* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?
@ 1998-01-30 0:00 scott
1998-01-30 0:00 ` James Giles
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread
From: scott @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
coryb@magmacom.com wrote:
> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
> is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.
How does it cause problems?
Over the past 10 years, programming as an activity has
pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers
to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore,
because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects
in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex.
As a result, it's stratified. People who know asm and stuff are
writing OSes, components, and stuff. People use these
parts to assemble working systems at a high level.
Scott
--
Look at Softbase Systems' client/server tools, www.softbase.com
Check out the Essential 97 package for Windows 95 www.skwc.com/essent
All my other cool web pages are available from that site too!
My demo tape, artwork, poetry, The Windows 95 Book FAQ, and more.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? scott @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Graham Broadbridge 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) scott@softbase.com wrote in message <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us>...>Over the past 10 years, programming as an activity has >pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers >to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore, >because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects >in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex. To the extent that these layers actually manage complexity they have been of use. To a great extent, however, they have introduced unnecessary complexities of their own. Indeed, it is to the interest of companies developing and selling these layered systems and environments to do just that. -- J. Giles Ricercar Software ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? scott 1998-01-30 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Graham Broadbridge 2 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Charles W. Hall @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. The internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level language. The operating system software is designed by experts to properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, swapping, and scheduling. These are not the domain of the programmer. Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful operation of the car or computer system. Charles Hall scott@softbase.com wrote: > coryb@magmacom.com wrote: > > > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but > there > > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are > ignorant of > > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, > > operating systems, etc. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Jahfre ` (3 more replies) 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1 sibling, 4 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>, Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to >know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. The Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no benefit from knowing it. >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level >language. The operating system software is designed by experts to >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, >swapping, and scheduling. These are not the domain of the programmer. Not knowing how the paging works could lead the programmer to make poor choices for accessing some large structure. Scheduling is often the domain of the programmer; if you are working with threads, it is useful to know what priority inversion is and what strategies can be used to alleviate it. >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful >operation of the car or computer system. That is a poor analogy, because the operator of the car is a mere user. He or she is not constructing components to be added to the car. If someone were adding an air-conditioning system to the car, I might well expect them to be familiar with the electrical system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Jahfre 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Art/Jeannie Daly ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Jahfre @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I can hardly quit chuckling about this one . . . good thing no one expects programmers or engineers to know how to use metaphors. Anyway, to the point, there is a big difference between understanding the architecture of the system on which a software application is going to be running and the general statement that programmers are ignorant of the assembly code and internals of the operating system. The difference between traditional engineers and a software engineer is that the software engineer has to actually produce something that works and can be tested. Not every programmer is a software engineer. Some are simply programmers. I apologize to you engineers out there who may have actually taken a system you have designed and produced the final product from you engineering output. I'm sure some have. I'm also sure that those who have know exactly what I'm talking about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Jahfre @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Art/Jeannie Daly 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Ian Chivers 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Art/Jeannie Daly @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I have found that "English" pays the most...tho I have heard if you can program in Kanji you got 'er licked! sorry, art ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Jahfre 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Art/Jeannie Daly @ 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Ian Chivers 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Ian Chivers @ 1998-02-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6atbro$jnd$1@brie.direct.ca>, bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>, > Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: >>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done >>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to >>know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in >>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. The > > Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no benefit > from knowing it. > >>internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a >>correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level >>language. The operating system software is designed by experts to >>properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, >>swapping, and scheduling. These are not the domain of the programmer. > > Not knowing how the paging works could lead the programmer to make > poor choices for accessing some large structure. > whilst it may be possible NOT to know anything about the internal storage of arrays, this certainly helps when your problem has to handle large 2d and above arrays. handling the indices the wrong way would give very bad cache performance, and knowing something about page sizes certainly helps when looking at how badly your program may perform. if you are involved in mixed language programming then knowledge of this is essential. you'd be processing the wrong data. ian chivers king's college london > Scheduling is often the domain of the programmer; if you are working > with threads, it is useful to know what priority inversion is and > what strategies can be used to alleviate it. > >>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating >>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the >>internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful >>operation of the car or computer system. > > That is a poor analogy, because the operator of the car is a mere user. He or > she is not constructing components to be added to the car. > > If someone were adding an air-conditioning system to the car, I might > well expect them to be familiar with the electrical system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Ian Chivers @ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 3 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Edwin Purvee @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote in message <6atbro$jnd$1@brie.direct.ca>... >In article <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil>, >Charles W. Hall <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: >>Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done >>high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to >>know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in >>assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. The > >Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no benefit >from knowing it. > There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry. For high intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast enough. Ed epurvee@mail.snu.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee @ 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1999-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:41:23 -0500, Edwin Purvee <epurvee@mail.snu.edu> wrote: > >>Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no >benefit >>from knowing it. >> > >There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry. For high >intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are >creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast >enough. Please don't reply to this thread. It is year old articles that have been reposted by someone's broken MS Exchange server. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Paul Mesken @ 1999-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:27:45 GMT, kaz@ashi.FootPrints.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: >On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:41:23 -0500, Edwin Purvee <epurvee@mail.snu.edu> wrote: >> >>>Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you derive no >>benefit >>>from knowing it. >>> >> >>There is still great use for assembler in the video game industry. For high >>intensive graphics it is sometimes necessary to optimize functions that are >>creating bottlenecks to make sure that the graphics are rendured fast >>enough. > >Please don't reply to this thread. It is year old articles that have been >reposted by someone's broken MS Exchange server. Yeah, but it's still true. There's still a great use for Assembly :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Dennis Weldy ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Mad Hamish @ 1998-02-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall" <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to >know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical. > The >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level >language. True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware directly and there isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar to assembler. > The operating system software is designed by experts to >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, >swapping, and scheduling. Seen windows recently <g> > These are not the domain of the programmer. who shaved the barber? >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful >operation of the car or computer system. > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. >> coryb@magmacom.com wrote: >> >> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but >> there >> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are >> ignorant of >> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, >> > operating systems, etc. >> >> > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Dennis Weldy 1998-02-18 0:00 ` mei 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Rennie Allen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Dennis Weldy @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mad Hamish wrote in message <34ea25fa.2254805@newsroom.tassie.net.au>... >On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall" ><charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: > >>Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating >>system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the >>internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful >>operation of the car or computer system. >> > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like >criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. I agree with the above statement, although I assume programmer was a typo and user was actually meant ;-). While it can be very difficult to get a through understanding of proprietary systems, it is still a good idea to read the OS concepts books and Internals-type books so thatnyou will have a basic understanding of whats going on. It will help you be fluent in the OS/Platform. Dennis > >>> coryb@magmacom.com wrote: >>> >>> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but >>> there >>> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are >>> ignorant of >>> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, >>> > operating systems, etc. >>> >>> >> >> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Dennis Weldy @ 1998-02-18 0:00 ` mei 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Rennie Allen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: mei @ 1998-02-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mad Hamish wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall" > <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: > > >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and done > >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for programmers to > >know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program in > >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. > > For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical. > > > The > >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a > >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high level > >language. > > True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware directly and there > isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar to > assembler. > > > The operating system software is designed by experts to > >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, > >swapping, and scheduling. > > Seen windows recently <g> > > > These are not the domain of the programmer. > > who shaved the barber? > > >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating > >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the > >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful > >operation of the car or computer system. > > > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like > criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. > > >> coryb@magmacom.com wrote: > >> > >> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but > >> there > >> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are > >> ignorant of > >> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, > >> > operating systems, etc. > >> > >> > > > > > > I agree with mad Hamish. Besides how could anyone not want to know hoe the internals work. That's half the fun! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` mei @ 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Charles W. Hall @ 1998-02-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) mei wrote: > Mad Hamish wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall" > > <charles.hall@platinum.brooks.af.mil> wrote: > > > > >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and > done > > >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for > programmers to > > >know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program > in > > >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. > > > > For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical. As I pointed out, there are specialized cases where assembler is appropriate. However, > > > > > The > > >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a > > >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high > level > > >language. > > > > True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware > directly and there > > isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar > to > > assembler. Yes, but if you need to access hardware directly these days, you are no longer considered to be a high level language programmer. My comments were intended to point out the growing differences and specializations that have developed in the computer industry. > > > > > The operating system software is designed by experts to > > >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, > > >swapping, and scheduling. > > > > Seen windows recently <g> <Grin>. I said designed by experts-- the implementation can leave a lot to be desired. I had systems such as IBM's MVS and Digital's OpenVMS in mind--where teams of trained professionals have been working years to optimize the operating system. Microsoft Windows in nowhere near as good nor as clean an implementation, but it still provides these functions. > > > > > These are not the domain of the programmer. > > > > who shaved the barber? > I shave myself and that doesn't make me a barber.<grin> What's been happenning is a redefinition of terms as the industry grows more specialized. I would no longer class anyone who works on O.S. internals as a "programmer" as that term has become so generic as to be almost meaningless. Software engineer would seem to be appropriate, although the mechanical engineers I know have some definite opinions on us software types appropriating the word engineer. > > > > >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the > operating > > >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not > understanding the > > >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful > > >operation of the car or computer system. > > > > > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the > internals is like > > criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. Nope. Your reference to a racing team completely misses the point I was trying to make. The usual programmer today does not care how an operating system does its work, as long as it is reliable. Just as the typical auto owner doesn't understand the inside of the engine or transmission. He doesn't need to know--but he does need to know that if he steps on the gas or brake they will perform as expected--and who to contact when they don't. > I agree with mad Hamish. Besides how could anyone not want to know hoe > the internals > work. That's half the fun! What's fun to you is boring drudgery to others. I long ago stopped assuming that all people in the computer industry think alike--and started having more fun!! Charles ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Dennis Weldy 1998-02-18 0:00 ` mei @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Rennie Allen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Rennie Allen @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mad Hamish (h_laws@postoffice.utas.edu.au) wrote: [...] > >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the operating > >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not understanding the > >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful > >operation of the car or computer system. > > > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the internals is like > criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. Personally, I would be more inclined to draw the analogue this way: criticising a programmer (generic) for not knowing the fundamental principles of O/S's and processor architecture, is like criticising a automobile suspension system designer, for not knowing the fundamental principles of a internal combustion engine design and construction. While he may not have direct day to day exposure to the internals of the engine, it seems ludicrous given his background, and close association (and necessary inter-operation) with the ICE, that he wouldn't have a solid understanding of its design and construction. > >> coryb@magmacom.com wrote: > >> > >> > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but > >> there > >> > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are > >> ignorant of > >> > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, > >> > operating systems, etc. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Rennie Allen <rgallen@qnx.com> QNX Software Systems Ltd. 175 Terence Matthews Crescent (613) 591-0931 (voice) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 (613) 591-3579 (fax) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? scott 1998-01-30 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Graham Broadbridge 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Graham Broadbridge @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.cobol scott@softbase.com wrote: : coryb@magmacom.com wrote: : > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there : > is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of : > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, : > operating systems, etc. : How does it cause problems? You have to ask ? : Over the past 10 years, programming as an activity has : pulled itself up by its bootstraps and has created layers : to manage complexity. One person can't know it *all* anymore, : because there's too much to know. You could write COM objects : in ASM, but it would be ridicuously complex. : As a result, it's stratified. People who know asm and stuff are : writing OSes, components, and stuff. People use these : parts to assemble working systems at a high level. Some of us still are capable of writing Assembler, COBOL, and Java. We may not be the master of all, but sometimes a general working knowledge in all of them is a huge asset when used with specialised knowledge in a couple :-) I for one wish that CS graduates had a better level of the actual machine operations. And this is coming from a 70's IBM 'pull of the street and test for aptitude' programmer :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Broadbridge Home <grahamb@peachy.apana.org.au> Marsfield NSW Work <grahamb@nsw.unilink.oz.au> Australia AmprNet <vk2yui@gw.vk2yui.ampr.org> <vk2yui@amsat.org> Netmeeting: peachpitt.apana.org.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Graham Broadbridge @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) So all programmers should know their "roots"? Well, most programmers don't know how a transistor works, and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. So how far does someone have to dive in before they are "wellrounded"? Point is, this "stratification" is essential to getting work done. On the shoulders of others... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bpoea$rd1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> "dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> writes: >So all programmers should know their "roots"? Well, most programmers don't >know how a transistor works, and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. So >how far does someone have to dive in before they are "wellrounded"? 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. It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level, but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*, the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling issues and constraints. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-14 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Joseph T. Adams 2 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Kenner 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? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Will Rose 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg 2 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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!" 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. -- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Peter Hermann 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 2 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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". 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. As I see the current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to the level of your suposed challenge. 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. >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. 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. 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. If you have a problem with common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend. -- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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? > 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. > 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'? > 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. > >>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? > 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? > 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. > 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. DD k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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. 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. In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to them. In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end - 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 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". I believe that linguistic history and most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side. 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. I refuse to be engaged further. We are no longer amused. Go back under your bridge, Troll... -- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Sounds like some of you programmers need to "learn" about being more polite. That's the kind of "well-rounded" I'd like to see. Give it up. Please see a recent post about how the most stupid threads always seem to receive the most responses. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Ethics Gradient @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bvgli$3ie$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat <macdonaldrj@bv.com> writes >Sounds like some of you programmers need to "learn" about being more polite. >That's the kind of "well-rounded" I'd like to see. Give it up. Please see a >recent post about how the most stupid threads always seem to receive the >most responses. > And for that matter get sent to the most NG's that don't really care... -- Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon Thane Software email: ethics@bigfoot.com http://www.variance.demon.co.uk Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk "It's full of people" - Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a porgramming newsgroup. Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar and linguistics, I do know one thing. This is not the place for them you have given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing. I hope taht you are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is. Now I do believe that you have wasted enough of my time. Good bye. docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > In article <6bvea6$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 -- ___________________________ ____ _ ______ | \ \ / \___-=O`/|O`/__| \ Steven B Mohler \_______\ / | / (0} / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-| / / * \ | | /______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Mad Hamish @ 1998-02-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:15:22 -0500, Steven B Mohler <hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net> wrote: >If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a >porgramming newsgroup. Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar >and linguistics, I do know one thing. This is not the place for them you have >given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing. I hope taht you >are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is. Now I do believe >that you have wasted enough of my time. Good bye. > Absolutely, all because of a couple of grammatical nazis. It's just like having Hitler on the net. having applied Godwin's law hopefully this thread will die. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1998-02-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Kenner Richard Kenner wrote: > > In article <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> docdwarf@clark.net () writes: > >'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer" is' > > > >Simple enough, for most folks. > > I really hate to get involved in this relatively silly and definitely > off-topic thread, but since my offhand use of language started it, I thought > I'd make a short comment here. > > The reason I don't like a construction like that above is that it > repeats the subject noun and that sort of repetition is discourage in > well-written English. In order to prevent confusion subject-noun repetition is not discouraged, I believe, viz. 'John bought the widget with Fred but John paid the greater share'. > I do believe that "they are" is generally > acceptable at this point, but "that person is" is also an acceptable > way to write it, though English (unlike other languages) tends to, > over time, shorten common usages (e.g, "cellular phone" to > "cellphone") and so "that person is" is unlikely to survive long > compared to "they are". Writing for 'The Ages' now, are we? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. May i remind you that it is laziness not necessity that brought around most of the inventions in the world today. A machine that made it possible to do millions of calculations per second is not a neccesity but a time saver for people that prefer there time to be spent doing more important things. You may not think this is lazy but i sure as hell do. Lazy people are always the ones to do the work best the first time around knowing that screwing up is just making more work for yourself in the future so maybe instead of aruging over wether i should call you he or she you could go fix something in this world that people like you have screwed up so much. -- ___________________________ ____ _ ______ | \ \ / \___-=O`/|O`/__| \ Steven B Mohler \_______\ / | / (0} / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-| / / * \ | | /______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steven B Mohler Steven B Mohler wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > > > In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` WeeSaul 2 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Ethics Gradient @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. >> >> This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. -- Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon Thane Software email: ethics@bigfoot.com http://www.variance.demon.co.uk Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk "It's full of people" - Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient @ 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Flaagg @ 1998-02-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. > >> > >> > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it -or- put it there. mhm9x2 http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Flaagg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` Flaagg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Flaagg Flaagg wrote: > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. > > >> > > >> > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > -or- put it there. Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Anthony Jenkins 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Flaagg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > Flaagg wrote: > > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. > > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > > -or- put it there. > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? Yes. mhm9x2 http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` Flaagg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Anthony Jenkins 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Flaagg Flaagg wrote: > > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > > Flaagg wrote: > > > > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient > > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > > > > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. > > > > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > > > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > > > -or- put it there. > > > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > > Yes. You're sure about that? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-17 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Flaagg @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <34E8FB6B.3235@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > Flaagg wrote: > > > > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > > > > Flaagg wrote: > > > > > > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient > > > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > > > > > > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > > > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > > > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. > > > > > > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > > > > > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > > > > -or- put it there. > > > > > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > > > > Yes. > > You're sure about that? No. mhm9x2 http://www.navicom.com/~flaagg/sig.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Flaagg @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Flaagg wrote: > > In <34E8FB6B.3235@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > > Flaagg wrote: > > > > > > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > > > > > > Flaagg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In <AgYqkXAQ+440EwqZ@variance.demon.co.uk>, Ethics Gradient > > > > > <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> says... > > > > > > > > > > > In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes > > > > > > >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > > > > > > >Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where > > > > > > Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. > > > > > > > > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > > > > > > > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > > > > > -or- put it there. > > > > > > > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > You're sure about that? > > No. > How sad... I fear I have lost my white, powdered wig; there'll be the Devil toupee. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Anthony Jenkins 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Anthony Jenkins @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Flaagg wrote: > In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > Flaagg wrote: > > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > > > -or- put it there. > > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > Yes. The true question would be is it toasted? -- Anthony L. Jenkins (770)541-1500 ext. 117 mailto:anthonyj@softwarebuilders.com http://www.netzip.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Anthony Jenkins @ 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dave Hillstrom 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Vinay Mutha 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Sakurambo @ 1998-02-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, Anthony Jenkins wrote: > Flaagg wrote: >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... >> > Flaagg wrote: >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it >> > > -or- put it there. >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? >> Yes. > The true question would be is it toasted? I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses. Try Red Leicester. Sakurambo -- ____ _ /__ _]| / \/ |_ | / /\ _)| You're a load of useless bloody loonies! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Sakurambo @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dave Hillstrom 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Vinay Mutha 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Dave Hillstrom @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 18 Feb 98 22:06:11 +0000, Sakurambo <cherry@tomobiki.dcu> wrote: >Sakurambo >-- > ____ _ > /__ _]| > / \/ |_ | > / /\ _)| > >You're a load of useless bloody loonies! Nyk, you can be soooo sweet when you try. <swoon> - Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 meow minion1b wsd1 "Meowrrrreow!" - Flip, Calico Kitten Extraordinaire ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dave Hillstrom @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Vinay Mutha 1998-02-20 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Vinay Mutha @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) testing Sakurambo wrote: > Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, > Anthony Jenkins wrote: > > > Flaagg wrote: > > >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > >> > Flaagg wrote: > > >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it > >> > > -or- put it there. > > >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > > >> Yes. > > > The true question would be is it toasted? > > I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses. > > Try Red Leicester. > > Sakurambo > -- > ____ _ > /__ _]| > / \/ |_ | > / /\ _)| > > You're a load of useless bloody loonies! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Vinay Mutha @ 1998-02-20 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1998-02-21 0:00 ` Sakurambo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: WeeSaul @ 1998-02-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) testing Vinay Mutha wrote: >testing >Sakurambo wrote: >> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, >> Anthony Jenkins wrote: >> > Flaagg wrote: >> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... >> >> > Flaagg wrote: >> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: >> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't make it >> >> > > -or- put it there. >> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? >> >> Yes. >> > The true question would be is it toasted? >> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses. >> Try Red Leicester. >> Sakurambo >> -- >> ____ _ >> /__ _]| >> / \/ |_ | >> / /\ _)| >> You're a load of useless bloody loonies! I can accept that... WeeSaul mhm15x5 .-D I can... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-20 0:00 ` WeeSaul @ 1998-02-21 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1998-02-21 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Sakurambo @ 1998-02-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, WeeSaul wrote: > testing > Vinay Mutha wrote: >>testing >>Sakurambo wrote: >>> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, >>> Anthony Jenkins wrote: >>> > Flaagg wrote: >>> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... >>> >> > Flaagg wrote: >>> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: >>> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't mak >>> >> > > -or- put it there. >>> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? >>> >> Yes. >>> > The true question would be is it toasted? >>> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses. >>> Try Red Leicester. >>> Sakurambo >>> -- >>> ____ _ >>> /__ _]| >>> / \/ |_ | >>> / /\ _)| >>> You're a load of useless bloody loonies! > I can accept that... It's a random tagline. Honest Sakurambo -- ____ _ /__ _]| / \/ |_ | / /\ _)| If you think that you can truncate my sig to 75 chars, then you can just fu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-21 0:00 ` Sakurambo @ 1998-02-21 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sakurambo Sakurambo wrote: > > Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, > WeeSaul wrote: > > > testing > > > Vinay Mutha wrote: > > >>testing > > >>Sakurambo wrote: > > >>> Once upon a time in the land of alt.cesium, > >>> Anthony Jenkins wrote: > > >>> > Flaagg wrote: > > >>> >> In <34E84A8B.5DC4@erols.com>, The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> says... > > >>> >> > Flaagg wrote: > > >>> >> > > Grammar Confusion aside, all I know is this: > > >>> >> > > There is a cheese sandwich sitting on my monitor, and I didn't mak > >>> >> > > -or- put it there. > > >>> >> > Stilton, Muenster or Camelburke? > > >>> >> Yes. > > >>> > The true question would be is it toasted? > > >>> I hope not. They aren't really /toasting/ cheeses. > > >>> Try Red Leicester. > > >>> Sakurambo > >>> -- > >>> ____ _ > >>> /__ _]| > >>> / \/ |_ | > >>> / /\ _)| > > >>> You're a load of useless bloody loonies! > > > I can accept that... > > It's a random tagline. > > Honest This is not a pipe. Maybe. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Flaagg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: WeeSaul @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:10:56 +0000, Ethics Gradient <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes >>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, >>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> 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.' Correct English translation: The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" he is. ("he" used in a non-gender specific way) <see below> >>>>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? >This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where >Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. Thank you so very much... The English language pays far better than C++ or Java... Learn the language, use it well, my children... WeeSaul mhm15x5 .-D Sorry, didn't read the rest of the post... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Peter Hermann 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Peter Hermann @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote: > 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 ^^^^^^^ BTW, "generic" is one of the most charming and uselful keywords in Ada ;-) > singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here > for quite a while longer. The he/she-, his/her-nonsense will stop iin the far future when women will be truly emancipated, IMHO -- Peter Hermann Tel:+49-711-685-3611 Fax:3758 ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Peter Hermann @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Paulo Pena 1998-03-02 0:00 ` Mailuser 2 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Ethics Gradient @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> writes >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!" 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. And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. And it's nasty. -- Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon Thane Software email: ethics@bigfoot.com http://www.variance.demon.co.uk Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk "It's full of people" - Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Paulo Pena 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dik T. Winter 1998-03-02 0:00 ` Mailuser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Paulo Pena @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:09:08 +0000, Ethics Gradient <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote: >And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling >or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may >ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it >is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling recieved != received "i" before "e" except after "c" >perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. > >And it's nasty. > >-- >Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class >mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon >Thane Software >email: ethics@bigfoot.com >http://www.variance.demon.co.uk >Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk > >"It's full of people" >- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet. > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Paulo Pena @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dik T. Winter 1998-02-19 0:00 ` D J Mann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Dik T. Winter @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena) writes: > recieved != received > "i" before "e" except after "c" Except when it's weird. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dik T. Winter @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` D J Mann 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: D J Mann @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl>, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote: >In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena) > writes: > > recieved != received > > "i" before "e" except after "c" > >Except when it's weird. Or its name is Keith. David Mann -------------------------- please reply to jacobus (shift-2) pacbell point net -------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-19 0:00 ` D J Mann @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <6chq2d$hp8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net> D J Mann: |> In <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl> Dik T. Winter: |> >In <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> Paulo Pena: |> > > recieved != received |> > > "i" before "e" except after "c" |> > |> >Except when it's weird. |> |> Or its name is Keith. |> Or alias of wyrd. :) Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO ** 1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account. 2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn. 3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE. 4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748. Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-19 0:00 ` D J Mann 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** @ 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <6cigl4$m11@news.Hawaii.Edu> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-02-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6chq2d$hp8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>, D J Mann <liloldme@junkmail.net> wrote: >In article <EoMu4n.JpF@cwi.nl>, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote: >>In article <34ec472f.21442215@globo.edinfor.pt> eddsppa@edinfor.pt (Paulo Pena) >> writes: >> > recieved != received >> > "i" before "e" except after "c" >> >>Except when it's weird. > >Or its name is Keith. Or Sheila. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <6cigl4$m11@news.Hawaii.Edu>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <6cigl4$m11@news.Hawaii.Edu> @ 1998-02-20 0:00 ` Paul Stevenson 1998-02-20 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Paul Stevenson @ 1998-02-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes: > >>>> "i" before "e" except after "c" > > >>> Except when it's weird. > > >> Or its name is Keith. > > > Or Sheila. > > Or they're neighbors. Regarding neighbours, my English teacher told me the rule only applies to the sound 'ee' (with the exception of weird). One can put 'i' after 'e' easily in a lot of present participles: being, seeing... -- Paul Stevenson - http://psynet.net/pa - pa@psynet.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-20 0:00 ` Paul Stevenson @ 1998-02-20 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Stevenson Paul Stevenson wrote: > > tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes: > > > >>>> "i" before "e" except after "c" > > > > >>> Except when it's weird. > > > > >> Or its name is Keith. > > > > > Or Sheila. > > > > Or they're neighbors. > > Regarding neighbours, my English teacher told me the rule only applies > to the sound 'ee' (with the exception of weird). Was your teacher named O'Reilly? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Paulo Pena @ 1998-03-02 0:00 ` Mailuser 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Mailuser @ 1998-03-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ethics Gradient <ethics.gradient@variance.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian ><frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> writes >>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!" 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. >And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling >or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may >ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it >is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling >perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. >And it's nasty. >-- >Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class >mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon >Thane Software >email: ethics@bigfoot.com >http://www.variance.demon.co.uk >Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk >"It's full of people" >- Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Will Rose 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Will Rose @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The Goobers (docdwarf@erols.com) wrote: : 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. No. The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'. It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught, but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England. The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed. Will cwr@crash.cts.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Will Rose @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote: [snippismus] > >No. The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'. >It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught, >but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England. >The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed. I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind. I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to post an example? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jeff York 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Brown Alan Brown wrote: > > Come on, DD. Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language > the way the "well-educated in England" speak it. > I've tried to watch MTV but have found it tolerable only with the sound off... will that help? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jeff York 1998-02-13 0:00 ` docdwarf 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Jeff York @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Alan Brown" <abrown5@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote: >Come on, DD. Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language >the way the "well-educated in England" speak it. Methinks Sirrah, that thou hast a fine misaprehension of the Queen's English as she are spoke proper like... :-) -- Jeff. jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address) ... There's pleasure sure in being mad That none but madmen know... Dryden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jeff York @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-13 0:00 ` M.L. Scott 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34e43c04.259082867@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York <jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com> wrote: >"Alan Brown" <abrown5@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote: > >>Come on, DD. Just watch more MTV, and you'll learn the queen's language >>the way the "well-educated in England" speak it. > >Methinks Sirrah, that thou hast a fine misaprehension of the Queen's >English as she are spoke proper like... :-) How and much! There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons are to be ripened, certainly? Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated. Hello! DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` M.L. Scott 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: M.L. Scott @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 13 Feb 1998 14:39:59 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote: >>How and much! There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons >>are to be ripened, certainly? Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's >>new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest >>centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from >>benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated. I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with *most* of this. although I suspect that some of it may be a joke. Michael /* Law/mathematics student extraordinaire University of Queensland, Australia E-mail: s340350@*SPAMGUARD*student.uq.edu.au (try to find extraneous part, then delete same part) */ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` M.L. Scott @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: s340350 M.L. Scott wrote: > > On 13 Feb 1998 14:39:59 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote: > > >>How and much! There is greatness of pleasures had when new spring-melons > >>are to be ripened, certainly? Possibilities persist when schoolchildren's > >>new shoes are fermented; this is not in accord with latest > >>centrally-distributed refrigeration-cycles from > >>benevolently-appointed-for-life Authority Most Elevated. > > I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with *most* of this. although I > suspect that some of it may be a joke. What, doubting of veracity in statement? Clearness of new-dew morning, lion's-claw of Truth! Possibly the tractors are included in the bill of lading; perhaps the Minister of Culture's declaration of a Special Museum surprises. Hello! DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: tgg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) docdwarf@clark.net wrote: |I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in |BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind. False. That's bad grammar in the UK. ============================================================================ The above are my own views, not the views of HP Tom Gardner Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd, tgg@hpl.hp.com Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND. Fax: +44 117 9228924 Tel: +44 117 9799910 ext. 28192 ============================================================================ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` martin dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Gardner tgg@hpl.hp.com wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > |I am familiar with different rules of the plural being applied in > |BritSpeak, sure; 'the government are' and 'the ministry are' come to mind. > > False. That's bad grammar in the UK. How curious... if that is the case then I've frequently heard bad grammar used on the BBC International Broadcasts and in issues of The Economist. Is this a recent change in the rules which hasn't percolated up to the 'fuddy-duddy' levels inhabited in these August Organizations? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` martin dowie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: martin dowie @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The Goobers wrote: > > How curious... if that is the case then I've frequently heard bad > grammar used on the BBC International Broadcasts and in issues of The > Economist. Is this a recent change in the rules which hasn't percolated > up to the 'fuddy-duddy' levels inhabited in these August Organizations? > > DD sorry, you place too much trust in the Beeb to get that sort of thing right. the other evening i heard one the the bbc's reports refering to "mexico and other such towns" - it appears that a geography lesson or two could follow on from the grammer lesson... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: tgg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2793 bytes --] docdwarf@clark.net wrote: |In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote: |[snippismus] |> |>No. The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'. |>It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught, |>but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England. |>The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed. |I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to |post an example? You could find it from your desk... Use the Websters dictionary at www.m-w.com to find... Main Entry: they Pronunciation: '[th_]A Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse their, masculine plural demonstrative & personal pronoun; akin to Old English th�t that Date: 13th century <snip> 2 : PEOPLE 2 -- used in a generic sense <as lazy as they come> usage They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun requires an antecedent, however. The indefinite they is used in all varieties of contexts and is standard. usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns <and every one to rest themselves betake -- Shakespeare> <I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly -- Jane Austen> <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy -- W. H. Auden>. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons <'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech -- Shakespeare> <a person can't help their birth -- W. M. Thackeray> <no man goes to battle to be killed. -- But they do get killed -- G. B. Shaw>. The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best. ============================================================================ The above are my own views, not the views of HP Tom Gardner Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd, tgg@hpl.hp.com Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND. Fax: +44 117 9228924 Tel: +44 117 9799910 ext. 28192 ============================================================================ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg @ 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Gardner tgg@hpl.hp.com wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > |In article <887259454.521453@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote: > |[snippismus] > |> > |>No. The word 'they' is used here to mean 'he or she, gender neutral'. > |>It's an obsolescent form of the language, probably no longer taught, > |>but still relatively widely used among the well-educated in England. > |>The sentence, in British English at least, is well-formed. > > |I am unfamiliar with the precedent you cite; would you be so kind as to > |post an example? > > You could find it from your desk... Use the Websters dictionary at > www.m-w.com to find... I had previously admitted my error when a similar posting was made citing the OED... last I looked Webster's was more for American English, though, and the assertion was for BritSpeak. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Will Rose @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 2 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Eric Clayberg @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article <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? You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan ` (3 more replies) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1 sibling, 4 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Dietmar Stumpe @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Eric Clayberg wrote: > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article > <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? > > You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based > upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of > "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage > (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business > writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' > school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school > yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. > > -Eric I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important to use political correctness. LOL - Dietmar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Entwistle 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Chris Gray 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dietmar Stumpe wrote: > > Eric Clayberg wrote: > > > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article > > <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? > > > > You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based > > upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of > > "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage > > (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business > > writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' > > school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school > > yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. > > > > -Eric > > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important > to use political correctness. LOL > > - Dietmar I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they" if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was considered politer and more respectful. Patricia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Entwistle 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Chris Gray 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Entwistle @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Dietmar Stumpe wrote: > > > > Eric Clayberg wrote: > > > > > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article > > > <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? > > > > > > You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based > > > upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of > > > "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage > > > (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business > > > writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' > > > school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school > > > yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. > > > > > > -Eric > > > > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important > > to use political correctness. LOL > > > > - Dietmar > > I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they" > if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only > reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced > with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was > considered politer and more respectful. > > Patricia When did BLEARCH! enter the english language? Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Entwistle @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34E28393.5E83B809@san.rr.com>, Michael Entwistle <mikent@san.rr.com> wrote: >> > [much snippage] >> > > The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article >> > > > >> > > > BLEARGH! [more snippage] > >When did BLEARCH! enter the english language? Why, 'blearch' never entered the language, that is why I didn't use it... 'bleargh' was introduced in the early 1960's by Charles M Schulz in his comic strip... I seem to recall it was a favorite of Lucy Van Pelt when kissed by a dog. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Entwistle @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Chris Gray 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Chris Gray @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34E27698.BD17B223@acm.org> Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> writes: > I would have more sympathy with those who object to this use of "they" > if they also used "thee" and "thou". As far as I can tell, the only > reason those words were dropped from everyday language and replaced > with their corresponding plural was because the plural form was > considered politer and more respectful. Aye, thou hast a point there. But many peoples do likewise: a Frenchman sayeth "vous", a German "Sie" (or "Ihr"!), a Norseman "De" ... -- Chris Gray ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Stephen Taylor 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34E25602.4F93EF49@for-president.com>, Dietmar Stumpe <balou@for-president.com> wrote: > > >Eric Clayberg wrote: > >> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article >> <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? >> >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. >> >> -Eric > >I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important >to use political correctness. LOL I do not know where 'politics' of any sort fits into this, I *do* know that a perfectly acceptable substitute for this antecedant/consequent disagreement exists... but for some reason was not used. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Stephen Taylor 3 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:53:06 -0500, Dietmar Stumpe <balou@for-president.com> wrote: > > >Eric Clayberg wrote: > >> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article >> <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? >> >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. >> >> -Eric > >I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important >to use political correctness. LOL Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular antecedants going back to the 14th century. -- Michael M Rubenstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Tor Iver Wilhelmsen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: [snippage] > >Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English >Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular >antecedants going back to the 14th century. Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too. My OED is a moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence this wold? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 12 Feb 1998 15:10:02 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote: >In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, >Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >[snippage] >> >>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English >>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular >>antecedants going back to the 14th century. > >Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this >instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too. My OED is a >moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might >turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence >this wold? Certainly, I'm always happy to provide citations.. From the OED entry for "their": 3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of �his or her�, when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron. 2; nobody 1 b, somebody. (Not favoured by grammarians.) 13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon, Ai[th]er wit [th]er ouen light. c1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) l, Iche mon in thayre degre. 14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (K�lbing) Many a Sarazen lost their liffe. ... 1545 Abp. Parker Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it agreed among us that every president should assemble their companies. 1563 Win_et Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman being lang absent fra thair party. ... 1643 Trapp Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey hath their fashions, and garnishes. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones vii. xiv, Every one in the House were in their Beds. 1771 Goldsm. Hist. Eng. III. 241 Every person..now recovered their liberty. a1845 Syd. Smith Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do something with their existence. 1848 Thackeray Van. Fair xli, A person can�t help their birth. 1858 Bagehot Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their senses would describe Gray�s �Elegy� as [etc.]. 1898 G. B. Shaw Plays II. Candida 86 It�s enough to drive anyone out of their senses. Funny. I never thought of Shaw as "archaic." From the entry for "they": 2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= �he or she�). See Jespersen Progress in Lang. [section] 24. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163 b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 Fisher Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 Chesterfield Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 Whewell in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 Bagehot Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 Ruskin Crown Wild Olives [section] 38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. ... I have rendered thorn as [th] and the stylized S usually used for "section" as [section]. I've also elided cross references to quotes in other definitions. -- Michael M Rubenstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Rubenstein Michael Rubenstein wrote: > > On 12 Feb 1998 15:10:02 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote: > > >In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, > >Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >[snippage] > >> > >>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English > >>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular > >>antecedants going back to the 14th century. > > > >Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this > >instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too. My OED is a > >moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might > >turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence > >this wold? > > Certainly, I'm always happy to provide citations.. From the OED entry > for "their": > > 3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting > > a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every > one, etc. Also so used instead of �his or her�, when the > gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron. [snippage of citings] Well and good, then... I sit corrected and greatly appreciate your diligence and effort. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Tor Iver Wilhelmsen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Rubenstein wrote in message <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... ... >Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English >Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular >antecedants going back to the 14th century. The OED contains references of all kinds of usage. It is not a recommendation that the usage is listed there. I'm sure that there are numerous other usages listed there which no one would recommend. On the other hand, most uses of plural pronouns for singular antecedants that are listed actually have a pseudo-grammatical basis. There are a number of words that are syntactically singular, but whose usual application is to a large number of people. It is in these cases (and rarely any others) that uses of plural pronouns for 'singular' antecedents often occurred in the past. These are words like "everyone", "no one", "someone", "anyone", etc.. In general, the use of plural pronouns for the singular generic does nothing except reduce the efficiency of the language for its primary purpose: communication. It's not more polite. Indeed, the idea that it's impolite to use the traditional generic was *invented* by political activists who wanted a divisive rhetorical tool (it's actually deliberately impolite to complain about someone's use of the traditional generic). Now, there *were* (and still are) real sexist abuses of the language. To use feminine singular pronouns for generic individuals of only certain professions is sexist. To say "the teacher ... she", "the nurse ... she", or to refer to the generic secretary with "your girl can contact my girl" - these are all sexist. The correct traditional generic is to use the masculine singular for the generic member of *any* profession or group (with the obvious exception of mothers, wives, daughters, etc.). I believe that if these genuinely sexists uses of the language weren't ever used, the whole issue would never have arisen. -- J. Giles ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:09:21 -0700, "James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >Michael Rubenstein wrote in message ><34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... >... >>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English >>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular >>antecedants going back to the 14th century. > >The OED contains references of all kinds of usage. It is not a >recommendation that the usage is listed there. I'm sure that >there are numerous other usages listed there which no one >would recommend. > >On the other hand, most uses of plural pronouns for singular >antecedants that are listed actually have a pseudo-grammatical >basis. There are a number of words that are syntactically >singular, but whose usual application is to a large number of >people. It is in these cases (and rarely any others) that >uses of plural pronouns for 'singular' antecedents often >occurred in the past. These are words like "everyone", >"no one", "someone", "anyone", etc.. > >In general, the use of plural pronouns for the singular generic >does nothing except reduce the efficiency of the language >for its primary purpose: communication. It's not more polite. >Indeed, the idea that it's impolite to use the traditional generic >was *invented* by political activists who wanted a divisive >rhetorical tool (it's actually deliberately impolite to complain >about someone's use of the traditional generic). > >Now, there *were* (and still are) real sexist abuses of the language. >To use feminine singular pronouns for generic individuals of only >certain professions is sexist. To say "the teacher ... she", >"the nurse ... she", or to refer to the generic secretary with >"your girl can contact my girl" - these are all sexist. The correct >traditional generic is to use the masculine singular for the >generic member of *any* profession or group (with the obvious >exception of mothers, wives, daughters, etc.). I believe that >if these genuinely sexists uses of the language weren't ever >used, the whole issue would never have arisen. Of course the OED is descriptive and makes no claim to prescribe correct usage. In fact, in the definition for "their", which I've quoted in another post, it describes the usage as "not favored by grammarians." However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never even claimed to know what that means). It should have been clear that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost, but it is important to use political correctness." As the OED shows, this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl." -- Michael M Rubenstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Rubenstein wrote in message <34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... ... >However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never >even claimed to know what that means). It should have been clear >that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost, >but it is important to use political correctness." As the OED shows, >this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of >the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it >credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl." I looked through your list and could find none that actually used the plural pronoun to refer to a single person. They referred to non-empty collections of people that just happened to be introduced in a preceeding clause with a *grammatically* singular phrase (eg. "Many a Sarazen lost their life"). Clearly, the plural pronoun is referring to the many people that fit the initial noun phrase. The modern "political correctness" advacates would use the plural pronoun even when the antecedent is clearly singular. The worst of the bunch consist of such completely unnecessary combinations as "a man lost their wife" or "a girl had their bike stolen." Here, the pronoun referring to the poor widower could clearly have lost "his" wife with no sexism implied. And you really wonder who owned the bike the girl was associated with: your initial thought is that maybe the word order is wrong and it should have said "the girl had their stolen bike." What do you suggest is the meaning of "The pilot is in command of the flight crew and they are responsible for the safe operation of the plane."? If you were to say that the whole flight crew was collectively responsible for safety, you'd be wrong. The pilot is individually responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. The singular/plural ambiguity is more important than any percieved sexism in the language. Adopting plural pronouns for the singular generic merely decreases the efficiency of the language. Oh well. It's happened before (changes making the language less efficient). It'll probably happen again. -- J. Giles ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Benz 1998-02-13 0:00 ` James Giles 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:06:47 -0700, "James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >Michael Rubenstein wrote in message ><34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... >... >>However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never >>even claimed to know what that means). It should have been clear >>that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost, >>but it is important to use political correctness." As the OED shows, >>this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of >>the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it >>credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl." > >I looked through your list and could find none that actually used the >plural pronoun to refer to a single person. They referred to non-empty >collections of people that just happened to be introduced in a preceeding >clause with a *grammatically* singular phrase (eg. "Many a Sarazen lost >their life"). Clearly, the plural pronoun is referring to the many people >that fit the initial noun phrase. > >The modern "political correctness" advacates would use the plural pronoun >even when the antecedent is clearly singular. The worst of the bunch >consist of such completely unnecessary combinations as "a man lost >their wife" or "a girl had their bike stolen." Here, the pronoun referring >to the poor widower could clearly have lost "his" wife with no sexism >implied. And you really wonder who owned the bike the girl was >associated with: your initial thought is that maybe the word order >is wrong and it should have said "the girl had their stolen bike." > >What do you suggest is the meaning of "The pilot is in command of the >flight crew and they are responsible for the safe operation of the plane."? >If you were to say that the whole flight crew was collectively responsible >for safety, you'd be wrong. The pilot is individually responsible for the >safe >operation of the aircraft. The singular/plural ambiguity is more important >than any percieved sexism in the language. Adopting plural pronouns for >the singular generic merely decreases the efficiency of the language. > >Oh well. It's happened before (changes making the language less efficient). >It'll probably happen again. Obviously you are very bothered by this. So bothered that you didn't notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall into that category. It was not talking about a specific individual. How is The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are. different from A person can�t help their birth. I'm afraid I just don't share your concern about the "efficiency" of the language. We've survived the use of the plural pronoun for the second person singular. From the OED definition of "you": Originally the accusative and dative plural of the second personal pronoun: see thou for the declension of the 2nd pers. pron. in OE. and ME. Between 1300 and 1400 it began to be used also for the nominative ye, which it had replaced in general use by about 1600. During the 14th century it also appears as a substitute for the singular obj. thee and nom. thou, being originally used in token of respect in addressing a superior, but later also to an equal, and ultimately generally: cf. thou 1. Thus you is now the general pronoun of the second person, nominative or objective, singular or plural.] Languages change. -- Michael M Rubenstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Benz 1998-02-13 0:00 ` James Giles 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Benz @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... > Languages change. What, AGAIN!??? I'm just getting used to ANSI prototypes!!!! Tell that !@#$%^ standards committe to keep *their* hands off *my* C syntax!!! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Benz @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-17 0:00 ` K. C. Putnam 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Rubenstein wrote in message <34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... ... >Obviously you are very bothered by this. So bothered that you didn't >notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall >into that category. It was not talking about a specific individual. Evidently you didn't read my articles. I didn't address the original example at all. And no, the original example doesn't bother me. In fact, I use that kind of phrase all the time ("if everyone would raise their glasses in a toast"). What does bother me is people using the plural when it actually makes their statement *false*. Such as the sample I wrote about the pilot's responsibilities. Another thing that bothers me is usage which scrambles the meaning so badly that it can't be followed clearly: "the man lost their wife to cancer." Whose wife? Was the man (who is the subsect of the sentence) one of those married to her? Is this a story about cancer or bigamy? (This example was heard on CNN.) Finally, what bothers me is to be told that my occasional use of the traditional generic is sexist. It isn't. Indeed, it is the reader who makes such an accusation that is being impolite. The reader who interprets the use of the traditional generic as sexist is the one making the decision to exclude women from the domain of those the writing is about. This is true regardless of the intent of the writer. -- J. Giles ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-13 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` K. C. Putnam 1998-02-17 0:00 ` gypsy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: K. C. Putnam @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I have read this thread particularly with regard to the "sexist" thing. Even the "he or she" is not perfect. It omits those of questionable or ambiguous gender. My solution is to combine all of the pronouns into one. Sheheit! Say it real fast. Casey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-17 0:00 ` K. C. Putnam @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` gypsy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: gypsy @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) K. C. Putnam <casey@logic.net> wrote in article <34E9A0CE.1F70@logic.net>... > I have read this thread particularly with regard to the "sexist" > thing. Even the "he or she" is not perfect. It omits those of > questionable or ambiguous gender. My solution is to combine all > of the pronouns into one. Sheheit! Say it real fast. > > Casey > I, too, have been following this thread...and while some very convincing arguments have been made on all sides, still haven't been convinced. (Although I agree with the sentiment contained in sheheit :)) This particular "glitch" in english grammar will never really be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. One of the greatest disadvantages of general public literacy is that language doesn't mutate/evolve as quickly as it has in times of wide spread illiteracy. Predominantly, this is due to "authorities" putting down in print "the rules". Just like any Computer language you care to examine, English is a "multi-function" language...what I am trying to say is that there are many different ways of saying the same thing (QED). It is, despite all Grammar School Teachers' best efforts, completely up to the speaker how the point is gotten across... Personally, I use "he is", "he or she is", "one is", and "they are" depending a) on my mood, and b) on my listener-- as the point of communicating is to get the point across and the best way to do so is to determine which method of speech will best achieve that depending on the audience. 'Kay then...that's my 2 cents worth...which is about all it's worth :) -- Lucretia M. Pruitt gypsy@planet10.dimensional.com ******************************************** "I was talking to myself about a piece of code the other day...and we were wondering if we should get a third opinion on it..." LMP ******************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Tor Iver Wilhelmsen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Tor Iver Wilhelmsen @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:52:54 GMT, miker3@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rubenstein) uttered: >Apparently the language was lost a long time ago. The Oxford English >Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular >antecedants going back to the 14th century. Webster's - which Americans seem to prefer to the OED - lists the singular use of "they" as "Nonstandard". :-) It also lists the word as being of Scandinavian origin, a common base for several English words. (We did get around a bit around SY 1000. :-) ) -- "Between our dreams and actions lies this world." - Bruce Springsteen, "Dead Man Walking" Tor Iver Wilhelmsen toriw@online.no ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Stephen Taylor 1998-02-12 0:00 ` John W. Lewellen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Stephen Taylor @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dietmar Stumpe wrote: >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important > to use political correctness. LOL Political correctness? I'd call this 'politeness'. The phrase 'political correctness' is just a rock people use to hit other people with when they're too intellectually lazy to argue coherently with them. In this instance, using 'they' as a genderless replacement for 'he' loses precision with respect to number (bad) while gaining accuracy with respect to gender (good). The language will be lost because of this? > - Dietmar Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Taylor steve@afs.net.au Applied Financial Services Phone: +61 3 9670 0233 Fax: +61 3 9670 5018 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Stephen Taylor @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` John W. Lewellen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: John W. Lewellen @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Taylor wrote: > > Dietmar Stumpe wrote: > > >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based > >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of > >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage > >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business > >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' > >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school > >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. > > > I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important > > to use political correctness. LOL > > Political correctness? I'd call this 'politeness'. > > The phrase 'political correctness' is just a rock people use to hit > other people with when they're too intellectually lazy to argue > coherently with them. > > In this instance, using 'they' as a genderless replacement for 'he' > loses precision with respect to number (bad) while gaining accuracy with > respect to gender (good). The language will be lost because of this? The language - and everything else - is lost when someone will go to absurd lengths to avoid the potential of giving offense to someone else. There is a relatively easy solution: redefine "he" "his" "him" etc. to refer to both men and women (i.e. singular person, male or female), keep "she" etc. as referring to a female exclusively (or change it, but since it's already around, why not use it), and define "khe" (or some other letter prefix that's easy to pronounce) "kis" "ker" etc. as referring to a male exclusively. If you *really* want equality in reference, then make the language convenient to do so. This way you can also avoid all the arguments about women being diminished by their references being tack-ons to men's references. (Case in point.) Regards, - John L. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | John Lewellen Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab.| | Lewellen@aps.anl.gov Opinions expressed above are solely mine | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>, Eric Clayberg <clayberg@smalltalksystems.com> wrote: >The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article ><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? > >You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >upon what is being taught in schools these days. That is precisely why I asked that particular question. >The sex-neutral use of >"they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >(including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >school). Would you be so kind as to post an example of this? > I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school >yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. We shall see... thanques for the info! DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com> @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>, Eric Clayberg <clayberg@smalltalksystems.com> wrote: >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6bv2oe$8sp@clarknet.clark.net>... >> In article <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>, >> >> >You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >> >upon what is being taught in schools these days. >> >> That is precisely why I asked that particular question. >> >> >The sex-neutral use of >> >"they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >> >(including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >> >writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >> >school). >> >> Would you be so kind as to post an example of this? > >For someone how is so concerned about the purity and preciseness of >language, I'm surprised you would ask such an ambiguous question. The World is full of lovley surprises... what is Life without a bit of Uncertainty? >What are >you referring to by "this"? Do you mean: > [snippage] > >3) An example of it being taught in a business writing course? Exactly. >Mine was >over seven years ago, so I am not inclined to dig any of that stuff out of >the attic (assuming I still have it). I do recall quite clearly that the >word "they" was taught to be an acceptable gender-neutral *singular* >pronoun for business communication. This is the crux of my problem... memory is a rather... 'malleable' medium whereas a text is a bit more enduring. There can easily be a bit of difference between 'I remember the book as saying' and looking into the actual texts, hence my request. >I recall it so clearly because (at the >time) it struck my ear as being odd as well. It strikes me oddly as well, which is why I ask for a text to which I might refer rather than the vagaries of memory. >The usage is so common now >that I don't even notice it and actually use it myself when the need >arises. The ability to change is also wonderful, aye. > >Languages are living things. New words enter them and old words fall out of >use all the time. New meanings and usage patterns for old words are >introduced regularly (if not the dictionary folks would have been out of >work long ago). I could not agree more; were this not the case we would all be speaking as did Chaucer. >What you might perceive as a crisis for the language, I >perceive as a natural evolution. I do not recall my calling anything a 'crisis'... a 'crisis' is an 'AAAIIIEEEE!!!', I used a simple 'BLEARGH!'. >Just as our ancestors would be appalled at >how we have distorted the language over the years, so must we be appalled >at how our children will continue to distort the language in the future >(and the present <g>). As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. >As I said before, you might as well get used to it. Compare and contrast (another... distasteful and overused phrase) this sentiment with Thomas' admonition about not going gently into the night... hee hee hee. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rot13 Klein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) docdwarf@clark.net wrote: As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Who uses German anymore, Enlish has become the lingua franca :-) If a French female dog could talk, would *they object to being called 'Le chien' ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Rot13 Klein Michael Rot13 Klein wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > As we say in German, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. > > Who uses German anymore, Enlish has become the lingua franca You mean it is no longer Spanish? Quelle fromage! > > :-) > > If a French female dog could talk, would *they object to being called > 'Le chien' ? If a French female dog could talk *she* might object to being called 'le' anything. DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers @ 1998-02-14 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Joseph T. Adams 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: cyanide @ 1998-02-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the > knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level, > but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of > architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*, > the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling > issues and constraints. A general knowledge of solid state physics would probably require a knowledge of quantum physics, which in turn may give the possesor of such knowledge great influence with the science of programing computers relying on quantum uncertainty to carry out their calculations... I mean sure Gates will write a VB compiler for it, but for those of us who take our software seriously it *may* be possible to introduce entirerly new and *better* methods of software engineering. In the same way, one would be prudent to keep an eye on DNA computing in the near future, even if you do need to use a bit of bio-chem to understand it. If my father had stuck with his job as a typesetter, I would probably be too poor now (yeah I still live with my folks) to afford this computer. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- These views do not nessesarily reflect the views of the CIA... er... *ahem* Larry's Pizza, Cnr Main, Harboyle St, Il. --------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-14 0:00 ` cyanide @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Joseph T. Adams 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Joseph T. Adams @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard Kenner (kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu) wrote: : : It's hard to see how a programmer could make anything of use with the : knowlege of how a transistor works at the solid-state physics level, : but a programmer would certainly have a better perspective of : architectural issues if they knew basically what a transitor *did*, : the differences between bipolar and MOS, and something about scaling : issues and constraints. Sheesh. Any first-year psych student knows that (a) bipolar = manic depressive, and (b) MOS = metal oxide semiconductor, an alternative form of therapy prescribed when lithium doesn't work. :) Seriously, I used to understand all about analog electronics, but the microprocessor revolution totally wiped out the field - electronic engineering - in which I had originally trained. Needless to say, I adapted to the brave new digital world, as we all have. But I adapted one level of abstraction at a time - first TTL gates, then CMOS, then simple CPUs, then advanced CPUs (68x00) with assembly, then Basic, then dBase, then VFP, back to C/C++/Java which I somehow missed, on to 2- and 3-tier distributed databases running on heterogenous platforms, and now a fairly eclectic (hodgepodge?) mix of every level of abstraction that is appropriate to the task at hand. I don't remember what the hell "bipolar" really means or which way electrons really flow, although for some odd reason I still remember what flip-flops and emitter followers look like. :) But having once had that information, I do at least remember where to look it up if I need to know. Similarly, while I very seldom have need to write assembler, I know that if I ever needed to, I could. There is something to be said for having at least rudimentary knowledge of *how* things work. Let's face it, there are tons of VB and Java programmers out there who learned programming by writing Excel macros. That's not a slight against VB or Java or for that matter Excel; but honestly, I don't think those folks will ever replace academically and/or professionally trained software engineers. They operate at very high levels of abstraction, which is absolutely fine, but someone has to operate at the lower levels if for no other reason than to build and optimize the tools which everyone else depends on. I myself like the higher levels of abstraction - except when I need to tweak things for maximum performance, or directly control hardware. But it's really cool to be able to pick my own spot on that ladder, and to be able to climb forwards or backwards and still have at least the beginnings of a clue about what's going on. :) Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Joseph T. Adams @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6carua$hoi$1@nerd.apk.net> joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) writes: >I myself like the higher levels of abstraction - except when I need to >tweak things for maximum performance, or directly control hardware. >But it's really cool to be able to pick my own spot on that ladder, >and to be able to climb forwards or backwards and still have at least >the beginnings of a clue about what's going on. :) Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. Programmers are more effective when they have the ability to descend arbitrarily deeply into the system to figure out why something doesn't work. Of course, that ability is often sabotaged nowadays by lack of availability of the require documentation: if an application blows up on a PC, all you can do is throw your hands up no matter how much CS and EE knowlege you have. But if you're running GNU/Linux or GNAT/RTEMS or similar Free Software on a piece of hardware that your company has designed, so you have all the require documentetion, being able to operate at any level makes one quite valuable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? @ 1997-12-19 0:00 James Giles 1997-12-22 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1997-12-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>... > > >James Giles wrote: ... >> There's no excuse for this attitude >> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that >> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses. >> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness >> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and >> efficient. > >And windows with its DLLS is? What of the security problems in IE4? ... Exactly what I said. Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his lessons well. He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the stage. He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and 'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence. He just figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades. To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that the lesson was clearly understood. If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others) would be out of work. The ratio of installed systems to system maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to 1000 (or higher). -- J. Giles Ricercar Software ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-19 0:00 Which language pays most 17457 " James Giles @ 1997-12-22 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-12-21 0:00 ` James Giles 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-12-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: > >steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>... >> >> >>James Giles wrote: >... >>> There's no excuse for this attitude >>> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that >>> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses. >>> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness >>> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and >>> efficient. >> >>And windows with its DLLS is? What of the security problems in IE4? ... > >Exactly what I said. Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his >lessons well. He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the >stage. The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix has very little relevance here. > He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX >was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and >'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence. Please state your sources. > He just >figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own >systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades. >To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that >the lesson was clearly understood. Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll. >If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most >of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others) >would be out of work. The ratio of installed systems to system >maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio >of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to >1000 (or higher). What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)? When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-22 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-12-21 0:00 ` James Giles 1997-12-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: James Giles @ 1997-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>... >In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> > jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: ... >>Exactly what I said. Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his >>lessons well. He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the >>stage. > >The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was >an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix >has very little relevance here. On the contrary. The stage was the choice between, first CP/M and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation) and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine if you bought the mini). That was the percieved choice of business users circa 1980. DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the other choice. They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time. Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional personel to support UNIX but not DOS. I remember this because I was there. I was rather amused by the debate at the time because it didn't have much to do with me: at work I used mainframes (which no one in those days would have suggested using UNIX on) and at home I was a hobbyist without the means to buy either a mini or a high-cost workstation. A few years later I had a SUN on my desk at work though (can't say I was impressed, but it did have a really big screen). >Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system >built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything >from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he >didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll. To be sure, UNIX has better security than DOS and Windows (which have none at all) but it's not really very secure. In any case, when I mentioned security as a desirable asset, I had in mind comparing the system to other multi-user systems. Only one UNIX implementation I've ever heard of met Orange Book category B requirements (at the lowest level of category B and only with enormous changes to how it did security). Systems exist (or used to, before the UNIX revolution) which meet category B and impose less of a burden on users in terms of confusion and maintenence than UNIX security does. And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's *defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software. What kind of a defense is that? Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that assessment (including the person who originally said it). ... > [...] The ratio of installed systems to system >>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio >>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to >>1000 (or higher). > >What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean >systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)? CTSS (Cray, at DOE labs) used to support several thousand users with a system maintenence staff of about a half a dozen. And, that was not a mass-produced system, but an internally produced one (you'd expect an in-house system to have *more* maintenence problems, not less). UNIX installations supporting this number of users invariably require many times the support staff. (In spite of the fact that they're now running a vendor-supplied and vendor-supported UNIX, I understand the labs have *more* of their own personel doing system support than before.) Furthermore, the users in such an environment tend to be more demanding (full contact programming: their applications are always right on the edge of what's actually computationally feasible on the fastest hardware available) and UNIX doesn't provide the same performance and reliability as CTSS did. >When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive. Yes, and UNIX manages to be both a burden and non-secure at the same time. For example, having each file independently specify access permissions *sounds* like a convenient thing, but it increases the burden. Most people forget to set or check their settings and/or set all their files with the same privilages. Doing so fails to use even what security UNIX has. Of course, the access privilages of files are a way in which the users themselves can contribute to system insecurity, but they aren't in themselves they main causes of UNIX being insecure. That rests in a lot of other bad design decisions. I'm not saying that security never introduces a burden on the user, but it is possible to design a security system that is less burdensome than what UNIX has and yet is more secure. Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to me on this. Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; that ideas for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've described *might* have merit. The only people I can think of who'd actually oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are to maintain the existing ones. Well, argue it out among yourselves and Happy Holidays. I'm leaving and probably will not see another round of this "discussion". -- J. Giles Ricercar Software ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-21 0:00 ` James Giles @ 1997-12-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-12-30 0:00 ` paulr 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-12-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: > >Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>... >>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> >> jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: >... >>>Exactly what I said. Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his >>>lessons well. He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the >>>stage. >> >>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was >>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix >>has very little relevance here. > >On the contrary. The stage was the choice between, first CP/M >and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation) >and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine >if you bought the mini). Unix wasn't even a major player at the time, certainly not for business systems. It tended to be a secondary OS available for systems supplied by companies like DEC who pushed their own major OSs such as VMS. Unix was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities. > That was the percieved choice of business users >circa 1980. DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the >other choice. Nonsense. Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed. It came well down on the list of "other choices" for business systems. > They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for >the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time. What is your definition of "relaiblae"? >Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional >personel to support UNIX but not DOS. If you are talking about more than one system administrator you are talking about a large system well out of DOS's league, or you are talking about hardware and networking issues which DOS couldn't even support at all. ... >And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's >*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems >software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software. What kind of >a defense is that? Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that >assessment (including the person who originally said it). I certainly agree there. In my experience Unicx systems stay up until you have a reason to take them down. ... >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to >me on this. Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the (anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was. >that ideas >for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've >described *might* have merit. The only people I can think of who'd actually >oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are >to maintain the existing ones. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-12-30 0:00 ` paulr 1997-12-31 0:00 ` Which language pays most " arnie sherman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: paulr @ 1997-12-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Well actually, most of the "advanced" features in DOS *were* copied almost directly from UNIX, which Microsoft happened to have a stake in at the time. (i.e. Xenix) A *lot* of things we take from granted come from UNIX, and UNIX servers are very hot- the only things that easily overmatch them are mainframes, and even there they are giving ground. :) -Paul : >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to : >me on this. Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems : >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; : Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific : comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the : (anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying : that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-30 0:00 ` paulr @ 1997-12-31 0:00 ` arnie sherman 1997-12-30 0:00 ` Dann Corbit ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: arnie sherman @ 1997-12-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to return briefly to the original topic of this thread: i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), & would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++, even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc. whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate future. any thoughts? thanks arnie sherman arnie@diac.com http://www.diac.com/~arnie please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-31 0:00 ` Which language pays most " arnie sherman @ 1997-12-30 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 1997-12-31 0:00 ` John Slaman 1998-01-02 0:00 ` Philip Hunt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Dann Corbit @ 1997-12-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>... >to return briefly to the original topic of this thread: > >i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), & >would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but >rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the >shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? Depends on what you want to do. >i am guessing c & c++, >even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined >programming environment. Once you have learned smalltalk, C++ will be fairly easy to learn (though templates will be something of a departure). Once you know C++, C will be easy to learn. Why not learn them all? It's really not all that difficult to pick up a new programming language. Each language has strengths and weaknesses. The more you know, the better you will be as a programmer. Besides that, each teaches some new concepts that you can carry over to your design skills. >additionally, i am primarilly interested in >graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc. Sounds like C, C++, and Assembly to me, but I suspect that some of that goes on in most programming disciplines. >whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want >to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also >reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate >future. Why not learn Java too? Go pick up a book from your local library. In one day or so, you will know if you want to pursue it. Look through your local Sunday paper. Find out what kind of work the programmers in those disciples do in your area. If it sounds like something you would enjoy, focus on that target. -- C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9. Want Software? Algorithms? Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-31 0:00 ` Which language pays most " arnie sherman 1997-12-30 0:00 ` Dann Corbit @ 1997-12-31 0:00 ` John Slaman [not found] ` <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net> 1998-01-02 0:00 ` Philip Hunt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: John Slaman @ 1997-12-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Which language will make you employable in the shortest amount of time ? Microsoft's Visual Basic 5 Why - easy to learn - large market - it's in demand (because systems written in VB need to be rewritten every couple of years) Words of caution - you will never be respected (and rightly so) - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the people doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). Regards arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>... >to return briefly to the original topic of this thread: > >i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), & >would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but >rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the >shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++, >even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined >programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in >graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc. > >whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want >to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also >reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate >future. > >any thoughts? >thanks >arnie sherman > >arnie@diac.com >http://www.diac.com/~arnie >please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net> @ 1998-01-06 0:00 ` Jedi 1998-01-10 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Jedi @ 1998-01-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> wrote: > John Slaman <john.slaman@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article > <68dm0i$brv1@news.fiberlink.net>... > > > > Microsoft's Visual Basic 5 > > > > Words of caution > > - you will never be respected (and rightly so) > > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no > > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the This is not true, in our shop the COBOL programmers and the VB programmers are paid the same. Anyone with knowlege and skill is respected. We encourage cross-training at all levels. There is movement usually from COBOL programmer to VB programmer. I haven't seen any return back once they leave the Mainframe developing arena. One thing I have seen is once a COBOL programmer learns VB, there seems to more of a chance of that programmer finding a better position with another company. Learning VB will definitely add to your worth as a programmer. > people > > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). > > The majority of our people who are hiring were once programmers. > > - Never respected by clods like you perhaps. You don't know what you are > talking about. > - The pay is excellent IF you know what you are doing and are not just > another bozo who read a 21 days book. New Technology + High demand = $$$. You have to start somewhere. > If you can architect enterprise scale n-tier solutions with VB you can > write your own ticket right now. You don't know what you are talking > about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net> 1998-01-06 0:00 ` Jedi @ 1998-01-10 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Highlander Consulting @ 1998-01-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dan wrote: > > Words of caution > > - you will never be respected (and rightly so) > > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no > > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the > people > > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are self-taught aren't that great. I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry. However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into offering me a job in software development. Can you tell me why-when I don't have a CS degree-that I was offered a job?? I have to say that, although I think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to make a good programmer. The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a common goal is more important than learning a particular language. Sure, learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any* language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire you. A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be motivated. Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree. I think that the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference. I have proven my aptitude for problem solving. Programming is only a translation step after that. Robert Herrick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-10 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting @ 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Carsten Arnholm ` (3 more replies) 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1 sibling, 4 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>, Highlander Consulting <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Dan wrote: > >> > Words of caution >> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so) >> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no >> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the >> people >> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). > >I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are >self-taught aren't that great. I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry. >However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into >offering me a job in software development. Can you tell me why-when I don't >have a CS degree-that I was offered a job?? I have to say that, although I I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with experience other than in analytical chemistry. I can't imagine anyone getting a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker in your undergraduate days and beyond. :) >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to >make a good programmer. The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a >common goal is more important than learning a particular language. Sure, But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts? Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for a software development position? >learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any* >language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire >you. A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be >motivated. Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree. I think that >the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference. I have proven >my aptitude for problem solving. Programming is only a translation step after >that. Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's. Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential. Just no software experience. Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not revealing the whole picture. There is more to your background than just the three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job, and immediately perform in that job as well. Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Carsten Arnholm 1998-01-15 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Carsten Arnholm @ 1998-01-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku <bill@cafe.net> wrote in article <699ndn$4fn$1@brie.direct.ca>... > In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>, > I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with > experience other than in analytical chemistry. I can't imagine anyone getting > a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma > Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on > campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker > in your undergraduate days and beyond. :) > > >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other > >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to > >make a good programmer. The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into > >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a > >common goal is more important than learning a particular language. Sure, > > But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that > the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able > to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts? > > Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for > a software development position? or: Would you automatically recommend a degree in CS for an analytical chemistry position ? The argument goes both ways, does it not ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Carsten Arnholm @ 1998-01-15 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1998-01-16 0:00 ` Charles F Hankel 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Paul Groves 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Highlander Consulting @ 1998-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with > experience other than in analytical chemistry. I can't imagine anyone getting > a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma > Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on > campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker > in your undergraduate days and beyond. :) I didn't say that I wasn't a hacker or that I didn't have any computer experience. My point was that earning a CS degree doesn't imply good programming skills. > But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that > the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able > to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts? Yes, I think that those skills are among those necessary to be a good programmer. If a programmer has no ability to analyze problems and create a logical solution, then he is not a good programmer. > Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for > a software development position? No, but that also wasn't my point. > Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not > revealing the whole picture. There is more to your background than just the > three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone > with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job, > and immediately perform in that job as well. There was no insinuation that anyone with a chemistry PhD can land a software job. The insinuation was that learning a language and learning to program effectively are two different tasks. > Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs > someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't > afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month > training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to > master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months. I think that any company that *wouldn't* hire somebody who could suck up a four-year degree in 6 months is the obtuse one! Robert Herrick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Carsten Arnholm 1998-01-15 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting @ 1998-01-16 0:00 ` Charles F Hankel 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Paul Groves 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Charles F Hankel @ 1998-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11 Jan 1998 06:04:39 GMT, bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: > In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>, > Highlander Consulting <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >Dan wrote: > > > >> > Words of caution > >> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so) > >> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no > >> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the > >> people > >> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). > > > >I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are > >self-taught aren't that great. I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry. > >However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into > >offering me a job in software development. Can you tell me why-when I don't > >have a CS degree-that I was offered a job?? I have to say that, although I > > I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with > experience other than in analytical chemistry. I can't imagine anyone getting > a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma > Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on > campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker > in your undergraduate days and beyond. :) > > >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other > >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to > >make a good programmer. The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into > >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a > >common goal is more important than learning a particular language. Sure, > > But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that > the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able > to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts? > > Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for > a software development position? > > >learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any* > >language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire > >you. A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be > >motivated. Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree. I think that > >the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference. I have proven > >my aptitude for problem solving. Programming is only a translation step after > >that. > > Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's. > Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code > it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a > problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential. > Just no software experience. > > Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not > revealing the whole picture. There is more to your background than just the > three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone > with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job, > and immediately perform in that job as well. > > Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs > someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't > afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month > training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to > master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months. I seem to recall that the degree level was once described as follows: BS Bullsh*t MS More Sh*t PhD Piled Higher and Deeper Is there any truth in this? Charles PhD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-01-16 0:00 ` Charles F Hankel @ 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Paul Groves 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 3 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Paul Groves @ 1999-08-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Computer Science - pure computer science - is an exercise in manipulating type domains. Its very mathematically intensive and not for the faint hearted. Its about abstract things like Finite State Automata, Lambda transitions and language grammars. If you told a Chemisty graduate that you supply the computer to the program, he probably wouldn't understand it fully... These large IT companies who accept graudates from virtually any disapline and send them on C++ training courses are harming the IT industry - I believe we're paying the price for that now... Paul. BTW. Why was this crossposted to an Ada group? Looking for a half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half") ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Paul Groves @ 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1999-08-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 01:38:19 GMT, Paul Groves <paulyg@clara.net> wrote: >Why was this crossposted to an Ada group? Looking for a >half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half") It was crossposted over a year ago. You are responding to an old article that was regurgitated by some goofball's MS Exchange server a week or two ago. The offending party took no initiative in sending out cancellation requests for the guiltyleaked articles, and probably wouldn't have a clue how. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-10 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Highlander Consulting wrote: > > Dan wrote: > > > > Words of caution > > > - you will never be respected (and rightly so) > > > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no > > > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the > > people > > > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering). > > I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are > self-taught aren't that great. I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry. > However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into > offering me a job in software development. Can you tell me why-when I don't > have a CS degree-that I was offered a job?? I have to say that, although I > think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other > programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to > make a good programmer. Many, many, years ago I landed my first programming job on the basis of a mathematics degree, a couple of programming classes, and doing very well on a test of problem decomposition that my employer was using as part of the interview process. A couple of years later I went back to college part-time to get my MSCS, even though I did not need it for any immediate career purposes. It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I learned a lot that I would not have guessed or worked out for myself about data structures, how programming languages are put together etc. I became a much better programmer, not so much for the degree, but for what I learned while getting it. Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing that is communicated in a good CS degree course. Patricia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Barrabazz @ 1998-01-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library? Greetx Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article <34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>... > Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program > even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing > that is communicated in a good CS degree course. > > Patricia > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Barrabazz @ 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I don't think it is the only way, though it is a simple and convenient one. The problem with obtaining the same body of knowlege without going through an actual course is answering the question "What is that I don't know about computing, and ought to know?". [Follow-ups limited to comp.lang.java.misc just because it happens to be the first newsgroup in the list, and I got some e-mail from someone who does not think the topic of how to improve one's programming skills appropriate to comp.lang.ada] Patricia Barrabazz wrote: > > Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way > to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library? > > Greetx > > Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article > <34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>... > > Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program > > even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing > > that is communicated in a good CS degree course. > > > > Patricia > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson 1998-01-14 0:00 ` anonymous 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Ron Peterson @ 1998-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barrabazz wrote: > > Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way > to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library? I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep abreast of football, basketball, and baseball. Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter? Ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson @ 1998-01-14 0:00 ` anonymous 1998-01-19 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn [not found] ` <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com> 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: anonymous @ 1998-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem.......... Erudition works, but peer interaction cerainly is a plus (taking a class).. Beating one's head against the wall for days on a problem is more likely to occur less often in the peer environment (though this doesn't necessarily have to be in school. It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a typical eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to Chemistry but not by much.. maybe a year.. > Barrabazz wrote: > > > > Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way > > to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library? > > I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep > abreast of football, basketball, and baseball. > > Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are > over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A > teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. > > How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter? > > Ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-14 0:00 ` anonymous @ 1998-01-19 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn [not found] ` <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk> ` (4 more replies) [not found] ` <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com> 1 sibling, 5 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Joe Gwinn @ 1998-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <anonymous-1401980358130001@t9bsm0-03.tserv.umassd.edu>, anonymous@anonymous.org (anonymous) wrote: > Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem.......... [snip] > It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a typical > eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a > higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to > Chemistry but not by much.. maybe a year.. It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. One of the best programmers / engineers I ever hired had degrees in Linguistics and Mathematical Linguistics. IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems Analysts, with great success. Perhaps they still do. Computer science is a branch of applied mathematics, so the converse is not true -- A computer science degree does not help with understanding of the physical sciences. If the problem requires such understanding, a pure computer science person is likely to fail, for lack of necessary background. Joe Gwinn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk> @ 1998-01-23 0:00 ` dnns 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: dnns @ 1998-01-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) IBM does actually still hire Philosophy majors...in fact they are one of the only place to go with said degree, as far as I can tell. What they seem to be able to do is analyze problems logically, which suits IBMs well, seeing as they make no sense to the rest of us... dnns On 19 Jan 1998 22:06:04 GMT, "Judson McClendon" <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote: >Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote: >> >> ... hard-core technical subject can learn programming ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> ... IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems Analysts ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >'Philosophy' a 'hard-core technical subject'? ;-) >-- >Judson McClendon This is a faithful saying and worthy of all >Sun Valley Systems acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the >judmczzz@mindspring.com world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) >(please remove zzz from email id to respond) > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-23 0:00 ` dnns @ 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Robert Garskof @ 1998-01-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --] I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience. I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some ethics as well. Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to think. Personally, I believe we make great programers. And it pays much better than metaphysics! -- /**************************************************************\ * Robert Garskof | robert.garskof@snet.com * * ICAS Development Team | rgarskof@cris.com * * Southern New England Telephone | * \**************************************************************/ [-- Attachment #2: Card for Robert Garskof --] [-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 254 bytes --] begin: vcard fn: Robert Garskof n: Garskof;Robert org: Southern New England Telephone email;internet: robert.garskof@snet.com x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-19 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn [not found] ` <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk> @ 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Larry Wiggins ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Steve Dekorte @ 1998-01-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote: > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. --- Steve Dekorte ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte @ 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat [not found] ` <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Barrabazz @ 1998-01-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) That guy, Steve, hope a) he is not your superior b) he doesn't put his nose in this NG. I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his progs : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having 3 PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he has 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. -- b a r r a b a z z Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>... > In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote: > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > > --- > Steve Dekorte > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Barrabazz @ 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn ` (4 more replies) [not found] ` <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> 1 sibling, 5 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-01-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to > earn a > > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and > > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. > > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special subject and a PhD doth not a programmer make. > I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he > ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his progs > : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? > > By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having 3 > PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he has > 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for > substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit > fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always > still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have a PhD): In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great and be absolutely useless. If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but get more than 3 engineers in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but that's the nature of the domain beast. Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the programmer to be an engineer than it is to write out the specifications "in full". Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be willing to go back and spend 4+ years learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a clue about numerical methods). This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering background can learn to program (and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them think they're good at it. Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-29 0:00 ` coryb ` (3 more replies) 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 4 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Joe Gwinn @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q>, "dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote: > > > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to > > earn a > > > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and > > > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. > > > > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > > Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special > subject and a PhD doth not a programmer make. Agree. See previous posting as well. > > I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he > > ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his > progs > > : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? Yes, I have, many times, and it didn't require any special schooling. > > By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having > 3 > > PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he > has > > 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for > > substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit > > fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always > > still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. > > Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have > a PhD): > > In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great > and be absolutely useless. > If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both > internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. My experience has been that it's lots easier to teach an engineer programming than to teach a programmer engineering, and the reeducated engineer will write perfectly fine code. Engineers, reeducated or not, as a group tend not to be too impressed with all the current good-programming theories and fads, which is generally a good thing, although it does drive the software process folk to drink, which is also a good thing. > Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but > get more than 3 engineers > in a room, and they'll argue forever. That's why we appoint a Chief Engineer. Somebody must decide. > ... You'll never get a engineering > software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a > programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but > that's the nature of the domain beast. > Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the > programmer to be an engineer than it > is to write out the specifications "in full". Yes, up to a point. My experience is that engineers untrained in software can generally get a 20,000-DSI program to work, but will most often fail at 100,000 DSIs and above. As the scale increases, software architecture and design issues become more and more important, and cannot be overwhelmed by pure engineering knowledge. Thus, the engineer turned programmer is necessary. > Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be > willing to go back and spend 4+ years > learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a > clue about numerical methods). > This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering > background can learn to program > (and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them > think they're good at it. > > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, operating systems, etc. This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>. Some learn these things on the job, but most don't. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` coryb 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: coryb @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is > one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, > operating systems, etc. This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply > isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>. Some learn > these things on the job, but most don't. ??? Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but is the main gist of this discussion that, say, electric engineers are a superior breed of workers than computer scientists? That's not the kind of thing I want to hear :) -- begin 600 Have_A_Nice_Day.com M: 2@'[ 3S1"QJ;H``K1D@^H&`\)@Z"X`B#_WTX/K58@_,O_0[-#IZ!P`B+^L C36'BWK=HB!> PS*(%[0!S19T^K@#`,T0PXK<P>,&`MD2_,/0 end ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-29 0:00 ` coryb @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 3 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Wayne L. Beavers @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Joe Gwinn wrote: > > snip > > I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is > one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of > assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, > operating systems, etc. This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply > isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>. Some learn > these things on the job, but most don't. I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason. That's why we have systems programmers. I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer Science in my junior year, a long time ago. Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software Engineer", according to my business cards. -- Wayne L. Beavers mailto:Wayne_Beavers@Beyond-Software.com Beyond Software, Inc. http://www.beyond-software.com "Transforming Legacy Applications" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wayne L. Beavers wrote in message <34D0A9F7.4768@beyond-software.com>... >Joe Gwinn wrote: >> >> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is >> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of >> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, >> operating systems, etc. This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply >> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>. Some learn >> these things on the job, but most don't. > >I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on >Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone >dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a >COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a >COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason. > >That's why we have systems programmers. > >I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating >systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not >do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about >accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I >started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer >Science in my junior year, a long time ago. > >Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills >to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put >it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems >we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software >Engineer", according to my business cards. I guess I have a simple answer to people who believe that programmers SHOULD have this or that or the other skill. I just ask them if they're willing to pay extra for it. They tend to not want to. So my question to the earlier poster is, "How much more than the going rate for a COBOL application program- mer who is just a COBOL application programmer are you willing to pay for one who knows the physical register architecture of the IBM 3xx line and the inter- nals of MVS?" And I guess we all SHOULD be omniscient, too, but I don't see anyone willing to pay extra for that. -- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian @ 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE 1998-02-03 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-03 0:00 ` The Goobers 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: GLE @ 1998-02-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wayne L. Beavers wrote: > I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on > Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone > dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a > COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a > COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason. ... > I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating > systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not > do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about > accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I ... > Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills > to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You can tunefs, but you can't tune a fish ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - spammers, add us to your list: root@localhost postmaster@localhost webmaster@localhost abuse@localhost askbill@microsoft.com president@whitehouse.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE @ 1998-02-03 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-03 0:00 ` The Goobers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** @ 1998-02-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <34D713F0.510@Go.To.Hell>, GLE: [Snip...] |> Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you |> cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct. [Snip...] Joining "Philosphers/Y2K/Pay" threads and such in that trite paraphrase: Those Ignorant of History Are Doomed to Repeat It... :) Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO ** 1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account. 2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn. 3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE. 4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748. Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE 1998-02-03 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** @ 1998-02-03 0:00 ` The Goobers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: The Goobers @ 1998-02-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GLE GLE wrote: > > Wayne L. Beavers wrote: [buncha snippage everywhere] > ... > > Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills > > to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put > > Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you > cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct. I know that *I* am glad that they are dieing out... because then I, with only my half-assed abilities in those arcana, can demand More Money for my skills. ... so tell us, how many years of working in a mainframe shop shooting prod CICS dumps so that the airline which employs you can get the region back up so the 'girls' can take the orders for the tickets which would fill the seats in the airplanes with paying customers who make your paycheck possible did it take you to arrive at this stunning conclusion? DD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-29 0:00 ` coryb 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Paul Van Bellinghen 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 3 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Robert S. White @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <gwinn-2901981005320001@dh5152093.res.ray.com>, gwinn@res.ray.com says... ... snipped (good stuff) ... >> Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an >> engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. >> (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these >> newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of >> dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > >I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is >one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of >assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems, >operating systems, etc. This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply >isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>. Some learn >these things on the job, but most don't. Wow! I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but this one I completely agree with. It is much much easier to teach or to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of software engineering (not just _programming_). Engineers _must_ constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are instant management material (the Dilbert Principal). Successful product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current EE and ME. It is amazing how much is in the software and how little is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days. _____________________________________________________________________ Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ): net mcleodusa shift2 r white ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White @ 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Paul Van Bellinghen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert S. White wrote: [SNIP!] > Wow! I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but > this one I completely agree with. It is much much easier to teach or > to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of > software engineering (not just _programming_). Engineers _must_ > constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are > instant management material (the Dilbert Principal). ... Programmers don't constantly read and learn? I cannot remember when I last did ANY programming task that I could have completed with only the skills I had when I started on my first programming job. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan @ 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Paul Van Bellinghen 1998-02-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Paul Van Bellinghen @ 1998-01-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --] > Successful > product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including > new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and > reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current > EE and ME. It is amazing how much is in the software and how little > is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days. Reading this got me thinking about the people I've worked with over the past 23 years that I've been in this field (I am also an embedded SE with a EE degree). I recall that in the 70s when CS majors were rare in schools, the SEs usually came from Math, Physics, or EE scholastic backgrounds. In the 80s, most were CS majors. Anyway, what I found was that the educational background rarely mapped to the success an SE had when working in the "Field". The "success correlation" had more to do with how well the individual could learn and adapt to the project at hand and the company's way of doing things. It seems that regardless of educational background, an SE is constantly in a position where he/she must learn new material - whether software or system related. Projects and languages are forever changing - even within the same company. I agree that an SE that stops learning is technically dead (like Engineers turned managers who become schedule experts). For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its just part of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews, I laugh at these managers who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a specific language. That should be the least of their concern. [-- Attachment #2: Card for Paul Van Bellinghen --] [-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 332 bytes --] begin: vcard fn: Paul Van Bellinghen n: Van Bellinghen;Paul org: Lockheed Martin Fairchild email;internet: pvanbell@mhv.net title: Staff Analyst note: WebPage: www.mhv.net/~pvanbell x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Paul Van Bellinghen @ 1998-02-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1998-02-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul Van Bellinghen <pvanbell@mhv.net> wrote in article <34D3A4A4.9E58315C@mhv.net>... [...] > For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its just part > of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews, I laugh at these managers > who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a specific > language. That should be the least of their concern. > Hear hear! I'm going to frame Paul's post and put it up on the wall! -- == Nick Roberts ================================================ == Croydon, UK =========================== == ================ == Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software ========== == Independent Software Development Consultant ====== == Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com ==== == Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124 === == == == I live not in myself, but I become == === Portion of that around me; and to me == ==== High mountains are a feeling, but the hum == ======= Of human cities torture. =========== -- Byron [Childe Harold] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White @ 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 3 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: cyanide @ 1998-02-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm > an > > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most > programmers. > > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these > > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the > majority of > > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163 Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*). Oliver White. Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing. *TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself. **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) cyanide wrote in message <34DF23BE.156895CB@stopspamiinet.net.au>... >> > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm >> an >> > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most >> programmers. >> > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these >> > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the >> majority of >> > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > >Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming >is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163 >Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*). > >Oliver White. >Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing. > >*TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself. > >**TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies". TIC aside, if you're a 1st year writing this, you ain't your ordinary 1st year. My advice is not to expect your course work to teach you everything you need to know. You'll still have to study independently. Do that and you'll get your job with Boeing. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Jeff Knaggs 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1 sibling, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Bill Lynch @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) cyanide wrote: > > > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm > > an > > > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most > > programmers. > > > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these > > > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the > > majority of > > > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > > Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming > is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163 > Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*). > > Oliver White. > Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing. > > *TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself. Very creative, "TIC", but you don't get the copyright:-( We ( in comp.software.year-2000, comp.lang.asm370, and (probably) bit.listserv.ibm-main) have used "TIC" = "tongue in cheek" for a while, now. It's in DejaNews, if you want to check it out. BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?). Bill Lynch > > > **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Jeff Knaggs 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Jeff Knaggs @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Token-Ring Interface Connector. > BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel > command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while > something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you > specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?). > > Bill Lynch > > > > > > > **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Jeff Knaggs @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael Rot13 Klein @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I wonder what is the SMA? (Shortest Meaningless Abreviation) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Tim Oxler @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote: >> > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to >> earn a >> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and >> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. >> > >> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy >> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the >> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > >Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special >subject and >a PhD doth not a programmer make. > Agreed. >> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he >> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his >progs >> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? >> >> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having >3 >> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he >has >> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for >> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit >> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always >> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. > >Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have >a PhD): > >In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great >and be absolutely useless. >If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both >internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. > Well, my schooling and training is on the business side. I think that similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer. >Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but >get more than 3 engineers >in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering >software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a >programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but >that's the nature of the domain beast. >Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the >programmer to be an engineer than it >is to write out the specifications "in full". > [Business spectrum perspective]. I've seen other programmers that are extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese" into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese". Without good conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product not being what was intended. >Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be >willing to go back and spend 4+ years >learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a >clue about numerical methods). >This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering >background can learn to program >(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them >think they're good at it. > Agreed. [Business spectrum perspective]. Training, and re-training. Some veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work tasks in a certain way. Then 10yrs go by, better programming techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be applied, but many of these people are still working and programming like they did 10yrs ago. >Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an >engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. >(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these >newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of >dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > Probably for the most part true. But then again, I should be writing code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :) Tim Oxler TEO Computer Technologies Inc. http://www.i1.net/~troxler http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 4 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Tim Oxler @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote: >> > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to >> earn a >> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and >> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. >> > >> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy >> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the >> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > >Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special >subject and >a PhD doth not a programmer make. > Agreed. >> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he >> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his >progs >> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? >> >> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having >3 >> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he >has >> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for >> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit >> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always >> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. > >Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have >a PhD): > >In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great >and be absolutely useless. >If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both >internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. > Well, my schooling and training is on the business side. I think that similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer. >Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but >get more than 3 engineers >in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering >software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a >programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but >that's the nature of the domain beast. >Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the >programmer to be an engineer than it >is to write out the specifications "in full". > [Business spectrum perspective]. I've seen other programmers that are extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese" into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese". Without good conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product not being what was intended. >Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be >willing to go back and spend 4+ years >learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a >clue about numerical methods). >This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering >background can learn to program >(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them >think they're good at it. > Agreed. [Business spectrum perspective]. Training, and re-training. Some veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work tasks in a certain way. Then 10yrs go by, better programming techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be applied, but many of these people are still working and programming like they did 10yrs ago. >Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an >engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. >(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these >newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of >dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > Probably for the most part true. But then again, I should be writing code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :) Tim Oxler TEO Computer Technologies Inc. http://www.i1.net/~troxler http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler @ 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 4 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: cyanide @ 1998-02-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look > great > and be absolutely useless. > If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both > internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy like he solved this divide 20 years ago... Oliver White. Remove "stopspam" from the email to write me back personaly. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Cyanide wrote in message <34DF21B8.717C4B1@stopspamiinet.net.au>... >> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look >> great >> and be absolutely useless. >> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both >> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. > >Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software >Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy >like he solved this divide 20 years ago... Good for you. Just don't expect to ever understand non-software engineering problem domains. If you want to write software for engineers, you'll need to find an engineer who can speak both engineering and software and work very hard on the requirements specifications (and still don't trust them). In this kind of environment, plan to use prototyping development, so the engineers have a chance to trigger their minds to remember all those "little" things that were so "obvious" they forgot to mention them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide @ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 4 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Edwin Purvee @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dogmat wrote in a message > Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers > would be willing to go back and spend 4+ years learning the > intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a clue about > numerical methods). Hey! I got an A in Numerical Methods just to let you know. Ed epurvee@mail.snu.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-11 0:00 ` dogmat 0 siblings, 2 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Steve Dekorte @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person > has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it > to completion. This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of > any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired. Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life. That is, unless you're a manager. ;-) --- Steve Dekorte ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-11 0:00 ` dogmat 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Bill Lynch @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Dekorte wrote: > > > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article > > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > > > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > > > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > > > The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person > > has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it > > to completion. This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of > > any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired. > > Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size > of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life. > That is, unless you're a manager. ;-) > Or, even better, a management consultant. The bigger the doc, the bigger the $$$$$. Bill Lynch > --- > Steve Dekorte ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` dogmat 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: dogmat @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Dekorte wrote in message <6bqfb7$ilg$1@owl.slip.net>... >Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size >of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life. >That is, unless you're a manager. ;-) Just 4? The average time to finish a PhD has risen over the past few years, to at least 5 or more. But, what a great way to waste it. Best job ever. Far-off deadlines, your own workhours, no suit and tie. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Barrabazz @ 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Joe Gwinn @ 1998-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>, Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote: > In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote: > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. Yeah, I once interviewed a guy with three PhDs. I did wonder how I was going to interview such a person, but it turned out that more was not better. He was the eternal student -- knew many things, but couldn't connect the dots, even when talking about systems he supposedly designed. He was the best of students, but he didn't get the job. I assume that he really wanted to be a professor, but couldn't find an academic post. And, most professors I know very much can connect the dots in their chosen field. Joe Gwinn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-19 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn [not found] ` <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk> 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte @ 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Larry Wiggins 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Ben Pfaff [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk> 4 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Larry Wiggins @ 1998-01-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Gwinn the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to notice. That is the fact that most programmers are required by their college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus, linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability....as well as physics and chemistry....so there for, many programmer's with an actual degree will do well, possibly better, because they will have been formally taught these subject as well as structured programs.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Larry Wiggins @ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Ben Pfaff 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Ben Pfaff @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes: the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to notice. That is the fact that most programmers are required by their college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus, linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know anything about those subjects. For instance, I learned most of the relevant parts of these subjects well in advance of going to college simply because I needed them to write the software that I wanted to write. ....as well as physics and chemistry Which are irrelevant for programmers unless you're writing software for use with either of these subjects. ....so there for, many programmer's with an actual degree will do well, possibly better, because they will have been formally taught these subject as well as structured programs.... I haven't been impressed with the ability of the CS students I've met to write structured programs. All of the best programmers I've met have been self-taught. -- "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Ben Pfaff @ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 29 Jul 1999 14:40:30 -0400, Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu> wrote: >Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes: > > the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to > notice. That is the fact that most programmers are required by their > college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus, > linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability > >That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know >anything about those subjects. For instance, I learned most of the Please don't reply to this thread. It's ancient articles reposted by some idiotic M$ Exchange server. Look at the NNTP-Posting-Host. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> @ 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Michael C. Kasten 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-02-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>, Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote: >The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person >has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it >to completion. This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of >any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired. Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role involving the direct construction of the product. The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for several years on something whose components can't be tested until it's all completed. :) A good software project survives some turn-around of people. You don't need the same engineers to be on it from start to finish. Some engineers are better at the outset of a project, others are better at tying it up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Michael C. Kasten 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Michael C. Kasten @ 1998-02-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>, > Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote: > >The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person > >has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it > >to completion. This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of > >any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired. > > Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management > position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role > involving the direct construction of the product. Not at all. Getting a PhD does not usually involve any training or background in supervision, planning, budgeting, or company politics. Instead, it involves immersion in a narrow and esoteric discipline to the virtual exclusion of all other areas of knowledge. A leader or manager needs a completely different skill set and a broader outlook. That's not to say that a PhD could not successful lead others or manage a project -- merely that one thing does not imply the other. I don't know about other disciplines, but in biomedical sciences (where I got my PhD), graduate students are a source of cheap skilled labor for their mentors. Once they graduate, they are discarded into a shrinking labor market which has little use for them. Some of them wind up programming computers for a living. > The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily > translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for > several years on something whose components can't be tested until > it's all completed. :) If a graduate student spends years on a project which eventually fails, he or she probably won't *get* the PhD. He'll get a Master's degree as a consolation prize and be shown the door. Michael C. Kasten mck9@swbell.net http://home.swbell.net/mck9/cobol/cobol.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk> @ 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-02-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk>, Jeff Knaggs <jeff.knaggs@cableol.co.uk> wrote: TermInfo Compiler (utility program accompanying UNIX curses package). >Token-Ring Interface Connector. > > >> BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel >> command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while >> something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you >> specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?). >> >> Bill Lynch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com>]
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? [not found] ` <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com> @ 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 0 siblings, 1 reply; 156+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com>, Robert Garskof <robert.garskof@snet.com> wrote: >I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience. >I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took >a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some >ethics as well. > >Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to >think. > >Personally, I believe we make great programers. > > >And it pays much better than metaphysics! Say, did you ever cheat on a metaphysics exam by peering into the soul of the person sitting next to you? (Okay, I admit I *stole* that!) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 0 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Robert Garskof @ 1998-01-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Yes. -- /**************************************************************\ * Robert Garskof | robert.garskof@snet.com * * ICAS Development Team | rgarskof@cris.com * * Southern New England Telephone | * \**************************************************************/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson 1998-01-14 0:00 ` anonymous @ 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1 sibling, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: cyanide @ 1998-02-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > But, there are over a dozen computer books out there. er... have I missed something? Oliver White Lose the "stopspam" bit to mail me back. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
* Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? 1997-12-31 0:00 ` Which language pays most " arnie sherman 1997-12-30 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 1997-12-31 0:00 ` John Slaman @ 1998-01-02 0:00 ` Philip Hunt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 156+ messages in thread From: Philip Hunt @ 1998-01-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) arnie sherman wrote: > > to return briefly to the original topic of this thread: > > i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), & > would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but > rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the > shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? C++ and Java. > whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want > to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also > reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate > future. If you want to get into web-based stuff, Java is particularly useful. Perl is also quite useful (for CGI scripts). -- Phil Hunt phil@oyster.co.uk Oyster Systems Ltd http://www.oyster.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 156+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-08-09 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 156+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-01-30 0:00 Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? scott 1998-01-30 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Jahfre 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Art/Jeannie Daly 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Ian Chivers 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1999-07-30 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Dennis Weldy 1998-02-18 0:00 ` mei 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Charles W. Hall 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Rennie Allen 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Graham Broadbridge 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-11 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Mad Hamish 1998-02-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Steven B Mohler 1998-02-14 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Flaagg 1998-02-17 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Anthony Jenkins 1998-02-18 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dave Hillstrom 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Vinay Mutha 1998-02-20 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1998-02-21 0:00 ` Sakurambo 1998-02-21 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` WeeSaul 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Peter Hermann 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Ethics Gradient 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Paulo Pena 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Dik T. Winter 1998-02-19 0:00 ` D J Mann 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-19 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <6cigl4$m11@news.Hawaii.Edu> 1998-02-20 0:00 ` Paul Stevenson 1998-02-20 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-03-02 0:00 ` Mailuser 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Will Rose 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd3803$441d4c30$ee6de288@ato-10098> 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jeff York 1998-02-13 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-13 0:00 ` M.L. Scott 1998-02-13 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-17 0:00 ` martin dowie 1998-02-16 0:00 ` tgg 1998-02-16 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Eric Clayberg 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Dietmar Stumpe 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Entwistle 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Chris Gray 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Michael Rubenstein 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Benz 1998-02-13 0:00 ` James Giles 1998-02-17 0:00 ` K. C. Putnam 1998-02-17 0:00 ` gypsy 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Tor Iver Wilhelmsen 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Stephen Taylor 1998-02-12 0:00 ` John W. Lewellen 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf [not found] ` <01bd37cf$fa30c4e0$56dacdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com> 1998-02-12 0:00 ` docdwarf 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1998-02-12 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-02-14 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Joseph T. Adams 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1997-12-19 0:00 Which language pays most 17457 " James Giles 1997-12-22 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-12-21 0:00 ` James Giles 1997-12-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-12-30 0:00 ` paulr 1997-12-31 0:00 ` Which language pays most " arnie sherman 1997-12-30 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 1997-12-31 0:00 ` John Slaman [not found] ` <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net> 1998-01-06 0:00 ` Jedi 1998-01-10 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Carsten Arnholm 1998-01-15 0:00 ` Highlander Consulting 1998-01-16 0:00 ` Charles F Hankel 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Paul Groves 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-11 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-12 0:00 ` Ron Peterson 1998-01-14 0:00 ` anonymous 1998-01-19 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn [not found] ` <01bd2526$66b70fa0$d6d945cf@juddesk> 1998-01-23 0:00 ` dnns 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Barrabazz 1998-01-28 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-29 0:00 ` coryb 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Wayne L. Beavers 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Frank A. Adrian 1998-02-03 0:00 ` GLE 1998-02-03 0:00 ` Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** 1998-02-03 0:00 ` The Goobers 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-01-30 0:00 ` Patricia Shanahan 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Paul Van Bellinghen 1998-02-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Jeff Knaggs 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Michael Rot13 Klein 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Tim Oxler 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-02-10 0:00 ` dogmat 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Edwin Purvee [not found] ` <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Steve Dekorte 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Bill Lynch 1998-02-11 0:00 ` dogmat 1998-01-29 0:00 ` Joe Gwinn 1998-01-31 0:00 ` Larry Wiggins 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Ben Pfaff 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com> 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-02-02 0:00 ` Michael C. Kasten [not found] ` <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk> 1998-02-11 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com> 1998-01-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1998-01-28 0:00 ` Robert Garskof 1998-02-09 0:00 ` cyanide 1998-01-02 0:00 ` Philip Hunt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox