Is the average IQ of C programmers less than that of C++ programmers?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by MikeP, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. MikeP

    MikeP Guest

    I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
    free to post your IQs and EQs!
    MikeP, Mar 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MikeP

    Chris H Guest

    In message <
    egroups.com>, bert <> writes
    >On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:19:46 AM UTC+1, MikeP wrote:
    >> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
    >> free to post your IQs and EQs!

    >
    >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
    >wouldn't it? When I worked as a programmer, the management
    >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
    >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
    >as its author, especially after he had gone. On that basis,
    >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!


    I couldn't agree more!

    Clever code is usually an oxymoron.

    BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
    second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
    understood than any other language. (Even Americans manage basic
    English :)


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Mar 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MikeP

    Seebs Guest

    Re: Is the average IQ of C programmers less than that of C++programmers?

    On 2011-03-29, MikeP <> wrote:
    > I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
    > free to post your IQs and EQs!


    Scientific progress is amazing. It used to be that a poll of Usenet
    participants who wanted to post unverified claims would not have been
    regarded as a reliable source of data.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Mar 29, 2011
    #3
  4. MikeP

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, osmium
    <> writes
    >Someone wrote:
    >
    >>> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
    >>> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
    >>> understood than any other language. (Even Americans manage basic
    >>> English :)

    >
    >My theory as to the reason for the popularity is that the island of Great
    >Britain had a lot of oak forests so the people living there could build big
    >ships and conquer the world with their navy.


    That is not the reason.

    In WW2 there was a requirement to teach pilots from many nations who
    could not speak English. So some research was done. Apparently English
    is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be understood.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Mar 29, 2011
    #4
  5. MikeP

    Walter Banks Guest

    Re: Is the average IQ of C programmers less than that of C++programmers?

    Chris H wrote:

    >
    > egroups.com>, bert <> writes
    > >
    > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
    > >wouldn't it? When I worked as a programmer, the management
    > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
    > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
    > >as its author, especially after he had gone. On that basis,
    > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!

    >
    > I couldn't agree more!
    >
    > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
    >
    > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
    > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
    > understood than any other language.


    English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
    people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
    as English Japanese dictionaries

    w..
    Walter Banks, Mar 29, 2011
    #5
  6. MikeP

    Chris H Guest

    In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
    <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
    >Chris H <> wrote:
    >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >> understood.

    >
    >Citations? No anecdotes, please.


    Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
    nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
    countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
    taught faster than anything else.

    Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
    about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2011
    #6
  7. MikeP

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
    > Chris H<> wrote:
    >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >> understood.

    >
    > Citations? No anecdotes, please.
    >


    Forming the past of a verb?

    Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.

    No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
    like Spanish or French.

    Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
    in French or other Latin languages.

    The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
    if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
    like Spanish.

    Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
    than other languages.
    jacob navia, Mar 30, 2011
    #7
  8. MikeP

    Chris H Guest

    In message <imurfb$csl$>, jacob navia
    <> writes
    >Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
    >> Chris H<> wrote:
    >>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >>> understood.

    >>
    >> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
    >>

    >
    >Forming the past of a verb?
    >
    >Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
    >
    >No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
    >like Spanish or French.
    >
    >Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
    >in French or other Latin languages.
    >
    >The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
    >if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
    >like Spanish.
    >
    >Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to
    >learn than other languages.


    Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
    poor grammar and wrong word usage.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2011
    #8
  9. MikeP

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
    > In message<17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
    > <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
    >> Chris H<> wrote:
    >>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >>> understood.

    >>
    >> Citations? No anecdotes, please.

    >
    > Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
    > nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
    > countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
    > taught faster than anything else.
    >
    > Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
    > about it the information was in a book. Remember those?


    Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
    URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific location
    within the book, where something was discussed. Can you provide such an
    old-fashioned citation?

    I would expect English researchers to have a bias toward English, and
    would be suspicious of the possibility that the research was conducted
    without adequate protection against such bias (particularly given the
    wartime context of the research). Only a careful examination of the
    research report could provide sufficient evidence to counter that
    suspicion. I personally do not have sufficient interest to bother
    finding and reading such a report, but the William Ahern might.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Mar 30, 2011
    #9
  10. MikeP

    Chris H Guest

    In message <imv0s5$21l$>, James Kuyper
    <> writes
    >On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
    >> In message<17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
    >> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
    >>> Chris H<> wrote:
    >>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >>>> understood.
    >>>
    >>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.

    >>
    >> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
    >> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
    >> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
    >> taught faster than anything else.
    >>
    >> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
    >> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

    >
    >Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
    >URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific
    >location within the book, where something was discussed. Can you
    >provide such an old-fashioned citation?



    Probably but I don't have the time or inclination



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2011
    #10
  11. MikeP

    BartC Guest

    "jacob navia" <> wrote in message
    news:imurfb$csl$...
    > Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
    >> Chris H<> wrote:
    >>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >>> understood.

    >>
    >> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
    >>

    >
    > Forming the past of a verb?
    >
    > Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
    >
    > No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
    > like Spanish or French.


    Unless you're conversing with royalty.

    > Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
    > in French or other Latin languages.
    >
    > The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
    > if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
    > like Spanish.
    >
    > Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
    > than other languages.


    Except that spelling is bit of a black art.

    Then there are words that are spelt the same but pronounced differently,
    depending on meaning; and words that sound the same but spelt differently.
    Plus words that are spelt the same, sound the same, but can have a dozen
    different meanings!

    And how do you pronounce a "-ough" ending? Apparently there are supposed to
    be 9 different ways. "Laughter" has only one pronunciation, but put an "S"
    at the start, and it's completely different. Etc. etc.

    I think one of the simplest, and most orthogonal languages is supposed to be
    Ido. The trouble is there are only a couple of thousand speakers in the
    world.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Mar 30, 2011
    #11
  12. MikeP

    osmium Guest

    "Kenneth Brody" wrote:

    >> Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
    >> poor grammar and wrong word usage.

    >
    > Which sounds to me like native English speakers are smarter than native
    > speakers of other languages, if it's true that they are not capable of
    > such understanding.


    A language can have attributes such as redundancy which promote such
    understanding despite mangling. I only, know, kind of, English, so I don't
    know if that applies here or not. Or even if the premise is true.

    Nevertheless, do you think it would be easier to fix a mangled APL program
    or a mangled Cobol program? To me, those are kind of at the extremes of
    understanding. There may be other languages more difficult to learn than
    APL, but my guess is that this is due to poor documentation for the
    contender language.
    osmium, Mar 30, 2011
    #12
  13. MikeP

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 03/31/11 08:10 AM, BartC wrote:
    >
    > I think one of the simplest, and most orthogonal languages is supposed
    > to be Ido. The trouble is there are only a couple of thousand speakers
    > in the world.


    The easiest and most orthogonal language I ever learned was Swahili. I
    found it an ideal language for a programmer to learn!

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Mar 30, 2011
    #13
  14. MikeP

    Geoff Guest

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:53:17 -0700, William Ahern
    <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:

    >Chris H <> wrote:
    >> In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
    >> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
    >> >Chris H <> wrote:
    >> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
    >> >> understood.
    >> >
    >> >Citations? No anecdotes, please.

    >


    When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
    to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
    but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
    you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits

    A USMC gunney sarge will make you recite the alphabet and numerals
    forwards, backwards and middlewards alternating until you can do it in
    less than 30 seconds on demand.
    Geoff, Mar 31, 2011
    #14
  15. Geoff wrote:
    <snip>
    > When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
    > to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    > proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
    > but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
    > you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits



    Where is the German part in this?

    Bye, Jojo
    Joachim Schmitz, Mar 31, 2011
    #15
  16. MikeP

    Geoff Guest

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    <> wrote:

    >Geoff wrote:
    ><snip>
    >> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
    >> to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    >> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
    >> but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
    >> you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits

    >
    >
    >Where is the German part in this?
    >
    >Bye, Jojo


    Oktoeight.
    Geoff, Apr 1, 2011
    #16
  17. Geoff wrote:
    > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Geoff wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you
    >>> had to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    >>> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo,
    >>> Charlie,... but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with
    >>> English as cited, you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits

    >>
    >>
    >> Where is the German part in this?
    >>
    >> Bye, Jojo

    >
    > Oktoeight.


    Neither "Okto" nor "Eight" is German.
    "Acht" is.

    Bye, Jojo
    Joachim Schmitz, Apr 2, 2011
    #17
  18. MikeP

    Geoff Guest

    On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:50:46 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    <> wrote:

    >Geoff wrote:
    >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Geoff wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you
    >>>> had to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    >>>> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo,
    >>>> Charlie,... but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with
    >>>> English as cited, you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Where is the German part in this?
    >>>
    >>> Bye, Jojo

    >>
    >> Oktoeight.

    >
    >Neither "Okto" nor "Eight" is German.
    >"Acht" is.
    >


    Tell that to the ITU. Okto is not in any language but they wrote it
    that way. The derivation is from the German acht.

    Why do you insist on belaboring this point? It's a system of
    clarifying voice communication over noisy channels, nothing more.
    Geoff, Apr 2, 2011
    #18
  19. MikeP

    Willem Guest

    Re: Is the average IQ of C programmers less than that of C++programmers?

    Geoff wrote:
    ) Tell that to the ITU. Okto is not in any language but they wrote it
    ) that way. The derivation is from the German acht.

    Bullshit; 'octo' (pronounced as 'okto') is Latin for eight.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
    Willem, Apr 2, 2011
    #19
  20. Geoff wrote:
    > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:50:46 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Geoff wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Geoff wrote:
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you
    >>>>> had to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
    >>>>> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo,
    >>>>> Charlie,... but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with
    >>>>> English as cited, you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
    >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Where is the German part in this?
    >>>>
    >>>> Bye, Jojo
    >>>
    >>> Oktoeight.

    >>
    >> Neither "Okto" nor "Eight" is German.
    >> "Acht" is.
    >>

    >
    > Tell that to the ITU.


    Do they claim this to be German?

    > Okto is not in any language but they wrote it
    > that way. The derivation is from the German acht.


    More probably from the Latin octo. German acht maybe derived from that, but
    surely not the other way round.

    > Why do you insist on belaboring this point?


    Pure curiosity.

    Bye, Jojo
    Joachim Schmitz, Apr 2, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. falcon
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    18,650
    Roedy Green
    Feb 24, 2006
  2. Graeter than or less than

    , Jun 21, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    860
    bruce barker
    Jun 21, 2007
  3. jiajia wu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    jiajia wu
    Oct 1, 2009
  4. Dwight Army of Champions
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,747
    John H.
    Mar 17, 2010
  5. bert
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    698
    Nick Keighley
    Apr 6, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page