Hashtable ordering

[Dave Searles]

It's not your ignorance that's being criticized; I'm sure there are
many important topics I know little or nothing about. What's being
objected to your claim of effective omniscience: that anything you
don't know is ipso facto unworthy of mention.

I've made no such claim. In fact, it's ludicrous to even think that I
might have been thinking of myself as omniscient. If I actually were
omniscient, I would have known exactly what "ISAM" meant, now, wouldn't I?

This is getting ridiculous, not to mention more and more off-topic. I
also don't care much for phrases like "your ignorance" being bandied
about baldly.

This is a Java newsgroup, not alt.flame. Personal criticisms do not
belong here. Please desist and discuss Java once again (and I shall do
likewise).

 

[Mike Schilling]

I've made no such claim. In fact, it's ludicrous to even think that
I
might have been thinking of myself as omniscient. If I actually were
omniscient, I would have known exactly what "ISAM" meant, now,
wouldn't I?

See my definition of "effective omniscience" above.

This is getting ridiculous, not to mention more and more off-topic.
I
also don't care much for phrases like "your ignorance" being bandied
about baldly.

If you don't know something, you're in=gnorant of it. That's what
"ignorance" means.

This is a Java newsgroup, not alt.flame. Personal criticisms do not
belong here.

Don't post nonsense, and no one will criticize the nonsense you pose.

Please desist and discuss Java once again (and I shall do
likewise).

Here's a product that allows Java access to ISAM files:

http://www.easysoft.com/products/data_access/odbc_isam_driver/

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

No. That doesn't stop some people for turning a formerly useful thread
about Java's hash-dictionary classes into a platform for one-upmanship,
put-downs of others, and similar childish games, though, unfortunately.
(What do they think this is, anyway, an alt group?)

In effect it became a different thread (and perhaps we should have
labelled it as such) as soon as you asked what "ISAM" was. In any case,
with a decent newsreader you can track a subtree that has deviated and
you no longer wish to read.

The main point is that it became a sociological thread, not a purely
technical one, after that first question (I am not imputing fault). It's
no less valid for that; it simply should have been a different discussion.

I don't think it actually got all that bad, considering the change in
emphasis. I can only speak for myself: I have this cherished image of
what we do eventually becoming a true profession. Hence my impatience
with low standards. I personally don't mean to put anyone down
individually - I don't think the problem is so much that your
run-of-the-mill programmer _cannot_ perform at a high standard, it's
more that our current industry (and that's all it is) doesn't require it
of us, and so many programmers don't go any further than what is
expected. That attitude of mine is what informed several of my posts in
this subthread - if they offended then I apologize.

AHS

 

[Tom Anderson]

That's because there are at least two orders of magnitude more teenage
girls than computer programmers.

Dammit, i'm evidently working in the wrong company. Here, it's pretty much
the other way round.

tom

 

[Wojtek]

Roedy Green wrote :

paper tape

Where "patching" a program meant cutting the paper tape and inserting a
new piece with the updated code.

And speaking of patching, I worked at a job where the lead programmer
would come down with a list of hex addresses. When we re-booted the
mini, we would over-write memory locations with the hex values before
we brough the machine online.

Nowadays patching means replacing the entire file with a new one...

 

[Wojtek]

RedGrittyBrick wrote :

A typical bit of IBM product naming.

AMD = Air Movmemnt Device = a fan

 

[Wojtek]

Roedy Green wrote :

If every programmer of your own generation knows what a word means, it
is not obvious you need to provide footnotes.

Other such historical words that might need footnotes:

Packed Decimal
Excess 3

 

[Dave Searles]

[missing attribution, but it was Mike Schilling]

It's not your ignorance that's being criticized; I'm sure there are
many important topics I know little or nothing about. What's being
objected to your claim of effective omniscience: that anything you
don't know is ipso facto unworthy of mention.

I've made no such claim. In fact, it's ludicrous to even think that
I
might have been thinking of myself as omniscient. If I actually were
omniscient, I would have known exactly what "ISAM" meant, now,
wouldn't I?

This is getting ridiculous, not to mention more and more off-topic.
I
also don't care much for phrases like "your ignorance" being bandied
about baldly.

If you don't know something, you're in=gnorant of it. That's what
"ignorance" means.

My complaint wasn't about the technical accuracy of the statement. It
was about the way it was phrased, in particular, your choice to use a
word with strong negative connotations. As a rule calling a person
"ignorant" is a personal attack, whether meant that way or not. A
neutral phrase like "your incomplete knowledge" or something would avoid
that problem.

This could be a cultural/language problem. To judge by your surname,
it's possible you're European, and therefore possible that English is
not your first language. If that's true, you've mastered the basics
better than a lot of ESL students do. On the other hand, some lack of
awareness of nuance could be expected to persist. Anyway, the upshot is:
in case you weren't aware of it (ESL or for other reasons) "ignorant" as
applied to a person carries negative connotations about them in the
English language's normal usage.

Don't post nonsense, and no one will criticize the nonsense you pose.

This also comes off as being a personal attack. Again, I hope it wasn't
intended that way. But there are several problems with it that make it
quite impolite in Western English-speaking cultures:

1. It orders someone about. "Don't do X." in general is rude unless it's
part of a rules document, coming from a cop or the boss or something,
or said in the right way (and it's impossible to say it in the right
way in ASCII; well, maybe a smiley would help it a bit).
Requests from an equal should use the word "please", e.g. "Please
don't do X."
2. It contains an implied accusation, namely that someone posted
nonsense. Worse, in this case that accusation is false.
3. It contains an implied threat: that failing to comply with the demand
(note item 1 above) will result in further flaming and personal
attacks. Threatening people is considered rude in Western society.
Again, if you're the police or the boss or something you can get away
with threatening your underlings, within reason (such as when
enforcing the generally-accepted rules or laws), but when you're just
a Joe Schmoe addressing another Joe Schmoe, "Do/Don't do X, or else!"
is not generally considered acceptable.

I repeat: Please be more tolerant, and please confine your remarks to
the technical subjects being discussed and not your personal opinions of
other posters, whatever those might be and however valid you might think
they are.

(Notice my use of the word "please".)

 

[Lew]

(Notice my use of the word "please".)

Shouldn't that be, "Please notice my use of the word 'please'."?

 

[Dave Searles]

Shouldn't that be, "Please notice my use of the word 'please'."?

Perhaps. "Notice ..." might be read as a demand though it's a common way
of phrasing something that's intended as an observation.

Of course, if Mike is not 100% up to speed on the nuances of some
English constructions, he'd likely read it as a demand.

I can't say I've seen "Please notice ..." used as a construct until
today. "Please observe" is the most similar construct I have records of
seeing in the wild.

 

[Mike Schilling]

[missing attribution, but it was Mike Schilling]
It's not your ignorance that's being criticized; I'm sure there
are
many important topics I know little or nothing about. What's
being
objected to your claim of effective omniscience: that anything
you
don't know is ipso facto unworthy of mention.
I've made no such claim. In fact, it's ludicrous to even think
that
I
might have been thinking of myself as omniscient. If I actually
were
omniscient, I would have known exactly what "ISAM" meant, now,
wouldn't I?

This is getting ridiculous, not to mention more and more
off-topic.
I
also don't care much for phrases like "your ignorance" being
bandied
about baldly.

If you don't know something, you're in=gnorant of it. That's what
"ignorance" means.

My complaint wasn't about the technical accuracy of the statement.
It
was about the way it was phrased, in particular, your choice to use
a
word with strong negative connotations. As a rule calling a person
"ignorant" is a personal attack, whether meant that way or not.

It was not meant that way, but if you wish to interpret it like that,
I can't stop you. Oh, and I'm as American as my non-cousin Curt
(what, after all, is more American than baseball?)

This also comes off as being a personal attack.

No, it's a criticism of your posts in this subthread. I have no
reason to criticize you personally, nor would I.

Another term you might or might not be familiar with is "egoless
programming": that is, being able to hear your code criticized without
taking it personally, in fact, to be able to accept and learn from the
criticism. It's a good thing, necessary for working successfull in a
team. The same ideas can be applied to other aspects of life, say
making Usenet posts. Step back. Let your ego drop. How would you
react to some other poster getting upset because you used a term he
was unfamiliar with?

 

[Dave Searles]

No, it's a criticism

Same thing. I have no interest in your criticisms. Please keep any
criticisms you think about me to yourself in the future, or private
email. Please do not post them publicly. Thank you.

Another term you might or might not be familiar with is "egoless
programming": that is, being able to hear your code criticized without
taking it personally

That is not relevant here. My knowledge and professional skills were
being criticized, not my code. I consider that unwarranted.

How would you react to some other poster getting upset because you
used a term he was unfamiliar with?

Did I get "upset" at Roedy?

My post said, and I quote:

"ISAM" files?

Where, in that, is there any evidence that I was "upset"?

I wasn't.

You completely misread the situation, drew erroneous conclusions, and
consequently developed a negative opinion of me. Then started
broadcasting that opinion publicly, thus beginning to actually maybe
start to "upset" me.

Perhaps it was therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy on your part.

Regardless, I have no further interest in any of this, particularly your
opinions of me.

And yes, I'm well aware that saying "you completely misread the
situation" is a personal criticism. I think you earned it.

The parts of your post that I didn't quote I found to be pointless,
laughable, unpleasant, or some combination of those, and I didn't choose
to dignify them with a quote or specific responses.

Have a nice day, and see you in hell!

 

[Lew]

Have a nice day, and see you in hell!

Plonk.

 

[Mike Schilling]

Same thing. I have no interest in your criticisms. Please keep any
criticisms you think about me to yourself in the future, or private
email. Please do not post them publicly. Thank you.

Nice snip, loser. (*That* was an insult.) It was a criticism "of the
post". If you're too sensitive to see your brain-children criticized,
don't post them.

 

[Dave Searles]

loser.

Plonk.