From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f822ae7b0f7433c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AW: Translating an embedded C algorithm References: <878xg2aqzr.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87k5zk7m8j.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1tvsh.359081$1i1.305659@attbi_s72> From: Stephen Leake Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:43:07 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fn5ySWLPfZi4irrJ8qs3gEzftoQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com X-Trace: 9924645b5bc92759e00d411934 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8412 Date: 2007-01-23T02:43:07-05:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter writes: > Robert A Duff wrote: >> I'm sure you didn't mean to attack the guy, but questioning someones >> competence could come across that way, don't you think? > > I'm not a very good judge of such things. Obviously a lot of people > thought so. > > In my experience, the vast majority of people involved in SW > development are not qualified to design SW, much less write books > about it. I'm marginally qualified, and I'm familiar with a number of > people who are better qualified, but I'm also familiar with large > numbers of people who aren't qualified. I think it's very important to > SW and the world that this situation be improved, so I tend to bring > it up when it seems important. > > I'm not sure what this has to do with my lack of social skills. Since he is _already_ writing a book, clearly he believes he's qualified. So a statement "you are not qualified" will simply be rejected. As I recall, your statement was phrased as a question, something like "how can you think you are qualified when you don't know Ada". That implies both that he _isn't_ qualified, and that he doesn't know what _qualified_ means in the first place. Both messages will simply be rejected; he will assume you are just a crank, since you don't know him personally. Criticizing people effectively is a social skill. I'm a blue-blood physics nerd, but a few things have rubbed off on me from my social-worker wife :). Generally, criticism at this level will only be accepted from someone you know, or someone you have a formal relationship with; an editor, or an official reviewer. -- -- Stephe