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: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?
Date: 1998/02/14
Message-ID: <34E63087.3CB6@erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 325147383
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>
 <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net>
 <6c4eth$2kl$1@news.nyu.edu>
To: Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com
X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 887501008 24849 207.172.131.150 (15 Feb 1998
 00:03:28 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: <comp.lang.ada>


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