c.l.j.programmer vs. c.l.j.help (was: Re: What does this mean??)

[Dave Glasser]

The problem is c.l.j.p. is presumed to be a sort of an inner circle
where you need a Masonic ritual to be invited.

Presumed by whom? Not me.

This provokes the chip on the shoulder attitude when a newbie gets
asked to take his questions to c.l.j.h. He feels like he is being
asked to sit at the children's table at Thanksgiving.

It is just a way of filing questions logically and also allowing
newbies to ignore advanced stuff and vice versa.

It still boggles my mind that people are incapable of ignoring things
without help from their software.

What is the point of having two groups if you don't use them for
different purposes.

A fair question. To me, the conclusion is that having both of these
particular two groups, .programmer and .help, is stupid and redundant.
About the only purpose I see it serving is that it gives the
maladjusted bullies who hang around an excuse to flex their Usenet
muscles and berate other people for crossposting or not posting to the
"right" (in their opinion) group. Whereas the purposes of, and
difference between, comp.lang.java.databases and comp.lang.java.gui is
obvious from their names, that's not the case with .programmer and
..help.


--

"The first EDSer to see a snake kills it. At GM, the first
thing you do is organize a committee on snakes. Then you
bring in a consultant who knows a lot about snakes. Third
thing you do is talk about it for a year."
--Ross Perot
Business Week,
10/6/86
_______________________________________________________________

 

[zero]

A fair question. To me, the conclusion is that having both of these
particular two groups, .programmer and .help, is stupid and redundant.

would be better if .help was instead .newbies or .helpfornewbies or
..simplequestions or something that makes it clear it's geared towards easy
questions and answers.

 

[Dave Glasser]

would be better if .help was instead .newbies or .helpfornewbies or
.simplequestions or something that makes it clear it's geared towards easy
questions and answers.

But what constitutes an "easy question" is subjective. Moreover, why
should newsgroups be divided between "easy" and "not easy" questions?
If someone only wants to particpate in threads geared toward a certain
subjective level of difficulty, it should be easy for them to do,
without requiring the cooperation of other people in the Usenet world.
If they can't, it's their problem.

 

[Bjorn Abelli]

zero wrote:

But what constitutes an "easy question" is subjective. Moreover, why
should newsgroups be divided between "easy" and "not easy" questions?
If someone only wants to particpate in threads geared toward a certain
subjective level of difficulty, it should be easy for them to do,
without requiring the cooperation of other people in the Usenet world.
If they can't, it's their problem.

On the other hand, this group is called "c.l.j.programmer".

Can you reaally call a "newbie" a "programmer"?

Isn't a newbie learning to *be* a programmer...

;-)

// Bjorn A

 

[Dave Glasser]

...

On the other hand, this group is called "c.l.j.programmer".

Can you reaally call a "newbie" a "programmer"?

Isn't a newbie learning to *be* a programmer...

That's all a matter of opinion. In my opinion, anyone who writes Java
code, i.e. "programs" in Java, is a Java progammer. Maybe we should
create a group called comp.lang.java.programmer.professionalsonly. And
then we can argue about makes someone a "professional" programmer.

But I'll restate my main point: It's stupid and futile to have two
newsgroups on essentially the same topic, except that one is for
"easy" or "beginner" questions, and the other is for "hard" or
"advanced" questions.

--
Check out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based
front end for relational databases.

http://qform.sourceforge.net

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.

http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

 

[Chris Uppal]

On the other hand, this group is called "c.l.j.programmer".

Can you reaally call a "newbie" a "programmer"?

Isn't a newbie learning to *be* a programmer...

comp.lang.java.programmer
comp.lang.java.wannabe
comp.lang.java.notahope

....


-- chris

 

[zero]

comp.lang.java.programmer
comp.lang.java.wannabe
comp.lang.java.notahope

who wants to create the notahope one? I'll be the first subscriber

 

[Jack]

Moreover, why
should newsgroups be divided between "easy" and "not easy" questions?

well, if advanced answerers get fed up with wading through the
millionth asking of simple questions (that are answered in the faq
anyway), then they might stop participating here. But that would only
seemingly apply if the number of daily posts gets too large - and is
much more of a problem on a mail list than a newsgroup anyway.

So, as usual, there's no ideal solution to much of anything... and I
*still* can see people on many groups insisting that top posting is
somehow evil

 

[Roedy Green]

Presumed by whom? Not me.

Some of the newbies, particularly ones conversant in some language
other than Java.

The message of hurt in their post says something along the lines:
"I can post here if I damn well please. I am just as intelligent and
competent as any of you. I am NOT a newbie..."

 

[Roedy Green]

But what constitutes an "easy question" is subjective. Moreover, why
should newsgroups be divided between "easy" and "not easy" questions?

You have told us it does not matter to you. You read everything
anyway. Your concern is hazing newbies is going to drive them away.

Keeping a distinction matters most to those who DON'T read
comp.lang.java.help

I read both. My reason for wanting a distinction is I strongly don't
like getting my head bitten off when I presume someone is a newbie and
explain stuff they already know in "baby talk", or freak out some
newbie with a cryptic answer that somehow he figures he is supposed to
understand.

In my ideal universe, if people post in help they are implying,
"Please treat me as a newbie. Presume little. Tell me other stuff
vaguely related to my problem. Point out all the problems in my code
you see, not just the ones relevant to my particular question."

If they post in programmer they are implying, "I have already read the
Javadoc and googled and it came up dry. You don't have to hold my
hand, just give me a hint as to what you think my problem might be.
I am asking about this very specific problem. I am not seeking
training in Java."

How to maintain the distinction, without being rude or intimidating?
One way to do that is to post the answer in the "proper" group with a
short note in the "wrong" group explaining where the answer is and why
you put it there. That may be more work than browbeating the newbie.
It is more a carrot than a stick.

 

[Roedy Green]

It still boggles my mind that people are incapable of ignoring things
without help from their software.

Taking your position to extreme, you should post any thread in any of
the thousands of newsgroups.

The whole point of a newsgroup is it make it easier to find a thread
about a certain sort of topic.

Having two newsgroups with 100% overlap in content is like having two
packages where which package any given class goes in is decided by a
flip of a coin.

That is such a slackass way of doing things. You would not approve of
it in any other context, even in your clothing drawer. It makes
finding any given post twice as hard. At least you should deprecate
one of the two groups if you want everything lumped together.

Could you imagine implementing an electronic filing system for a
customer with such a feature? They would laugh you to the door.

 

[Dave Glasser]

You have told us it does not matter to you. You read everything
anyway. Your concern is hazing newbies is going to drive them away.

It's not even that, exactly. It's just that jerks annoy me. And
someone who pounces on a hapless poster and berates him, particularly
over something as stupid as posting in what they consider the "wrong"
newsgroup, is a jerk. I wish jerks would go away, but they never seem
to. Individually they may come and go, but it seems there's always one
or two in every programming newsgroup.

I told you before how I'm able to ignore the gibberish questions
without being bothered by them, but it's not the same with the
jerk-posts. Sure, it only takes a few seconds of my time to read them,
and I almost always ignore them (i.e. not respond to them), but still,
they just grate on me, and raise my aggravation level a point or two.
They harsh my mellow, so to speak.

How to maintain the distinction, without being rude or intimidating?
One way to do that is to post the answer in the "proper" group with a
short note in the "wrong" group explaining where the answer is and why
you put it there. That may be more work than browbeating the newbie.
It is more a carrot than a stick.

If that's what you want to do, God bless you, knock yourself out. It
doesn't bother me when someone politely tries to steer a newbie to
what they think is the appropriate group, although I think it's a
futile waste of time. And considering how long you've been around, I'm
amazed that hasn't dawned on you yet.

Both c.l.j.help and c.l.j.programmer get a lot of traffic, and the
posts in both groups cover the whole spectrum of beginner to advanced
topics. There's really very little difference between the contents of
the two groups. For years people have used various tactics to try and
change this, to herd the cats in the appropriate directions, and still
it stays the same. That's the result of poor product design--two
groups with essentially the same topic and vague, non-specific
names--it's not the fault of the users.


--
Check out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based
front end for relational databases.

http://qform.sourceforge.net

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.

http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

 

[Dave Glasser]

Taking your position to extreme, you should post any thread in any of
the thousands of newsgroups.

No, I wasn't talking about blatently off-topic (non-Java-related)
posts. If someone posted here looking to trade warez or discuss the
last Simpsons episode, they shouldn't be ignored, they should be told
to take a hike.

The whole point of a newsgroup is it make it easier to find a thread
about a certain sort of topic.

Having two newsgroups with 100% overlap in content is like having two
packages where which package any given class goes in is decided by a
flip of a coin.

That is such a slackass way of doing things. You would not approve of
it in any other context, even in your clothing drawer. It makes
finding any given post twice as hard. At least you should deprecate
one of the two groups if you want everything lumped together.

It's not that I necessarily want everything lumped together, it's just
that I recognize that the way the two groups are named, the results
are predictable and inevitable, try as anyone might to change them. I
would bet that if they had named them comp.lang.java.beginner and
comp.lang.java.advanced, you would see far more of the sort of
separation you're yearning for. But no, they named them
"comp.lang.java.programmer" and "comp.lang.java.help" and expected
people to intuitively recognize that .help is for beginner questions
and .programmer is for advanced questions. Feh.

Could you imagine implementing an electronic filing system for a
customer with such a feature? They would laugh you to the door.

Since we're using a software metaphor, suppose you delivered an app to
a customer, and no one could ever seem to use it right. Despite all of
the training and documentation, they could never seem to remember
which menu commands they needed to invoke for certain tasks, and when
they guessed they usually got it wrong and screwed up data. Would you
conclude that a.) the users are just stupid and stubborn, or b.) the
user interface is broken and needs to be redesigned?

If you chose a, you're not long for this business.


--
Check out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based
front end for relational databases.

http://qform.sourceforge.net

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.

http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

 

[Roedy Green]

, or b.) the
user interface is broken and needs to be redesigned?

Let's assume you had the power to change the names of the groups.

What would you call them? What would their mandates be?

My version of nirvana looks like this:

serverside: for EJB, servlets, JSP, STRUTS etc.

programmer: for the mixed bag it is now.

beginner: for student projects, assignments, learning, programming
fundamentals.

 

[Chris Uppal]

But what constitutes an "easy question" is subjective. Moreover, why
should newsgroups be divided between "easy" and "not easy" questions?

One good reason is the distinction between easy answers and not easy answers.

For instance, someone posts a question about Unicode, do I post a reply
discussing all the relevant facets of Unicode, most of which are not evident to
the casual programmer ? If they are an experienced programmer, then the extra
detail will help them and they will be pleased to see it (or they damn well
should be ;-), and perhaps a discussion will ensue of the more esoteric aspects
of the subject (which will -- inevitably -- drift OT). If they are not, then
the post will scare them off, and they'll probably ignore it.

Another example, if someone posts a question which reveals that their problem
is actually that they unwittingly lack basic knowledge of some apparently (to
them) unrelated topic: <whatever>, is the /appropriate/ response to point out
(in a civilised manner) that they should review <whatever>, or to provide a
short introduction to the subject which (as a newbie) they probably have not
yet been introduced to ?

Some newbies, or newbies to a given topic, are only looking for a
straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Others, perhaps just as
inexperienced, want to discuss matters at a high (or do I mean deep ?) level.
The issue is not really about experience, but about what /kind/ of
discussion you want to participate in.

/My/ position is that /here/, if I want to discuss something at all, then I do
it at /my/ level. If I were reading on .help then I would try to pitch my
answers at the poster's level. (I don't, BTW, often read .help)

If someone only wants to particpate in threads geared toward a certain
subjective level of difficulty, it should be easy for them to do,
without requiring the cooperation of other people in the Usenet world.

If they can't, it's their problem.

One thing that you may not have considered is that other peoples' judgement
about what is "too" annoying is determined by them, not by you. I would like
to know how many people there are who /I/ would have found it interesting or
rewarding to read and/or discuss matters with, but who have left, or never
participated in, this group because /for their tastes/ there was too much
noise. If that number is zero or near zero then you have a valid point, but I
doubt it.

-- chris

 

[Timbo]

...



On the other hand, this group is called "c.l.j.programmer".

Can you reaally call a "newbie" a "programmer"?

Isn't a newbie learning to *be* a programmer...

What if they are only new to Java? ;-)

 

[Bjorn Abelli]

Bjorn Abelli wrote:
What if they are only new to Java? ;-)

The group is called "c.l.java.programmer", not
"c.l.newtojava.butneverthelessaprogrammer". ;-)

Personally, I don't get so upset with stray "irregular" posts in either
group, but newsgroups tend to grow their own culture and ethics. It has
become more or less a common view in the two groups cljh and cljp that the
former is for Java newbies, and the latter is for more experienced Java
programmers, or at least something in that direction.

This division in culture itself is a reason to "guide" those "irregular"
posters to a group with a culture more suitable for their needs. When I
answer such posts I give them an answer to their question, and then I
usually inform them that there's another group better suited for that type
of questions.

// Bjorn A

 

[Timbo]

...



The group is called "c.l.java.programmer", not
"c.l.newtojava.butneverthelessaprogrammer". ;-)

And the other group in question is called c.l.java.help, not
c.l.newtojava.help ;-)

Personally, I don't get so upset with stray "irregular" posts in either
group, but newsgroups tend to grow their own culture and ethics. It has
become more or less a common view in the two groups cljh and cljp that the
former is for Java newbies, and the latter is for more experienced Java
programmers, or at least something in that direction.

This division in culture itself is a reason to "guide" those "irregular"
posters to a group with a culture more suitable for their needs. When I
answer such posts I give them an answer to their question, and then I
usually inform them that there's another group better suited for that type
of questions.

And that is the way it should be done. Or one can ignore it. The
argument started from the fact that some people use newbie
questions to belittle people in order to stroke their own ego.

Here's another point: what about if one's news server doesn't have
the c.l.java.help newsgroup? My news server at home doesn't have
c.l.java.programmer newsgroup accessible, and I can't be fucked
changing servers or post on a web interface just to suit a few people.

 

[Dave Glasser]

Let's assume you had the power to change the names of the groups.

What would you call them? What would their mandates be?

My version of nirvana looks like this:

serverside: for EJB, servlets, JSP, STRUTS etc.

programmer: for the mixed bag it is now.

beginner: for student projects, assignments, learning, programming
fundamentals.

I think ".beginner" is fairly self-explanatory, and it would attract a
lot of beginner questions. If you want a group that excludes beginner
questions, however, you had better call it ".advanced". To me,
".programmer" means anything Java-related. As long as you have a
catchall group like .programmer, it's going to look pretty much the
way it looks now.

 

[Dave Glasser]

3 Nov 2005 09:18:50 -0000 in comp.lang.java.programmer:

/My/ position is that /here/, if I want to discuss something at all, then I do
it at /my/ level. If I were reading on .help then I would try to pitch my
answers at the poster's level. (I don't, BTW, often read .help)

That's certainly your perogative. Myself, I can usually tell by the
way a question is worded what the OP's knowledge level is (roughly)
and I can craft my response accordingly.

One thing that you may not have considered is that other peoples' judgement
about what is "too" annoying is determined by them, not by you. I would like
to know how many people there are who /I/ would have found it interesting or
rewarding to read and/or discuss matters with, but who have left, or never
participated in, this group because /for their tastes/ there was too much
noise. If that number is zero or near zero then you have a valid point, but I
doubt it.

Well, then it's your problem too, but my point is still valid.

And my main point, which I'll repeat, is this: I, like many, think it
would be nice if there was a group for beginner questions where most
or all beginner questions actually got posted. Unlike many, however, I
recognize that, given the vague, non-specific names of the two groups,
..programmer and .help, that's NEVER going to happen, and any efforts
to make it happen are destined to fail.