When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[Tucker Taft]

There is an old folk saying, that goes roughly:

   Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Readers of comp.lang.ada have recently been encouraged to cross-post
items to comp.programming.threads and comp.os.vxworks.  That sometimes
seems appropriate, but regular readers of those other news groups
definitely do not welcome gratuitous mentions of Ada just for the
sake of it.  

If there is something really meaningful to say that
relates to Ada, fine.  But don't go trying to convince everyone
in other newsgroups that Ada is the solution to all problems.
It wastes your time, and it annoys the reader of the other newsgroup.

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA

Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[Mike Silva]

I've been thinking about this since it was posted, and I agree that
gratuitous (key word!) Ada references are to be avoided.  Still, in many
language-neutral groups that are quite relevant to Ada there seems to be an
unspoken C/C++ "assumption".  I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to
post some form of Ada mini-FAQ to these groups, not covering the entire
language in detail, but focusing on those areas of the language which are
appropriate to the particular newsgroup.  Examples of language-neutral
groups that seem to beg for Ada info would be comp.arch.embedded,
comp.realtime, comp.robotics and comp.programming.threads (it's quite likely
that a single mini-FAQ could cover all of these groups).  I would see such
mini-FAQs as analagous to the CPU-specific FAQs posted in the first three
groups.  There are probably other, more general-purpose groups that could
also be considered.

Anyway, that's my thinking.  It seems a shame that so many groups where Ada
would be a natural never hear about it.

Mike

Tucker Taft wrote in message <38600FF9.4B3BE3CA@averstar.com>...
>There is an old folk saying, that goes roughly:
>
>   Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the
pig.
>
>Readers of comp.lang.ada have recently been encouraged to cross-post
>items to comp.programming.threads and comp.os.vxworks.  That sometimes
>seems appropriate, but regular readers of those other news groups
>definitely do not welcome gratuitous mentions of Ada just for the
>sake of it.
>
>If there is something really meaningful to say that
>relates to Ada, fine.  But don't go trying to convince everyone
>in other newsgroups that Ada is the solution to all problems.
>It wastes your time, and it annoys the reader of the other newsgroup.
>
>--
>-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
>Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
>AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA

Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <MOs84.22$WC4.4570@news.wenet.net>, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net> writes:
> I've been thinking about this since it was posted, and I agree that
> gratuitous (key word!) Ada references are to be avoided.  Still, in many
> language-neutral groups that are quite relevant to Ada there seems to be an
> unspoken C/C++ "assumption".  I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to
> post some form of Ada mini-FAQ to these groups, not covering the entire
> language in detail, but focusing on those areas of the language which are
> appropriate to the particular newsgroup.

I think a FAQ in that environment comes across as too evangelistic.
My preference is to wait until someone asks for a sample of code and
does not indicate that only C (or only Fortran) is acceptable. Then
giving them the solution in Ada can often get the point across but
with somewhat of a lower degree of rant.  Of course this works best
when what they are trying to do is a lot easier in Ada.

Larry KIlgallen

Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[Mike Silva]

Larry Kilgallen wrote in message <1999Dec23.140731.1@eisner>...
>In article <MOs84.22$WC4.4570@news.wenet.net>, "Mike Silva"
<mjsilva@jps.net> writes:
>> I've been thinking about this since it was posted, and I agree that
>> gratuitous (key word!) Ada references are to be avoided.  Still, in many
>> language-neutral groups that are quite relevant to Ada there seems to be
an
>> unspoken C/C++ "assumption".  I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to
>> post some form of Ada mini-FAQ to these groups, not covering the entire
>> language in detail, but focusing on those areas of the language which are
>> appropriate to the particular newsgroup.
>
>I think a FAQ in that environment comes across as too evangelistic.
>My preference is to wait until someone asks for a sample of code and
>does not indicate that only C (or only Fortran) is acceptable. Then
>giving them the solution in Ada can often get the point across but
>with somewhat of a lower degree of rant.  Of course this works best
>when what they are trying to do is a lot easier in Ada.


That's interesting, because I've always thought of FAQs as entirely
non-intrusive, which is why I suggested the possibility.  I've never seen
anybody complain about the posting of a FAQ.  While I agree that giving
Ada-specific answers to general questions is also legitimate, they *do*
often provoke people (e.g. "Oh, sure, I'm just going to toss out all my C++
code!" when no mention of the language was originally given -- the unspoken
assumption again), and they can often be "lost" in a non-intuitive or
specialized thread, meaning only a few people might notice them.  It'll be
interesting to see if there's a concensus here one way or the other.

Mike

Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[swhalen]

I'd vote for a combination of the two: Post the mini-FAQ you refer to
and when an opportunity arises, reply with a reference to the mini-FAQ
and a snippet of code appropriate to the topic showing how much "better"
the solution is in Ada (and reposting the mini-FAQ if it's been a 
while and might have scrolled off their news server).

Of course, I'm somewhat ambivalent about proselytizing Ada too much <g>.
To a certain degree, I consider using Ada a competitive advantage:
if "they" want to write bug riddled code in those other languages,
let them <g>!

Steve

Mike Silva <mjsilva@jps.net> wrote:

: Larry Kilgallen wrote in message <1999Dec23.140731.1@eisner>...
:>In article <MOs84.22$WC4.4570@news.wenet.net>, "Mike Silva"
: <mjsilva@jps.net> writes:
:>> I've been thinking about this since it was posted, and I agree that
:>> gratuitous (key word!) Ada references are to be avoided.  Still, in many
:>> language-neutral groups that are quite relevant to Ada there seems to be
: an
:>> unspoken C/C++ "assumption".  I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to
:>> post some form of Ada mini-FAQ to these groups, not covering the entire
:>> language in detail, but focusing on those areas of the language which are
:>> appropriate to the particular newsgroup.
:>
:>I think a FAQ in that environment comes across as too evangelistic.
:>My preference is to wait until someone asks for a sample of code and
:>does not indicate that only C (or only Fortran) is acceptable. Then
:>giving them the solution in Ada can often get the point across but
:>with somewhat of a lower degree of rant.  Of course this works best
:>when what they are trying to do is a lot easier in Ada.


: That's interesting, because I've always thought of FAQs as entirely
: non-intrusive, which is why I suggested the possibility.  I've never seen
: anybody complain about the posting of a FAQ.  While I agree that giving
: Ada-specific answers to general questions is also legitimate, they *do*
: often provoke people (e.g. "Oh, sure, I'm just going to toss out all my C++
: code!" when no mention of the language was originally given -- the unspoken
: assumption again), and they can often be "lost" in a non-intuitive or
: specialized thread, meaning only a few people might notice them.  It'll be
: interesting to see if there's a concensus here one way or the other.

: Mike






-- 
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}
                Steve Whalen     swhalen@netcom.com
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}

Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

[Marin D. Condic]

swhalen@netcom.com wrote:
> 
> I'd vote for a combination of the two: Post the mini-FAQ you refer to
> and when an opportunity arises, reply with a reference to the mini-FAQ
> and a snippet of code appropriate to the topic showing how much "better"
> the solution is in Ada (and reposting the mini-FAQ if it's been a
> while and might have scrolled off their news server).
> 
I think that the best way of evangelizing without becoming a nuisance is
to look at other groups for questions/problems that are somewhat general
in nature where one can respond with "The way I would do that is....."
and provide an Ada answer. Not a bad idea to throw in the usual pitches
such as: "Of course doing it in Ada gives you <insert benefit here> as
opposed to doing in in C/C++/Whatever where you have the problem of
<insert liability here>...." It provides some exposure to Ada and
illustrates the technical advantages without being on a soapbox or
trying to make others feel stupid/inferior for using whatever language
they are using.

People will understand and follow benefits, but they also tend to go
with what they know rather than the unknown. (That in itself is a
benefit). Gentle exposure to Ada helps make it something that they know.


> Of course, I'm somewhat ambivalent about proselytizing Ada too much <g>.
> To a certain degree, I consider using Ada a competitive advantage:
> if "they" want to write bug riddled code in those other languages,
> let them <g>!
> 
I understand. Ada is a competitive advantage and can be demonstrated as
such. However, the game is a little like Las Vegas: Casinos benefit by
the presence of other casinos because it creates a draw that brings more
people to town than a single establishment would. A small slice of a
really big pie is better than owning all of a very small pie.

MDC
-- 
=============================================================
Marin David Condic   - Quadrus Corporation -   1.800.555.3393
1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
http://www.quadruscorp.com/
m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m

Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." 
        --  Allan Meltzer, Economist 
=============================================================