Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt

[spinoza1111]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
now says he feels it was not appropriate.

My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
the anti-Schildt cause.

I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

This issue is not going away.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
now says he feels it was not appropriate.

Ha, ha.

My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
the anti-Schildt cause.

I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

This issue is not going away.

Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
him, call him a ****** and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
again.

 

[spinoza1111]

Ha, ha.

Knew you'd love it, given your emotional age, Bubba. Hope it made your
day. Pity, of course, that I was the one to publish the fact here.
Rather stole your thunder, I shouldn't wonder.

Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
him, call him a ****** and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
again.

I wouldn't do any of those things, and you know it.

Peter Seebach linked to his Mom on his blog, and I discovered that she
wants to deprive minority kids of schooling so that middle class kids
can get out of survey classes. I did not submit any comments to her
public site. Instead, I found what I consider to be an explanation of
Peter's bizarre lack of actual educational qualifications.

I don't think Peter Neumann will ever stoop to your level, in which
the only response is, in actuality, "**** you, ******", or metrical
verse.

I might consider him unwittingly complicit as was Zhou En-Lai in a
phenomenon of which he may be unaware; in my experience, computer
science people agree with Thatcher and think there's no such thing as
society.

I don't anonymously vandalize jack shit on wikipedia, and you know
this, ******. Instead I sign my posts "Edward G. Nilges". When I sock
puppeted I did so on the recommendation of a wikipedia editor who was
vandalizing me. In actuality, many respected wikipedia editors appear
to use sock puppets, because deviance is the norm, jerk face.

I do not know and do not much care whether I appear in Risks again. I
will probably submit replies for moderation. I have requested a phone
conversation with Peter to clear up this new issue, since I think he's
not aware that to publish his retraction appears to me to be deeply
offensive, very discourteous, and extremely cowardly.

 

[Tim Streater]

in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
and think there's no such thing as society.

Except that she didn't say that.

 

[Tim Streater]

There are two separate verb phrases there. Computer science
people agreeing with Thatcher and computer science people
thinking there's no such thing as society are separate claims.

She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.

 

[spinoza1111]

She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there
are families. And no government can do anything except through people,
and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got
the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations."

Which was completely bonkers. There is such a thing as society. The
Greater London Council organized the Marathon of 1983 which I
completed. It was real...until Thatcher destroyed it. Also, we're
supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves, not after we're finished
eating.

However, computer nerds love this kind of shit, in my experience. It
justifies their lack of social skills when young, and utter lack of
decency later.

 

[Nick Keighley]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
now says he feels it was not appropriate.

thanks for the excellent news!!

Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
this mistake.

My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
the anti-Schildt cause.

or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)

I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,

it *was* very long

he
did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
constantly banging on about this?

This issue is not going away.

pity poor schildt.

 

[iC and iC++]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
now says he feels it was not appropriate.

My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
the anti-Schildt cause.

I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

This issue is not going away.

Who is Schildt? What is Shibboleths?

 

[Seebs]

Ha, ha.

I don't see anything particularly funny here. Amusing, perhaps.

Nilges, habitually spamming people and threatening to bombard them with
emailed demands, assumes other people do the same.

I don't really care either way about Schildt, though, so the fact that it
would never even have crossed my mind to complain about that post is probably
irrelevant. It struck me as, perhaps tenuously, related to a real risk
that users of computers face. It was also an excellent illustration of
the problems inherent in accepting reputation claims from an internet source.

-s

 

[Seebs]

Who is Schildt?

Schildt is a writer who has written a great number of books on C; those I
have examined have been of poor quality, both in terms of egregious mistakes
and in terms of significant omissions.

What is Shibboleths?

There was a point in the distant past where there existed people who might
want to infiltrate another tribe's territory. Their languages were different
enough that the infiltrators could not pronounce certain phonemes correctly,
not having grown up with them, and asking someone to say "shibboleth" (well,
the word we now transliterate that way) was a reliable way to detect such
infiltrators.

The term is now generally used to refer to an arbitrary test for community
membership. Nilges often asserts that Schildt's errors are merely violations
of shibboleths, rather than genuine errors. However, a quick spin through
a compiler shows that this is incorrect, and Schildt's errors really are
serious errors in both his code and his explanations of C.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

Schildt is a writer who has written a great number of books on C; those I

and other topics.

have examined have been of poor quality, both in terms of egregious mistakes
and in terms of significant omissions.

You haven't adequately reviewed them nor have you the professional
standing in the absence of academic work to make this judgement, even
if it is true. Please stop: you look like a rather malicious fool.

There was a point in the distant past where there existed people who might
want to infiltrate another tribe's territory.  Their languages were different
enough that the infiltrators could not pronounce certain phonemes correctly,
not having grown up with them, and asking someone to say "shibboleth" (well,
the word we now transliterate that way) was a reliable way to detect such
infiltrators.

The term is now generally used to refer to an arbitrary test for community
membership.  Nilges often asserts that Schildt's errors are merely violations
of shibboleths, rather than genuine errors.  However, a quick spin through
a compiler shows that this is incorrect, and Schildt's errors really are
serious errors in both his code and his explanations of C.

We've shown you're wrong. You want C to adhere strictly to the
standards of Linux insofar as you know them, but it massively predated
Linux.

People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
the truths of a bad teacher. You et al. concede that Schildt is a
clear writer, and this means he contributes to understanding. Although
his books aren't great, I'd rather read him than your garbage on C.

 

[spinoza1111]

thanks for the excellent news!!

Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
this mistake.

I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages, yet
I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
ranting. Maybe that sound is you?

He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
through wikipedia.

I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.

I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.

"Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
others". But it usually does, doesn't it?

 

[Tim Streater]

People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
the truths of a bad teacher.

Oh, good attempt at spin, Spinny! Well done - you should go far.

 

[Seebs]

Oh, good attempt at spin, Spinny! Well done - you should go far.

It's a nice effort, but it's totally untrue.

1. There's actually not much supporting the theory that Schildt is a
"good teacher". His books seem very approachable, but we've got no
examples on the record of people who have demonstrated themselves to
be good programmers, and who ascribe their success to learning from
Schildt. We do have a number of good programmers who ascribe difficulties
they struggled to overcome to Schildt, and a number of bad programmers
who think they learned a lot from Schildt.
2. What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
point them out and explain why they are mistakes. This usually
requires an interactive environment. It also requires a willingness to
admit that they were mistakes.
3. It is at best irrelevant, because examples have been offered of books
which are both accurate and good at teaching.

-s

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

I don't see anything particularly funny here. Amusing, perhaps.

An expression of Schadenfreude, (as expressed by Nelson in the
Simpsons).

It's hilarious in the context that Nilges has been talking up his
"Article about Herb Schildt accepted at comp.risks" as a validation of
his thesis:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.06.html#subj12
This shall shortly also be on the Digest, to where people may respond
to it. However, responses are competently moderated.

He can't follow his instinct to call Neumann a digital Maoist mobster
or whatever after that, but give him a few weeks and when he realises
Neumann won't relent, he'll be abusing Neumann as roundly as he does
you, me, Jimmy Wales, and anyone else who fails to fall in line, or
worse, contradicts him.

 

[spinoza1111]

It's a nice effort, but it's totally untrue.

1.  There's actually not much supporting the theory that Schildt is a
"good teacher".  His books seem very approachable, but we've got no
examples on the record of people who have demonstrated themselves to

Who's we? How many Microsoft programmers do you know that can stand
you?

be good programmers, and who ascribe their success to learning from
Schildt.  We do have a number of good programmers who ascribe difficulties
they struggled to overcome to Schildt, and a number of bad programmers
who think they learned a lot from Schildt.

You're not a good programmer. You make incredibly stupid mistakes,
such as off by one in a strlen when you had "all the time in the
world" to test and review before you posted it. You claimed that a
tool replaced %p when it replaced &*. You use fallthrough in switch.
You declare preprocessor variables and then not use them in 50% of
cases. You fail to initialize variables.

Your error rate is incredibly high. It was 100% in the strlen and we
can find far more errors in your code than you have found in Schildt.

2.  What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
point them out and explain why they are mistakes.  This usually
requires an interactive environment.  It also requires a willingness to
admit that they were mistakes.

There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake for the SAME
reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth and is
constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
bugs". Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.

 

[Tim Streater]

There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake for the SAME
reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth and is
constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
bugs". Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.

Was this reply to Seebs typed by a human or some of those
monkeys-at-keyboards whose output will eventually include the works of
the world's finest authors?

Spinny's burblings here are the best example of a non-sequitur that I've
seen in a coon's age!

 

[Nick Keighley]

I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages,

I'm amazed! Are those genuine submissions are does he get spammed?

yet
I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
ranting. Maybe that sound is you?

I didn't say your other RISKS posts were rants. I said that one was.
You'll be pleased to hear you've had 29 more posts accepted to RISKS
than I.

He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
through wikipedia.

he said that or you "read between the lines"? I'd say destroying a
reputation on Wikipedia (I'm not agreeing that this is so in this
case) is indeed computer related.

I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.

I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.

"Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
others". But it usually does, doesn't it?

no not necessarily.


<snip>

 

[Seebs]

An expression of Schadenfreude, (as expressed by Nelson in the
Simpsons).

Oh! I didn't see the <nelson>...</nelson> tags.

-s

 

[Seebs]

Amusingly, this is his dodge to get around a criticism of a previous post
in which he insisted that there were in fact mistakes.

That is to say: Nilges is completely obsessed with whether people like
him, and since caring whether things are technically correct would make
him look bad, he has to reject it.

I would say that useful usually implies reliable, and something which is
reliable and safe is probably "free of bugs" in a practical sense.

This is an interesting allegation, but not particularly true; many of the
things pointed out in Schildt's code happen pretty much constantly in the
real world.

Was this reply to Seebs typed by a human or some of those
monkeys-at-keyboards whose output will eventually include the works of
the world's finest authors?

Spinny's burblings here are the best example of a non-sequitur that I've
seen in a coon's age!

It's not really a non-sequitur, except in the usual way that his impressive
NPD makes him completely immune to the concept of truth as a statement about
the world rather than a statement about his personal importance.

He's claimed that Schildt's books aren't bad. He tried the tactic of
claiming that, because Schildt is a good teacher, the mistakes are
instructive. When I said something that made him not feel like this
argument was winning, he immediately switched to a set of "beliefs" (I
use the term loosely) under which it was irrelevant.

The sole goal here is for him to experience the "win" of feeling as though,
for each thing someone has said that he dislikes, he has said something
which, if it were true, would make them wrong. He is not in a place to
comprehend the notion that it matters that his defenses are mutually
exclusive. There's no semantic content here; there's no underlying set of
beliefs about whether any given program is buggy or not, or what that
would imply. There's only a general assertion that other people are wrong.

-s