
> Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?
> 
> Greetx
> 
> Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article
> <34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>...
> > Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
> > even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
> > that is communicated in a good CS degree course.
> >
> > Patricia
> >

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ron Peterson]

Barrabazz wrote:
> 
> Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?

I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep
abreast of football, basketball, and baseball.

Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are
over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A
teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. 

How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter?

	Ron

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[anonymous]

Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem..........

Erudition works,  but peer interaction cerainly is a plus (taking a class)..
Beating one's head against the wall for days on a problem is more likely
to occur less often in the peer environment (though this doesn't
necessarily have to be in school.

It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a  typical
eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a
higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to
Chemistry  but not by much..  maybe a year..



> Barrabazz wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> > to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?
> 
> I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep
> abreast of football, basketball, and baseball.
> 
> Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are
> over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A
> teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. 
> 
> How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter?
> 
>         Ron

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <anonymous-1401980358130001@t9bsm0-03.tserv.umassd.edu>,
anonymous@anonymous.org (anonymous) wrote:

> Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem..........
[snip]
> It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a  typical
> eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a
> higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to
> Chemistry  but not by much..  maybe a year..

It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet.  One of the best
programmers / engineers I ever hired had degrees in Linguistics and
Mathematical Linguistics.  IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems
Analysts, with great success.  Perhaps they still do.

Computer science is a branch of applied mathematics, so the converse is
not true -- A computer science degree does not help with understanding of
the physical sciences.  If the problem requires such understanding, a pure
computer science person is likely to fail, for lack of necessary
background.


Joe Gwinn

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dnns]

IBM does actually still hire Philosophy majors...in fact they are one
of the only place to go with said degree, as far as I can tell.  What
they seem to be able to do is analyze problems logically, which suits
IBMs well, seeing as they make no sense to the rest of us...

dnns


On 19 Jan 1998 22:06:04 GMT, "Judson McClendon"
<judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ... hard-core technical subject can learn programming ...
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> ... IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems Analysts ...
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>'Philosophy' a 'hard-core technical subject'?  ;-)
>--
>Judson McClendon          This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
>Sun Valley Systems        acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
>judmczzz@mindspring.com   world to save sinners  (1 Timothy 1:15)
>(please remove zzz from email id to respond)
>

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Garskof]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience.
I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took
a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some
ethics as well.

Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to
think.

Personally, I believe we make great programers.


And it pays much better than metaphysics!

-- 


/**************************************************************\
 * Robert Garskof                  | robert.garskof@snet.com  *
 * ICAS Development Team           | rgarskof@cris.com        *
 * Southern New England Telephone  |                          *
\**************************************************************/

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Robert Garskof --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 254 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Robert Garskof
n:              Garskof;Robert
org:            Southern New England Telephone
email;internet: robert.garskof@snet.com
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steve Dekorte]

In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
> PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 

Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

---
Steve Dekorte 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Barrabazz]

That guy, Steve, hope a) he is not your superior b) he doesn't put his nose
in this NG.

I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his progs
: you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 

By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having 3
PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he has
3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
-- 

b a r r a b a z z

Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
<6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>...
> In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
earn a
> > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> 
> Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
> 
> ---
> Steve Dekorte 
> 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
> earn a
> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> > 
> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
subject and
a PhD doth not a programmer make.

> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
progs
> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
> 
> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
3
> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
has
> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.

Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
a PhD):

In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
and be absolutely useless.
If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
get more than 3 engineers
in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
that's the nature of the domain beast.
Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
programmer to be an engineer than it
is to write out the specifications "in full".

Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
willing to go back and spend 4+ years
learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
clue about numerical methods).
This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
background can learn to program
(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
think they're good at it.

Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Tim Oxler]

"dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

>> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
>> earn a
>> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
>> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
>> > 
>> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
>> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
>> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
>Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
>subject and
>a PhD doth not a programmer make.
>

Agreed.

>> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
>> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
>progs
>> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
>> 
>> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
>3
>> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
>has
>> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
>> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
>> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
>> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
>
>Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
>a PhD):
>
>In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
>and be absolutely useless.
>If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>

Well, my schooling and training is on the business side.  I think that
similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of
Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer.

>Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
>get more than 3 engineers
>in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
>software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
>programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
>that's the nature of the domain beast.
>Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
>programmer to be an engineer than it
>is to write out the specifications "in full".
>

[Business spectrum perspective].  I've seen other programmers that are
extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese"
into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the
ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese".  Without good
conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product
not being what was intended.

>Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
>willing to go back and spend 4+ years
>learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
>clue about numerical methods).
>This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
>background can learn to program
>(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
>think they're good at it.
>

Agreed.
[Business spectrum perspective].   Training, and re-training.  Some
veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work
tasks in a certain way.  Then 10yrs go by, better programming
techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be
applied, but many of these people are still working and programming
like they did 10yrs ago.

>Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>

Probably for the most part true.  But then again, I should be writing
code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :)


Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.i1.net/~troxler
http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Tim Oxler]

"dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

>> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
>> earn a
>> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
>> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
>> > 
>> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
>> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
>> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
>Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
>subject and
>a PhD doth not a programmer make.
>

Agreed.

>> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
>> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
>progs
>> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
>> 
>> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
>3
>> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
>has
>> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
>> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
>> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
>> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
>
>Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
>a PhD):
>
>In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
>and be absolutely useless.
>If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>

Well, my schooling and training is on the business side.  I think that
similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of
Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer.

>Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
>get more than 3 engineers
>in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
>software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
>programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
>that's the nature of the domain beast.
>Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
>programmer to be an engineer than it
>is to write out the specifications "in full".
>

[Business spectrum perspective].  I've seen other programmers that are
extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese"
into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the
ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese".  Without good
conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product
not being what was intended.

>Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
>willing to go back and spend 4+ years
>learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
>clue about numerical methods).
>This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
>background can learn to program
>(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
>think they're good at it.
>

Agreed.
[Business spectrum perspective].   Training, and re-training.  Some
veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work
tasks in a certain way.  Then 10yrs go by, better programming
techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be
applied, but many of these people are still working and programming
like they did 10yrs ago.

>Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>

Probably for the most part true.  But then again, I should be writing
code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :)


Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.i1.net/~troxler
http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q>, "dogmat"
<macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

> > > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
> > earn a
> > > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> > > 
> > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
> 
> Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
> subject and a PhD doth not a programmer make.

Agree.  See previous posting as well.


> > I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
> > ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
> progs
> > : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 

Yes, I have, many times, and it didn't require any special schooling.


> > By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
> 3
> > PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
> has
> > 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
> > substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
> > fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
> > still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
> 
> Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
> a PhD):
> 
> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
> and be absolutely useless.
> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

My experience has been that it's lots easier to teach an engineer
programming than to teach a programmer engineering, and the reeducated
engineer will write perfectly fine code.  

Engineers, reeducated or not, as a group tend not to be too impressed with
all the current good-programming theories and fads, which is generally a
good thing, although it does drive the software process folk to drink,
which is also a good thing.


> Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
> get more than 3 engineers
> in a room, and they'll argue forever. 

That's why we appoint a Chief Engineer.  Somebody must decide.


> ... You'll never get a engineering
> software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
> programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
> that's the nature of the domain beast.
> Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
> programmer to be an engineer than it
> is to write out the specifications "in full".

Yes, up to a point.  My experience is that engineers untrained in software
can generally get a 20,000-DSI program to work, but will most often fail
at 100,000 DSIs and above.  As the scale increases, software architecture
and design issues become more and more important, and cannot be
overwhelmed by pure engineering knowledge.  Thus, the engineer turned
programmer is necessary.

 
> Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
> willing to go back and spend 4+ years
> learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
> clue about numerical methods).
> This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
> background can learn to program
> (and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
> think they're good at it.
> 
> Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
> engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
> (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
> dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
these things on the job, but most don't.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Wayne L. Beavers]

Joe Gwinn wrote:
> 
> 

snip


> 
> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
> these things on the job, but most don't.

I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.

That's why we have systems programmers.

I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer
Science in my junior year, a long time ago.

Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems
we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software
Engineer", according to my business cards.

-- 
Wayne L. Beavers         mailto:Wayne_Beavers@Beyond-Software.com
Beyond Software, Inc.      http://www.beyond-software.com
"Transforming Legacy Applications"

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Frank A. Adrian]

Wayne L. Beavers wrote in message <34D0A9F7.4768@beyond-software.com>...
>Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>
>> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
is
>> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
>> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it
simply
>> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
>> these things on the job, but most don't.
>
>I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
>Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
>dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
>COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
>COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.
>
>That's why we have systems programmers.
>
>I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
>systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
>do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
>accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
>started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer
>Science in my junior year, a long time ago.
>
>Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
>to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
>it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems
>we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software
>Engineer", according to my business cards.

I guess I have a simple answer to people who believe that programmers SHOULD
have this or that or the other skill.  I just ask them if they're willing to
pay extra for it.  They tend to not want to.  So my question to the earlier
poster is, "How much more than the going rate for a COBOL application
program-
mer who is just a COBOL application programmer are you willing to pay for
one
who knows the physical register architecture of the IBM 3xx line and the
inter-
nals of MVS?"  And I guess we all SHOULD be omniscient, too, but I don't see
anyone willing to pay extra for that.
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
franka@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[GLE]

Wayne L. Beavers wrote:
> I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
> Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
> dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
> COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
> COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.
...
> I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
> systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
> do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
> accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
...
> Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
> to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put

Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can tunefs, but you can't tune a fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- spammers, add us to your list:
  root@localhost
  postmaster@localhost
  webmaster@localhost
  abuse@localhost
  askbill@microsoft.com
  president@whitehouse.org

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **]

In <34D713F0.510@Go.To.Hell>, GLE:

[Snip...]
 
|> Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
|> cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

[Snip...]

Joining "Philosphers/Y2K/Pay" threads and such in that trite paraphrase:

      Those Ignorant of History Are Doomed to Repeat It...       :)

Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens)     ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO **

1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account.
2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn.
3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE.
4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748.

Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

GLE wrote:
> 
> Wayne L. Beavers wrote:
[buncha snippage everywhere]
> ...
> > Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
> > to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
> 
> Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
> cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

I know that *I* am glad that they are dieing out... because then I, with
only my half-assed abilities in those arcana, can demand More Money for
my skills.


... so tell us, how many years of working in a mainframe shop shooting
prod CICS dumps so that the airline which employs you can get the region
back up so the 'girls' can take the orders for the tickets which would
fill the seats in the airplanes with paying customers who make your
paycheck possible did it take you to arrive at this stunning conclusion?

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[coryb]

> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
is
> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it
simply
> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
> these things on the job, but most don't.

??? Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but is the main gist of this
discussion that, say, electric engineers are a superior breed of workers
than computer scientists?  That's not the kind of thing I want to hear :)

-- 
begin 600 Have_A_Nice_Day.com
M: 2@'[ 3S1"QJ;H``K1D@^H&`\)@Z"X`B#_WTX/K58@_,O_0[-#IZ!P`B+^L
C36'BWK=HB!> PS*(%[0!S19T^K@#`,T0PXK<P>,&`MD2_,/0          
end

 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert S. White]

In article <gwinn-2901981005320001@dh5152093.res.ray.com>, gwinn@res.ray.com 
says...

... snipped (good stuff) ...

>> Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>> engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>> (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>> newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>> dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
>I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
>one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
>assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
>isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
>these things on the job, but most don't.

  Wow!  I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but
this one I completely agree with.  It is much much easier to teach or
to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of 
software engineering (not just _programming_).  Engineers _must_
constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are
instant management material (the Dilbert Principal).  Successful
product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including
new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and
reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current
EE and ME.  It is amazing how much is in the software and how little
is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days.
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer
e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ):  net mcleodusa shift2 r white

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

Robert S. White wrote:
[SNIP!]
>   Wow!  I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but
> this one I completely agree with.  It is much much easier to teach or
> to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of
> software engineering (not just _programming_).  Engineers _must_
> constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are
> instant management material (the Dilbert Principal).
...

Programmers don't constantly read and learn? I cannot remember when I
last did ANY programming task that I could have completed with only
the skills I had when I started on my first programming job.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Van Bellinghen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]

>  Successful
> product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including
> new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and
> reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current
> EE and ME.  It is amazing how much is in the software and how little
> is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days.

Reading this got me thinking about the people I've worked with over the past 23
years that I've been in this field (I am also an embedded SE with a  EE degree). I
recall that in the 70s when CS majors were rare in schools, the SEs usually came
from  Math, Physics,  or EE scholastic backgrounds. In the 80s, most were CS
majors. Anyway, what I found was that the educational background rarely mapped to
the success an SE had when working in the "Field". The "success correlation" had
more to do with how well the individual could learn and adapt to the project at
hand and the company's way of doing things. It seems that regardless of
educational background, an SE is constantly in a position where he/she must learn
new material -  whether software or system related. Projects and languages are
forever changing - even within the same company. I agree that an SE that stops
learning is technically dead (like Engineers turned managers who become schedule
experts). For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its just part
of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews,  I laugh at these managers
who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a specific
language. That should be the least of their concern.

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Paul  Van Bellinghen --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 332 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Paul  Van Bellinghen
n:              Van Bellinghen;Paul 
org:            Lockheed Martin Fairchild
email;internet: pvanbell@mhv.net
title:          Staff Analyst
note:           WebPage: www.mhv.net/~pvanbell
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Nick Roberts]

Paul Van Bellinghen <pvanbell@mhv.net> wrote in article
<34D3A4A4.9E58315C@mhv.net>...
[...]
>           For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its
just part
> of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews,  I laugh at these
managers
> who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a
specific
> language. That should be the least of their concern.
> 

Hear hear!  I'm going to frame Paul's post and put it up on the wall!

-- 

== Nick Roberts ================================================
== Croydon, UK                       ===========================
==                                              ================
== Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software                   ==========
== Independent Software Development Consultant            ======
== Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com                              ====
== Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124                          ===
==                                                            ==
==           I live not in myself, but I become               ==
===          Portion of that around me; and to me             ==
====         High mountains are a feeling, but the hum        ==
=======      Of human cities torture.
===========                             -- Byron [Childe Harold]

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

> > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
> an
> > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
> programmers.
> > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
> majority of
> > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).

Oliver White.
Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.

*TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.

**TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Bill Lynch]

cyanide wrote:

> > > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
> > an
> > > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
> > programmers.
> > > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> > > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
> > majority of
> > > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
> Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
> is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
> Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).
>
> Oliver White.
> Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.
>
> *TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.

Very creative, "TIC", but you don't get the copyright:-( We ( in
comp.software.year-2000, comp.lang.asm370, and (probably)
bit.listserv.ibm-main) have used "TIC" = "tongue in cheek" for a while,
now. It's in DejaNews, if you want to check it out.

BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).

Bill Lynch


>
>
> **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jeff Knaggs]

Token-Ring Interface Connector.


> BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
> command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
> something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
> specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).
>
> Bill Lynch
>
> >
> >
> > **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rot13 Klein]

I wonder what is the SMA?

(Shortest Meaningless Abreviation)

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

cyanide wrote in message <34DF23BE.156895CB@stopspamiinet.net.au>...
>> > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
>> an
>> > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
>> programmers.
>> > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>> > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
>> majority of
>> > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
>Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
>is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
>Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).
>
>Oliver White.
>Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.
>
>*TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.
>
>**TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".


TIC aside, if you're a 1st year writing this, you ain't your ordinary 1st
year.
My advice is not to expect your course work to teach you everything you need
to know.
You'll still have to study independently. Do that and you'll get your job
with Boeing.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look
> great
> and be absolutely useless.
> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software
Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy
like he solved this divide 20 years ago...

Oliver White.

Remove "stopspam" from the email to write me back personaly.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

Cyanide wrote in message <34DF21B8.717C4B1@stopspamiinet.net.au>...
>> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look
>> great
>> and be absolutely useless.
>> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>
>Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software
>Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy
>like he solved this divide 20 years ago...


Good for you. Just don't expect to ever understand non-software engineering
problem domains.
If you want to write software for engineers, you'll need to find an engineer
who can speak
both engineering and software and work very hard on the requirements
specifications (and
still don't trust them). In this kind of environment, plan to use
prototyping development,
so the engineers have a chance to trigger their minds to remember all those
"little" things
that were so "obvious" they forgot to mention them.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Edwin Purvee]

dogmat wrote in a message
> Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers
> would be willing to go back and spend 4+ years learning the
> intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a clue about
> numerical methods).
Hey!  I got an A in Numerical Methods just to let you know.

Ed
epurvee@mail.snu.edu

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steve Dekorte]

> > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
> > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

> The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person 
> has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it 
> to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of 
> any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.  

Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size 
of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life. 
That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)

---
Steve Dekorte 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Bill Lynch]

Steve Dekorte wrote:

> > > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
> > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the
> > > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
> > The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person
> > has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it
> > to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of
> > any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.
>
> Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size
> of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life.
> That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)
>

Or, even better, a management consultant. The bigger the doc, the bigger the
$$$$$.

Bill Lynch

> ---
> Steve Dekorte

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

Steve Dekorte wrote in message <6bqfb7$ilg$1@owl.slip.net>...

>Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size
>of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life.
>That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)


Just 4? The average time to finish a PhD has risen over the past few years,
to at least 5 or more.
But, what a great way to waste it. Best job ever. Far-off deadlines, your
own workhours, no suit and tie.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>, Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote:

> In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
> > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> 
> Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

Yeah, I once interviewed a guy with three PhDs.  I did wonder how I was
going to interview such a person, but it turned out that more was not
better.  He was the eternal student -- knew many things, but couldn't
connect the dots, even when talking about systems he supposedly designed. 
He was the best of students, but he didn't get the job.  

I assume that he really wanted to be a professor, but couldn't find an
academic post.  And, most professors I know very much can connect the dots
in their chosen field.

Joe Gwinn

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Larry Wiggins]

the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability....as
well as physics and chemistry....so there for, many programmer's with an
actual degree will do well, possibly better, because they will have been
formally taught these subject as well as structured programs....

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ben Pfaff]

Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes:

   the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
   notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
   college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
   linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability

That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know
anything about those subjects.  For instance, I learned most of the
relevant parts of these subjects well in advance of going to college
simply because I needed them to write the software that I wanted to
write.

   ....as well as physics and chemistry

Which are irrelevant for programmers unless you're writing software
for use with either of these subjects.

   ....so there for, many programmer's with an actual degree will do
   well, possibly better, because they will have been formally taught
   these subject as well as structured programs....

I haven't been impressed with the ability of the CS students I've met
to write structured programs.  All of the best programmers I've met
have been self-taught.

-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six
 feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 29 Jul 1999 14:40:30 -0400, Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu> wrote:
>Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes:
>
>   the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
>   notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
>   college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
>   linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability
>
>That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know
>anything about those subjects.  For instance, I learned most of the

Please don't reply to this thread. It's ancient articles reposted by
some idiotic M$ Exchange server. Look at the NNTP-Posting-Host.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>,
Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote:
>The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person 
>has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it 
>to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of 
>any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.  

Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management
position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role
involving the direct construction of the product.

The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily
translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for
several years on something whose components can't be tested until
it's all completed. :)

A good software project survives some turn-around of people. You don't
need the same engineers to be on it from start to finish. Some
engineers are better at the outset of a project, others are better at
tying it up.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael C. Kasten]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>,
> Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote:
> >The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person
> >has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it
> >to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of
> >any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.
> 
> Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management
> position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role
> involving the direct construction of the product.

Not at all.  Getting a PhD does not usually involve any training or
background in supervision, planning, budgeting, or company politics.
Instead, it involves immersion in a narrow and esoteric discipline
to the virtual exclusion of all other areas of knowledge.  A leader
or manager needs a completely different skill set and a broader
outlook.

That's not to say that a PhD could not successful lead others or
manage a project -- merely that one thing does not imply the other.

I don't know about other disciplines, but in biomedical sciences
(where I got my PhD), graduate students are a source of cheap
skilled labor for their mentors.  Once they graduate, they are
discarded into a shrinking labor market which has little use for
them.  Some of them wind up programming computers for a living.

> The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily
> translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for
> several years on something whose components can't be tested until
> it's all completed. :)

If a graduate student spends years on a project which eventually
fails, he or she probably won't *get* the PhD.  He'll get a Master's
degree as a consolation prize and be shown the door.
 
Michael C. Kasten	mck9@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/cobol/cobol.html

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk>,
Jeff Knaggs  <jeff.knaggs@cableol.co.uk> wrote:

TermInfo Compiler (utility program accompanying UNIX curses package).

>Token-Ring Interface Connector.
>
>
>> BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
>> command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
>> something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
>> specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).
>>
>> Bill Lynch

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com>,
Robert Garskof  <robert.garskof@snet.com> wrote:
>I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience.
>I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took
>a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some
>ethics as well.
>
>Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to
>think.
>
>Personally, I believe we make great programers.
>
>
>And it pays much better than metaphysics!

Say, did you ever cheat on a metaphysics exam by peering into the
soul of the person sitting next to you?

(Okay, I admit I *stole* that!)

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Garskof]

Yes.


-- 


/**************************************************************\
 * Robert Garskof                  | robert.garskof@snet.com  *
 * ICAS Development Team           | rgarskof@cris.com        *
 * Southern New England Telephone  |                          *
\**************************************************************/

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

>  But, there are over a dozen computer books out there.

er... have I missed something?

Oliver White
Lose the "stopspam" bit to mail me back.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Philip Hunt]

arnie sherman wrote:
> 
> to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
> 
> i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
> would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
> rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
> shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? 

C++ and Java.

> whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
> to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
> reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
> future.

If you want to get into web-based stuff, Java is particularly 
useful. Perl is also quite useful (for CGI scripts).

-- 
Phil Hunt                   phil@oyster.co.uk
Oyster Systems Ltd    http://www.oyster.co.uk