How to torment Samaritans

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Gordon Beaton coughed up:

That's my approach as well. I don't have enough time or interest to
hand-hold people who can't provide enough information for others to
help them solve their problems.

I ignore a lot of posts that I probably could have answered if the OP
had simply put a little more effort into posting.

The only problem I see with this approach is that it is so often the case
that a junior OP does not know *how to ask* the question in the first place.
Often learning the proper question is the best lesson of all.



--
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.

 

[HansF]

It *is* time to rename this acronym. I can't even read this without
arduously sounding it out in my head. It's just a clumsy set of letters.

(with tongue in cheek ...)

SSCCE has never caught on for several reasons:

- it has more than the accepted 3-4 characters
- it does not contain at least one J
- it can not be spoken in one syllable
- it can not be said while eating pizza (without making a mess)

I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
interpretations:

- Just A Dummied-up Example
- Java App Developer's Example

/Hans ;-)

 

[Dave Glasser]

Gordon Beaton coughed up:

The only problem I see with this approach is that it is so often the case
that a junior OP does not know *how to ask* the question in the first place.
Often learning the proper question is the best lesson of all.

That may be the case, but I give the junior OPs credit for enough
reasoning ability to eventually figure out why their post was ignored.
(Assuming they care. I still think a lot of them post a question and
then never come back to check for answers.)

Suppose that the first time someone visited a programming newsgroup,
they saw that about 3/4 of the threads consisted of a single post with
no responses, while the other 1/4 were answered with solutions to the
OPs' problems. I think they would quickly notice the traits that set
the successful posts apart from the unsuccessful ones.

As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
forgotton all about his post.

 

[Stefan Ram]

I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
interpretations:
- Just A Dummied-up Example
- Java App Developer's Example

"Jade" also is "James' DSSSL Engine":

http://www.jclark.com/jade/

"DSSSL" reminds me of "SSCCE". In "SSCCE" one can at least see
that there are two "S", while in "DSSSL" one can't even count
the "S" anymore.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Stefan Ram coughed up:

"Jade" also is "James' DSSSL Engine":

http://www.jclark.com/jade/

"DSSSL" reminds me of "SSCCE". In "SSCCE" one can at least see
that there are two "S", while in "DSSSL" one can't even count
the "S" anymore.

The world has needed short examples such as the "SSCCE" is meant to indicate
for a long time. Is it possible that there is another acronym for it
already?

--
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.

 

[Stefan Ram]

The world has needed short examples such as the "SSCCE" is meant to indicate
for a long time. Is it possible that there is another acronym for it
already?

If did not found another acronym. The concept is used, of
course. For example, in C++:

"Or you could post a complete minimal compilable example so
we can debug it for you."

http://www.tech-archive.net/Archive/VC/microsoft.public.vc.stl/2004-03/0140.html

"complete minimal comilable example" would be "CMCE", or
"compmin compex". "complete" might be redundant, so one gets
"minimal compilable example": "MCE" or "mincompex", or
"minimal compex".

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Dave Glasser coughed up:

That may be the case, but I give the junior OPs credit for enough
reasoning ability to eventually figure out why their post was ignored.
(Assuming they care. I still think a lot of them post a question and
then never come back to check for answers.)

Suppose that the first time someone visited a programming newsgroup,
they saw that about 3/4 of the threads consisted of a single post with
no responses, while the other 1/4 were answered with solutions to the
OPs' problems. I think they would quickly notice the traits that set
the successful posts apart from the unsuccessful ones.

As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
forgotton all about his post.

I'm not willing to go /that/ far, but I do understand the ire.

--
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.

 

[HansF]

"Jade" also is "James' DSSSL Engine":

So?

In this environment overloading is not only permitted, but occasionally
encouraged. It ALL depends on context, and in the event of context
collision, we can always fall back on using the appropriate namespace.

/Hans

 

[David Zimmerman]

(with tongue in cheek ...)

SSCCE has never caught on for several reasons:

- it has more than the accepted 3-4 characters
- it does not contain at least one J
- it can not be spoken in one syllable
- it can not be said while eating pizza (without making a mess)

Just like PCMCIA - People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

 

[blmblm]

That may be the case, but I give the junior OPs credit for enough
reasoning ability to eventually figure out why their post was ignored.
(Assuming they care. I still think a lot of them post a question and
then never come back to check for answers.)

Suppose that the first time someone visited a programming newsgroup,
they saw that about 3/4 of the threads consisted of a single post with
no responses, while the other 1/4 were answered with solutions to the
OPs' problems. I think they would quickly notice the traits that set
the successful posts apart from the unsuccessful ones.

They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to
help, but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're
being ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and
observe which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this
is just bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.

As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
forgotton all about his post.

Seems like repeatedly posting links to a URL that describes how
to ask a question in a way that improves the odds of getting
helpful responses is the approach most likely to be effective in
training newbies -- the ones who are trainable, anyway. (Yes,
it's mildly offensive to speak of training other humans, but
I can't think of a better word right now.) Just ignoring them --
I don't know, but it seems to me that it's unlikely to induce
clue in very many, though perhaps if the others just give up and
go away, and the number of irate exchanges decreases, that could
be called a positive result. <shrug>

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

David Zimmerman coughed up:

Just like PCMCIA - People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

A /perfect/ example of an acronym that was 1. dumb and 2. universally
understood as dumb the moment it came out.

 

[Dave Glasser]

(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) wrote on 8 Oct 2005
04:01:35 GMT in comp.lang.java.programmer:

They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to
help, but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're
being ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and
observe which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this
is just bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.

Oh sure, some, perhaps most, will be beyond hope. That's why they're
also beyond help, IMO. Ignore them.

Seems like repeatedly posting links to a URL that describes how
to ask a question in a way that improves the odds of getting
helpful responses is the approach most likely to be effective in
training newbies -- the ones who are trainable, anyway.

One would think so, but reality doesn't seem to bear that out.

(Yes,
it's mildly offensive to speak of training other humans, but
I can't think of a better word right now.) Just ignoring them --
I don't know, but it seems to me that it's unlikely to induce
clue in very many,

As I said before, for those who are willfully clueless--and I still
think a lot of it is willful--it's their problem, not mine. I don't
really care if they get their questions answered or their problems
solved.

I think that's why my attitude about this is different from so many
others'. Some people seem to *need* to answer other people's
questions, and they get frustrated when the questioner makes it hard
for them to do so, and oftentimes their frustration manfifests itself
in snotty condescension, which annoys me a lot more than the "PLZ HELP
ME!!!" questions.

though perhaps if the others just give up and
go away, and the number of irate exchanges decreases, that could
be called a positive result. <shrug>

It certainly would be in my opinion. It would definitely improve the
signal-to-noise ratio.


--
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

 

[steve]

Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it is
required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a right
thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being done for a
company. Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.
If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track
the issue. One should try to post as much information as possible in
the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.

heres a "national Security one"

 

[Andrew Thompson]

.....
"complete minimal comilable example" would be "CMCE", or
"compmin compex". "complete" might be redundant, so one gets
"minimal compilable example": "MCE" or "mincompex", or
"minimal compex".

?? For those who might wish to link to the existing document,
but have trouble (technically or philosophically) with the current
acronym/URL, I've added a shorter URL that redirects to it.
<http://www.physci.org/code.jsp>

That sends the user to the existing document at..
<http://www.physci.org/codes/sscce.jsp>
(..and it's also 7 chars shorter)

 

[Chris Uppal]

I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
interpretations:

"Examplet" ?

-- chris

 

[Bjorn Abelli]

After reading this thread I can't help myself. I must but in to express my
opionion on this matter...

As the thread have been somewhat difficult to follow anyway, I've chosen to
write this without including other comments, though I will refer to some
other postings.

Occasionally I try to give a hand to the less expressive posters, for
several reasons.

I teach programming, and try to find new ways to explain the fundamental
things about it. Posting in these newsgroups is one way for me to improve
that skill.

But as in the classroom, the ways of the students differ much, and hence
there is no *one* way to approach a problem.

Sometimes a simple question from an OP is enough to express the problem, and
in those cases no code is needed.

Sometimes a post of "complete code" works, sometimes not. On occasion I've
cut and pasted such animals into the editor, just to see if it compiles or
not. If it could compile, it's fairly easy to spot the problem in most
cases. If it couldn't compile, I usually ask the OP to elaborate more on
what he/she is after, and possibly post an "SSCCE".

But as several posters have said, the acronym doesn't stick, even if the
concept is very useful.

Such a code does not always need to be "compilable", as the problem might
lie in just that, it doesn't compile for some reason.

If we want it to be a regular concept, maybe it needs to be changed into
something easier to pronunce, like SPOCIP (Shortest POssible Code
Illustrating the Problem).

Just my 2c

// Bjorn A

 

[Henry Townsend]

"Examplet" ?

Brilliant!

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Dave Glasser coughed up:

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.
http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

That many claim that you cannot achieve "perfect pitch" through drills is
flat out wrong, (as I at least /suspect/ you suspect).

The people who have most often said this to me, seem to rattle it off as if
a phrase learned by rote over decades.

The *truth* is the following, from having been immersed and trained in music
most of my life:

1. You can be born without the ability to ever train yourself to perfect
pitch
2. You can be born with the ability to *instantly* exhibit perfect pitch
(once told /what/ the particular pitch is, of course).
3. There are an *entire spectrum of abilities in between these two*
extremes.

Slot #2 is not the common usage definition of the term. That is, "perfect
pitch" means the ability to identify particular pitches absolutely, it does
not mean the /ability/ to do it without training.

It is the folks that fall into slot #3 that can benefit from perfect pitch
training. 20 years ago at my university I saw it over and over; first hand
evidence. When people disagree about this with me, they almost always offer
only theory that they learned from someone else who does not know what
they're talking about. Music instructors *often* get this wrong as well.
Most at my university however *knew* better, and trained those that had
failed the perfect pitch testing into perfect pitch.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Bjorn Abelli coughed up:

....[rip]...

If we want it to be a regular concept, maybe it needs to be changed
into something easier to pronunce, like SPOCIP (Shortest POssible Code
Illustrating the Problem).

Perhaps just ZZZ (which stands for "short working example"---they're all
silent)

I've taught all manner of folk all kinds of things, from programming to
beginner windsurfing (even though I am mediocre at the latter). It all
comes down to *how* it is presented, and so often less so *what* is
presented to the student.

I remember with pride the day that I taught someone the fundamentals of
windsurfing with a few *very* basic techniques, and he climbed aboard the
thing, took it from one end of the bay, turned around (!), and came straight
back. First time.

What I've identified in this time is that students (of any calibre) often
just don't know /how/ to ask the question in the first place. I see an
awful lot of ire in USENET reacting to such things, and I think it should
stop.

As far as your comment about easier to pronounce acronyms: A friend of mine
participates in barbershop quartet singing. The (main?) barbershop
organization is the SPEBSQSA. You will find it written here and there, but
almost no one that I've met uses it conversationally. SPEBSQSA makes SSCCE
seem as easy to pronounce as "S". But SSCCE still has a long way to go
before being a comfortable acronym.


....[rip]...

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.] On 2005-10-08,
(e-mail address removed) penned:

They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to help,
but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're being
ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and observe
which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this is just
bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.

Not to be a jerk, but if they can't figure out simple stuff like that,
I don't see how they'll ever amount to anything as a developer
(programmer, engineer, designer, architect). On some level, I don't
see the point of helping them.

I saw kids make it through their entire CS degree without ever once
developing a decent understanding of what they were doing. They would
hack something crappy, then go to a student and get one tidbit. Then
they'd go to another student and get another tidbit. Etc, till they
had something they could turn in. They never learned how to solve
problems for themselves; indeed, I didn't see any evidence that they
wanted to. Just grades, then a fat paycheck, please (this was back
when CS was "the" perceived route to beaucoup bucks).

I honestly believe that the approach of ignoring the poor posts while
answering the good ones is the most effective for people who have a
clue. It's certainly the way I learned. (Probably because, when no
one answered my posts, I took the time to think about what *I* was
doing wrong rather than blaming the group for being big meanies). It
cuts down on noise, and those who actually have a chance at being
productive members of usenet society *will* figure it out on their
own.