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

[docdwarf@clark.net ()]

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