From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: The Goobers Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/14 Message-ID: <34E5AF16.7537@erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325042567 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net> <34E518AC.90FDDD3C@lancnews.infi.net> To: Steven B Mohler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 887467860 10618 207.172.128.1 (14 Feb 1998 14:51:00 GMT) Organization: BudNy Organisation Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: docdwarf@erols.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steven B Mohler wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > > > In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > Frank A. Adrian 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