Why “new�

[Arne Vajhøj]

I didn't *feel* like guessing. Why are you saying that I was obligated to
guess rather than ask and find out for sure? Because I did the latter,
got flamed, and now you're suggesting I should have done the former
instead.

That does not make sense.

Why should I guess when there's someone right there that I know knows the
exact answer? The obvious thing to do in such a situation is ask, so
that's what I did.

It is perfectly fine to ask questions.

But if you note the name of this group then it ends in "programmer".

Programmers are expected to have basic search abilities.

There must be other groups where the idea of finding information
via Google is considered a challenging task.

There I was alluding to the *other* pointless and stupid flamewar you
people have started recently. Where something was meant sarcastically and
I made no unwarranted assumptions about how it was meant, instead of
guessing and possibly getting it wrong. Apparently I was supposed to
guess there too, and presumably magically guess right as well.

And yes, that last sentence was meant sarcastically, because I think this
whole affair is ludicrous. Apparently you have expectations of me that
are unreasonable given the limitations of the medium and the fact that I
am not actually a walking encyclopedia of every single programming
language, nuanced bit of usage, and so forth; and when I fall short of
those ridiculous expectations the standard response is to flame rather
than to be tolerant. How utterly silly and revolting. It makes me not
want to be a part of any community that behaves like yours does.

I don't think anybody expect you to know about J.

But most expect you to be able to Google.

So have I. Enough to know their limitations, too, and that "J" is not a
good query in either's search, so I'd have to guess at additional terms
and probably spend several minutes experimenting with the query before
being reasonably sure what Arved meant.

Or I could just ask him.

Googling should be a lot faster than waiting for a reply on usenet.

Oh, the irony. I'm the only one here who is making some discernible
effort to be civil and to argue on the facts without resorting to
namecalling or personal insinuations of any kind, and you're telling ME
to "keep cool"!

Every other word out of your mouth is some sort of insinuation that I'm
not a "real programmer" or some other such disparagement lately; Peter is
not much better, nor Mike; and Lew has stooped to direct and blunt
personal attacks; and you're telling ME to "keep cool".

I think it's clear from the tones of the various newsposts here who
really deserves to receive (implicitly-barbed) advice to "keep cool". #1:
Lew. #2: you. #3 (tied): Mike and Peter. #5 (distant): me. And you jumped
right to the tail of that list for some unfathomable reason.

Well, I could speculate on what that reason might be, but if I did I
would then be as guilty as Lew of making unconstructive personal attacks.

The next section has this:

"When this happens, the worst thing you can do is whine about the
experience, claim to have been verbally assaulted, demand apologies,
scream, hold your breath, threaten lawsuits, complain to people's
employers, leave the toilet seat up, etc."



Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

17 AM, Ken Wesson wrote:
[...]
J has arguably helped with that. Some. Fact is, if you apply
yourself to learning and using J then it's not line-noise at all,
it's just extremely terse. It's not symbol cruft in the same sense
that Perl is.

And what, pray tell, is J?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/

That is needlessly snarky. It's not as if one can google a one-letter
query and expect a useful result.

Since Peter suggested a 22 character query, then that is not so
relevant.

Since the only part of Peter's query that was obvious to me was the
letter "j", it is relevant. The rest of it Peter got from his prior
knowledge that J was a programming language -- knowledge I did not share
with him at that time.

Well as I suspected and as Peter now has confirmed then he did not
have prior knowledge.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Sure I could have tried mucking about with assorted google queries. I
just plain didn't feel like it. Satisfied?

That is usually called being lazy.

Then why are you? Hassling me, that is. At least four people have flamed
me here in the past 24 hours -- you, Arne, Lew, and Mike. And all because
I did two apparently-especially-heinous things:

1. I asked what J was.
2. On encountering a term for which I foresaw more than one possible
connotation, I made no assumption about which was intended, rather than
guess right OR guess wrong.

Now, please tell me:

1. what is wrong with asking what J is (ignore that this is a Java
newsgroup and J is apparently nothing to do with Java; that wasn't the
focus of the flamage); and
2. what is wrong with taking a term at face value instead of assuming
(with the risk of guessing wrong) that it was (or wasn't) intended in
a sarcastic manner.

The biggest problem is not what you did not know or did not do,
but how you react when it was pointed out.

If you can come up with no plausible theory by which EITHER of those
actions of mine is morally wrong, then I respectfully request that all
four of you that I have just named post apologies.

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#not_losing

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

There comes a point when finding out what someone meant is easier by
simply asking them rather than googling. I find that point tends to come
if I'd have to run three or four google queries in a row to get the
answer rather than, say, one.
And?

Furthermore, I wasn't sure Google wouldn't just ignore a query term that
was a single letter, or match anything with the letter "j" anywhere in
the page and fitting the other criteria.

You could try it!

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

1. You grossly underestimate my latency. I hate waiting for webpages to
load.
2. Asking is still quicker than messing around trying multiple google
queries.

How long time did it take from you posted the question to you got an
answer?

Arne

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Christ, this is ridiculous. I'm starting to sound slightly like [implied
insult deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

If this newsgroup is usually this hostile to people that ask innocuous,
not-in-the-group-FAQ questions

Unfortunately, it is.

I begin to understand how [implied insult deleted]!

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

In what way?  What else would you call it when someone just starts
[insult deleted]?

Twisted.

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

How long time did it take from you posted the question to you got an
answer?

Now, really, Arne, you could have tried to google, instead of asking
this question!

(just kidding - I know it was a rhetorical one)

 

[Lew]

A troll tried the lame rationale that:

Now, really, Arne, you could have tried to google, instead of asking
this question!

(just kidding - I know it was a rhetorical one)

And inherently not amenable to search engine research.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

[someone] tried the lame rationale that:
2. Asking is still quicker than messing around trying multiple google
queries.

How long time did it take from you posted the question to you got an
answer?

Now, really, Arne, you could have tried to google, instead of asking
this question!
(just kidding - I know it was a rhetorical one)

And inherently not amenable to search engine research.

You're applying the same rationale that you criticized. (joke?)
[someone] assumed, that a query for "j" alone would be inherently
not amenable. Ok, he was wrong with his assumption, but did *you*
try (e.g. google groups), before claiming in-amenability?

 

[blmblm]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:27:56 +0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

On 2/7/11 11:17 AM, Ken Wesson wrote:
[...]
J has arguably helped with that. Some. Fact is, if you apply
yourself to learning and using J then it's not line-noise at all,
it's just extremely terse. It's not symbol cruft in the same sense
that Perl is.

And what, pray tell, is J?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/

That is needlessly snarky. It's not as if one can google a one-letter
query and expect a useful result.

I note that you clipped the _useful_ part of the URL I offered.

If one is so inept at web searches that they cannot be bothered to add
relevant terms that are obvious from the context in order to produce a
useful result, then yes…I can see how that might cause a problem. But
such a person probably should not be involved in programming in any way.

See my response to Patricia.

Which explains why you didn't yourself think to try the additional
search terms suggested by Peter. What it doesn't explain is why you
quoted only the first part of Peter's URL. I can't think of any
reason to do that other than -- well, perhaps I won't finish that
sentence.

(I agree that you do have a point here, but the lengths to which
you seem to be going to argue that you have done nothing wrong ....
"Remarkable"?)

You added "programming language" to the
query but the first post mentioning J did not make it clear that it was a
programming language, only that learning it would make APL code seem less
like line noise. Whether that meant it was an APL derivative, an APL IDE,
a mathematical system using similar symbols, or some other tool was not
made clear by that post.

[ snip ]

 

[Lew]

[someone] tried the lame rationale that:
2. Asking is still quicker than messing around trying multiple google
     queries.
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
How long time did it take from you posted the question to you got an
answer?

Now, really, Arne, you could have tried to google, instead of asking
this question!
(just kidding - I know it was a rhetorical one)

And inherently not amenable to search engine research.

You're applying the same rationale that you criticized. (joke?)

Bullshit. You have no evidence for that.

[someone] assumed, that a query for "j" alone would be inherently
not amenable. Ok, he was wrong with his assumption, but did *you*
try (e.g. google groups), before claiming in-amenability?

Yes, I did, contrary to your unfounded assertion that I didn't. Not
that it's necessary - to date, search engines to not let the general
public search for other individual's search patterns. But you knew
that already, of course, since you have used search engines.

What I don't understand is your assumption that I didn't check. I can
understand a question, but not "You're applying the same rational that
you criticized." Of *course* I checked!

Sheesh!

 

[Lew]

Oh, I see my mistake. I was talking aobut the time he took to google,
and y'all were talking about how long it took him to get an answer on
Usenet. Since I was reading the thread I can answer that question.
He got an answer within hours of asking. He then spent days
complaining about the answer. He seems to have ignored the fact that
the answer he got was complete and informative. But then, he is a
freaking troll.

Still, my googling of the troll's question (which included his name)
did not reveal how long it took to get his answer, at least not
directly and not within the first page or so. It did show that he
asked, so I was wrong to say the question isn't amenable to googling,
but that's because I was trying to google how long it took him to
google the answer, not how long it took in Usenet. My mistake.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Oh, I see my mistake. I was talking aobut the time he took to google,
and y'all were talking about how long it took him to get an answer on
Usenet.

Indeed. You see, even a small misreading may lead to uttered
conclusions, that may make one appear utterly faulty at logic...

Perhaps you all remember that next time, when someone posts
what looks like utter bullshit - it may easily have been just
a small misunderstanding somewhere before.

 

[Lew]

Indeed. You see, even a small misreading may lead to uttered
conclusions, that may make one appear utterly faulty at logic...

Perhaps you all remember that next time, when someone posts
what looks like utter bullshit - it may easily have been just
a small misunderstanding somewhere before.

Oh, thank you for that advice.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

You're applying the same rationale that you criticized. (joke?)
[someone] assumed, that a query for "j" alone would be inherently not
amenable. Ok, he was wrong with his assumption

Nope. "Results 1 to 10 of about 2,910,000,000".

Once you got really used to google, you'll have learnt that the total
number of hits is more of a pseudo-random number that shouldn't be
overrated. If you advance to the next page of hits, usually that
number shrinks by an order of magnitude.

But even if it is a biiiig haystack, often enough a needle shines
out to you within the first couple of glances at it - in the case
at hand, a useful hit was on position three,

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

If you're referring to "J (programming language) - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia", I saw that at position two, but for all I knew *at the
time* that could have been something else.

You're thinking much too complicated. Most of the discussions here aren't
really worth it.

I rest my case.

good idea.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:14:45 +0000, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
You're applying the same rationale that you criticized. (joke?)
[someone] assumed, that a query for "j" alone would be inherently
not amenable. Ok, he was wrong with his assumption
Nope. "Results 1 to 10 of about 2,910,000,000".

Once you got really used to google, you'll have learnt that the total
number of hits is more of a pseudo-random number that shouldn't be
overrated. If you advance to the next page of hits, usually that
number shrinks by an order of magnitude.

But even if it is a biiiig haystack, often enough a needle shines
out to you within the first couple of glances at it - in the case at
hand, a useful hit was on position three,

If you're referring to "J (programming language) - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia", I saw that at position two, but for all I knew *at the
time* that could have been something else. Suppose I'd made the same
search in a counterfactual world where there was an APL IDE named J
that the poster had been referring to *and*, separately, a J
programming language utterly unrelated to APL?

The name's so short it's *easily* plausible it could have been used
more than once for things related to IT.

[ SNIP ]

I'll admit I could have qualified my reference to "J". It never really
occurred to me, because as part of professional development I tend to keep
up on programming languages. Over the decades I suspect I've professionally
used several dozen, experimented with several dozen more, and have at least
read up on enough others that the total number of languages of which I have
at least a vague idea of what they are about is perhaps a hundred. This is
simply where I personally expect a professional software developer who has
been working for 2 or more decades to be. It's not difficult to do - any
competent programmer can spend 5-10 hours and not only get a HelloWorld
example working in practically anything, but also do enough reading to
classify a language along the lines of "if I have to tackle problem X, then
maybe I can consider languages A, B and C".

<rant>
Naive on my part, I know. J is not what I'd call obscure; it's been around
for twenty-odd years. If anyone was interested enough in languages at all,
as a professional software developer, to ever even look at the Wikipedia
page for APL (tall order, I know) then they'd maybe notice what languages
APL has influenced. Of course it's pretty likely that the same folks who
have never heard of J probably also have never heard of Mathematica or
MATLAB either.

Not busting on you in particular, Ken. Thuis is one of my pet peeves, that
by and large I can't have an intelligent discussion with more than a
miniscule percentage of my professional peers before encountering the fact
that the typical programmer has a pretty empty toolchest - they have good to
very good knowledge of 1-2 languages, can get by in maybe 2-3 more, and
typically haven't heard of almost any others.

I could list a dozen instances from just the last month on various client
sites where I've seen programmers handcuffed by their inability to solve
immediate problems, on whatever OS (let's say Windows, and UNIX/Linux,
including later Mac OS X versions in UNIX), in anything but Java or C#.
They've got one hammer so everything is a nail. They can't write scripts in
DOS or bash or Powershell. It would occur to very few of them, on Windows,
to ever install cygwin. Watch them struggle for a few hours on a problem
where they could have used awk/gawk/nawk, and in fact had it available at
their fingertips, and when you mention it you find out they've never heard
of it. If on Windows their command line knowledge sort of stops after "dir"
and "chdir"...they need the UI instead.

I'll bet right now that I couldn't find one programmer in four, chosen from
a large representative set of programmers, who has truthfully heard of all
of Java, C#, Scala, Lisp, Fortran, F#, C, C++, Python, Tcl, Perl, Ruby, C,
C++, Scheme, Smalltalk, awk, Forth, Prolog, and APL. That's just a grab bag
of languages that every serious programmer worth their salt should at least
have heard of...I could have subtracted a few and added a few others. Of
that list I'll wager serious money that not one programmer in ten could
adequately describe more than 5...and believe you me, I'd have a very
lenient definition of "adequately".
</rant>

Enough of that. The industry is what it is.

AHS

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

No, I am not. And whereas you may *think* so, it is quite rude of you to
express such an opinion in public. Please do not do so again.

I apologize if it sounded rude. It surely wasn't meant that way.
I meant you were considering too many alternatives. That happens
to me, too, every once in a while, mostly in face to face talks,
so I just see strange looks on other's faces, instead of reading
snotty replies.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Yes, it does seem that people are more polite and less prone to blurting
out privately-held negative opinions of others in circumstances where
expressing these carries a substantial non-zero risk of resulting in the
prompt incurring of a black eye.

In those circles I wrote about, no one would have feared
a risk of a black eye, even if they outright insulted me
on my overly thinking of possible alternatives.