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: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/14 Message-ID: <6c4eth$2kl$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325053646 References: <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net> <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 887471857 2709 (None) 128.122.140.194 Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab 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: 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".