ATC CONTROLLER HIRING PUSH CREATES CLASS STRUGGLE

[Larry Dighera]

For years it was apparent that there would be a shortage of ATC
controllers due to retirements, but FAA delayed precutting more. Now
this:


CONTROLLER HIRING PUSH CREATES CLASS STRUGGLE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195087)
The FAA's unprecedented recruiting drive for air traffic controllers
has caused bitter division between the new recruits and those who've
taken the college route to the console. Pat Forrey, president of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told AVweb in an
interview (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20070430&kw=Flash) that
controller trainees who have gone through college, often amassing
large student loans, are now training side by side with people who
have almost literally been pulled off the street and into the program.
"It's causing a rift amongst the new hires," Forrey said. Ironically,
though, Forrey said it's unlikely the off-the-street trainees are at
any significant competitive disadvantage against their college-trained
classmates.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195087

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> CONTROLLER HIRING PUSH CREATES CLASS STRUGGLE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195087)
> The FAA's unprecedented recruiting drive for air traffic controllers
> has caused bitter division between the new recruits and those who've
> taken the college route to the console. Pat Forrey, president of the
> National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told AVweb in an
> interview (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20070430&kw=Flash) that
> controller trainees who have gone through college, often amassing
> large student loans, are now training side by side with people who
> have almost literally been pulled off the street and into the program.
> "It's causing a rift amongst the new hires," Forrey said. Ironically,
> though, Forrey said it's unlikely the off-the-street trainees are at
> any significant competitive disadvantage against their college-trained
> classmates.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195087

The mistake was in associating college educations to ATC skills in the first
place. Being a good controller is mostly a matter of natural talent for the
job, just as the article says, and a college degree is completely irrelevant.
That's what happens when credentialism is allowed to rule.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 00:25:03 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>That's what happens when credentialism is allowed to rule.

Hey. That's only part of it. ATC applicants who are US military
veterans get an automatic 5% increase in test scores, and Purple Heart
holders get 10%.

It's called the Merit System of civil service. :-)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Forrey said it's unlikely the off-the-street trainees are at
> any significant competitive disadvantage against their college-trained
> classmates.

I wonder how true that is. It's been my experience that a college degree
shows you can be taught. On the other hand, I have seen some pretty bright
people who never attended college. I would predict a higher wash-out rate
among those without the education.

[John T]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message

>
> I wonder how true that is. It's been my experience that a college
> degree shows you can be taught. On the other hand, I have seen some
> pretty bright people who never attended college. I would predict a
> higher wash-out rate among those without the education.

I'll take that bet. I think the wash-out rate would be fairly consistent
regardless of education - and quite possibly slightly better for non-degree
trainees. I base this on my own experience hiring/training/sometimes firing
software developers.

"Can be taught" != "wants to learn". :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Hey. That's only part of it. ATC applicants who are US military
> veterans get an automatic 5% increase in test scores, and Purple Heart
> holders get 10%.

Really? That's supposed to be illegal. The same thing is done for different
races on aptitude tests, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...

> I'll take that bet. I think the wash-out rate would be fairly consistent
> regardless of education - and quite possibly slightly better for
> non-degree trainees. I base this on my own experience
> hiring/training/sometimes firing software developers.
>
> "Can be taught" != "wants to learn". :)

What qualifications do you use for screening candidates?

Should I pull the plug on my son's tuition? He's a CS major (Game
Development)

[John T]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message

>
> What qualifications do you use for screening candidates?
>
> Should I pull the plug on my son's tuition? He's a CS major (Game
> Development)

At the risk of divulging a competitive advantage... :)

We have a multi-stage interview process:
1. If the resume looks decent (primarily demonstrated experience with
relevant technology), we arrange a phone screen.
2. Interviewer #1 talks to the candidate on the phone and asks a series of
technical questions designed to filter out the obvious chaff. If they answer
adequately, we arrange a personal interview.
3. Interviewers #2 and #3 use a different set of questions designed to
determine the depth of the candidate's knowledge in the technologies we use
as well as ones designed to demonstrate the candidate's problem-solving
techniques.
4. After the personal interview, Interviewers #1-3 get together to discuss
the candidate and the candidate is invited to join the team if 2 of 3
interviewers recommend hiring.

(It should be noted we use the same questions for all candidates. The only
difference between them is we don't bother asking the more advanced
questions if we determine we've reached the limits of the candidate's
knowledge. This allows a better "apples-to-apples" comparison.)

Frankly, level of education is hardly a factor in our process. Your son, for
example, would get a phone screen (for a junior position) if he were able to
show experience with the technologies we use. The college program should
provide some of that experience as well as exposing him to concepts like
programming teams, requirements analysis and problem-solving - skills
perhaps more important than knowing the nuances of a given language.

One of the most useful items in our interview is a small 11-line method
pulled from our actual code base. This method came to my attention when a
critical defect was discovered in the code and I've been using in the
interviews ever since by asking the candidate two simple questions: Describe
the purpose of this method ("what does it do", not the "why") and describe
how you would unit test it to ensure proper operation. There is one critical
defect in the method and I'm looking to see if the candidate can uncover it
either by experience or by logical unit testing. It's a major demerit if
they do not reveal the defect. On the other hand, they get extra credit if
they quickly identify the defect and suggest ways to fix it. This skill is
one of the more critical skills we need in our environment.

I may be an optimist, but I think the FAA likely has (should have?) a
similar process to identify candidates with the mentality and aptitude to
handle the job of ATC.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Sylvain]

John T wrote:
> (It should be noted we use the same questions for all candidates. The only
> difference between them is we don't bother asking the more advanced
> questions if we determine we've reached the limits of the candidate's
> knowledge. This allows a better "apples-to-apples" comparison.)

if I may, this is a major flaw in your process... there are quite a few
websites out there dedicated to sharing information about interviewing
techniques and questions amongst job seekers. The more visibility your
company has, the more likely such site exists for that company (not
to mention more generic repositories of questions used frequently);
but I digress.

--Sylvain

[John T]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message

> John T wrote:
>> (It should be noted we use the same questions for all candidates.
>> The only difference between them is we don't bother asking the more
>> advanced questions if we determine we've reached the limits of the
>> candidate's knowledge. This allows a better "apples-to-apples"
>> comparison.)
>
> if I may, this is a major flaw in your process... there are quite a
> few websites out there dedicated to sharing information about
> interviewing techniques and questions amongst job seekers. The more
> visibility your company has, the more likely such site exists for
> that company (not
> to mention more generic repositories of questions used frequently);
> but I digress.

I admit it's a risk, but I don't think it's a flaw.

Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier in that we ask each candidate
the same concepts, not necessarily the identical questions. We have a large
battery of questions available to us and the interviewers typically have 15+
years experience - mostly on large, complicated systems. It has happened
that we've detected "coached" answers and we have re-phrased the questions
on the fly to see if the candidates really knew the concepts. (This has
proven more effective than I'd've thought.) Further, with that much
experience in the room, it's not difficult to drill quite deeply into a
given subject, if needed. Also, we often use a "temp-to-perm" scenario to
help mitigate the remainig risk.

Yes, there have been candidates get through this process that shouldn't
have, but the numbers have been very small.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...

>
> Frankly, level of education is hardly a factor in our process. Your son,
> for example, would get a phone screen (for a junior position) if he were
> able to show experience with the technologies we use. The college program
> should provide some of that experience as well as exposing him to concepts
> like programming teams, requirements analysis and problem-solving - skills
> perhaps more important than knowing the nuances of a given language.
>

It sounds like a reasonable process. I will point out that I don't feel a
candidate with no work experience and no education would ever get to the
phone screen, while someone with no work experience and a college program
may.

[Kev]

On May 1, 10:08 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "John T" > wrote in message
>
> m...
>
> > I'll take that bet. I think the wash-out rate would be fairly consistent
> > regardless of education - and quite possibly slightly better for
> > non-degree trainees. I base this on my own experience
> > hiring/training/sometimes firing software developers.
>
> > "Can be taught" != "wants to learn". :)
>
> What qualifications do you use for screening candidates?
>
> Should I pull the plug on my son's tuition? He's a CS major (Game
> Development)

It would really help if he did some actual work along the way.
That'll count far, far more than any degree in most software positions
(excepting perhaps crypto / math related).

The good software places to work at, don't give a bleep what degrees
you have... it's the real world experience and output that is critical
instead.

When we look at a potential employee, we're looking for projects where
the person worked both with and without supervision, and got along
well either way. We're looking for times they had to learn new stuff
on their own and innovate. We're looking for hard working types who
care about their output quality. We're also looking for people who
can spell <grin>, which is rare these days.

Just some thoughts,
Kev

[Larry Dighera]

Here's the FAA Air Traffic Control Workforce Plan web site:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/controller_staffing/#Scene_1
You can watch a lengthy video (closed caption) of the Administrator
and others talking on the subject, as well as a graph vindicating FAA
of not meeting the ATC staffing requirements.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:08:38 -0700, Kev wrote:

> The good software places to work at, don't give a bleep what degrees you
> have... it's the real world experience and output that is critical
> instead.

This is only partially true.

> When we look at a potential employee, we're looking for projects where the
> person worked both with and without supervision, and got along well either
> way. We're looking for times they had to learn new stuff on their own
> and innovate. We're looking for hard working types who care about their
> output quality. We're also looking for people who can spell <grin>,
> which is rare these days.

<Laugh> That last is absolutely true. But it's not just the skill of
spelling; it's that this is a good metric for "output quality". If one
cannot proof his/her own resume and cover letter - documents of some
personal import - then what are we to expect with regard to software?

The issue with the degree is one of consistency and depth of knowledge.
We just interviewed, for example, someone that's well educated in general
but self-taught in computer science. If we'd not pushed the interview a
bit, he'd not have lasted five minutes.

His problem is that his understanding is spotty. When asked about inner
vs. outer joins, for example, he provided a nonsense answer (ie. one is
for 1:1; the other for 1:many). We inquired further, and it turns out
that he did understand these joins. He'd merely mixed a couple of
concepts up (in an incorrect but easily fixed fashion) which led to misuse
of the labels "1:1" and "1:many".

Learning on ones own can cause this. A class, with its defined
curriculum, should (no guarantee! {8^) avoid this by building knowledge in
a proper progression.

Another risk to the self-taught is failing to learn the "why" of
something. For simple work, this may not matter. But let's consider
locking as an example, sticking with the data store theme. Locking solves
a particular problem well for given circumstances. But w/o really
understanding why locking is right for those circumstances, one might miss
that the circumstances with which he or she is faced is better served by
(for example) some form of optimistic concurrency.

On the other hand, a degree is no guarantee that a person doesn't suffer
from these issues. That is for what interviews are. But school is an
opportunity to acquire a depth of knowledge that's a little tough on ones
own.

Still, it is the responsibility of the student to exploit the opportunity.

I have to admit, though: I don't know how this applies to a controller.
But I've little-to-no knowledge of that job.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 10:45:49 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in >:

>I have to admit, though: I don't know how this [college degree] applies to a controller.

I can't find the cite now, but I recall reading that the prime
requirement for ATC controllers was some sort of natural aptitude,
much like that required of top computer game players.

I suspect, that military ATC controllers are not required to possess a
college degree. Perhaps that's where the impetus for FAA dropping the
requirement stems.

[Chris W]

John T wrote:

> One of the most useful items in our interview is a small 11-line method
> pulled from our actual code base. This method came to my attention when a
> critical defect was discovered in the code and I've been using in the
> interviews ever since by asking the candidate two simple questions: Describe
> the purpose of this method ("what does it do", not the "why") and describe
> how you would unit test it to ensure proper operation.

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't want to share that snippet of code
would you. I like a good challenge.

BTW, I agree that level of education is not a good indicator of how well
someone can do in their chosen field. Actually learning from the things
that are taught in college classes is only one of many ways to get a
degree. If you have attended college, you should know what I mean.

I disagree with your requirement that an applicant demonstrate
proficiency in the specific technology you are using in your business, a
talented software developer can learn a new technology easily. The only
exception would be if you need a people that can jump into a project as
quickly as possible. But if you are more interested in having a quality
employee over the long run, you would increase your chances of finding
top notch software developers if you didn't require them to have
experience in the exact tools you are currently using.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Chris W]

Kev wrote:
We're also looking for people who
> can spell <grin>, which is rare these days.
>

I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
indicator as to how good someone may be at programming. That said,
someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
programmer.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Chris W]

Chris W wrote:
>
>
> Kev wrote:
> We're also looking for people who
>> can spell <grin>, which is rare these days.
>>
>
> I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
> indicator as to how good someone may be at programming. That said,
> someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
> limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
> programmer.
>

I have no idea how that T got where the K should have been.... must have
been a keyboard anomaly ;)

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> The good software places to work at, don't give a bleep what degrees you
>> have... it's the real world experience and output that is critical
>> instead.
>
>This is only partially true.
>

Some shops take it too far. Years ago I recall applying for a position
involving a fairly rare specialty (one not normally taught at universities).
I got a polite rejection of my application with the explanation that they
could only consider candidates with degrees. It mattered not that I had been
working exclusively in their area of interest for over 5 yrs. Six months
later, the same company hired me as a contractor (at twice the pay), to come
in and fix the disaster created by the degreed professional that they had
hired instead.

When I jokingly asked the manager whether or not that might make them
change their views on hiring only degreed candidates, he said no. I made a
lot of money from that company over the years (as contractor).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Chris W >
wrote:

> > I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
> > indicator as to how good someone may be at programming. That said,
> > someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
> > limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
> > programmer.
> >
>
> I have no idea how that T got where the K should have been.... must have
> been a keyboard anomaly ;)

and something a spell checker wouldn't find! :-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
> indicator as to how good someone may be at programming.

Language ability, including and especially vocabulary and spelling ability,
are fairly strongly correlated with general intelligence. If you can give
only a one-item test to a candidate to assess intelligence, a vocabulary test
is a fairly good choice.

I have found that the best programmers are not poor spellers. Spelling and
programming are not directly related, but both are partially a function of
intelligence, and higher intelligence usually leads to better spelling and
better programming ability, and vice versa.

Programmers with poor written communication skills are usually at the lower
end of the skills curve. They can code stuff quickly and it usually kinda
sorta works, but they may not be suited to the most critical programming
tasks.

> That said,
> someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
> limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
> programmer.

Quite so. But if he needs a spell checker for everything, that may be a bad
sign as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Chris W writes:
>
>
>>I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
>>indicator as to how good someone may be at programming.
>
>
> Language ability, including and especially vocabulary and spelling ability,
> are fairly strongly correlated with general intelligence. If you can give
> only a one-item test to a candidate to assess intelligence, a vocabulary test
> is a fairly good choice.
>
> I have found that the best programmers are not poor spellers. Spelling and
> programming are not directly related, but both are partially a function of
> intelligence, and higher intelligence usually leads to better spelling and
> better programming ability, and vice versa.
>
> Programmers with poor written communication skills are usually at the lower
> end of the skills curve. They can code stuff quickly and it usually kinda
> sorta works, but they may not be suited to the most critical programming
> tasks.
>
>
>>That said,
>>someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
>>limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
>>programmer.
>
>
> Quite so. But if he needs a spell checker for everything, that may be a bad
> sign as well.

I know some very bright and highly paid software engineers that can't
communicate worth a crap. Of course, one of them built their own
cable descrambler at home but wouldn't be able to tell you how to.
Probably wouldn't even greet you when they saw you just because they
don't think of those things.

Is there a Microsoft Human Resource simulator, too?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Language ability, including and especially vocabulary and spelling
> ability,
> are fairly strongly correlated with general intelligence. If you can give
> only a one-item test to a candidate to assess intelligence, a vocabulary
> test
> is a fairly good choice.
>
> I have found that the best programmers are not poor spellers. Spelling
> and
> programming are not directly related, but both are partially a function of
> intelligence, and higher intelligence usually leads to better spelling and
> better programming ability, and vice versa.
>
> Programmers with poor written communication skills are usually at the
> lower
> end of the skills curve. They can code stuff quickly and it usually kinda
> sorta works, but they may not be suited to the most critical programming
> tasks.
>

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

[John T]

"Chris W" > wrote in message

>
> The only exception would be if you need a people that can
> jump into a project as quickly as possible.

This is my unenviable position. :)

I have been able to identify a few candidates that are more junior that we
can mentor and train, but most of the folks I bring on are expected to be
productive in very short order which means I don't have time to let them
learn the technology.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[John T]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com
>
> We're also looking for people who
> can spell <grin>, which is rare these days.

No kidding. I've rejected resumes simply due to an apparent inability for
the candidate to run spell- and grammar checks on their resume. If they're
not willing to pay attention to detail on that, I shudder to think how much
they'll give the code they write.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> I suspect, that military ATC controllers are not required to possess a
> college degree. Perhaps that's where the impetus for FAA dropping the
> requirement stems.

Just a quick scan shows the Navy requires only a high school diploma.

From <http://www.thetracon.com/atcjobs.htm#military>:
"
US Navy
REQUIRED: High school graduate less than 34 years of age, Flying Class III
Physical, No Speech Impediment, Must be a U.S. Citizen.
"

I didn't bother checking the other services, but I suspect they're similar.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[john hawkins]

for some more insight look at
http://www.faafollies.com/
and
http://themainbang.typepad.com/

ATO is not a happy place.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Here's the FAA Air Traffic Control Workforce Plan web site:
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/controller_staffing/#Scene_1
> You can watch a lengthy video (closed caption) of the Administrator
> and others talking on the subject, as well as a graph vindicating FAA
> of not meeting the ATC staffing requirements.

[Kev]

On May 2, 12:08 pm, Chris W > wrote:
> Chris W wrote:
> > I can't think of a less relevant still than the ability to spell, as an
> > indicator as to how good someone may be at programming. That said,
> > someone who doesn't know how to use, as well as understand the
> > limitations of, a spell checker, is bound to be a pretty pathetic
> > programmer.
>
> I have no idea how that T got where the K should have been.... must have
> been a keyboard anomaly ;)

Ah, it's okay. It's one of the first rules of the Internet, that
anyone who writes about spelling or grammar is guaranteed to have at
least one mistake in their posting. Nevr fales ;-)

Kev

[Kev]

On May 2, 9:28 pm, "John T" > wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> > We're also looking for people who
> > can spell <grin>, which is rare these days.
>
> No kidding. I've rejected resumes simply due to an apparent inability for
> the candidate to run spell- and grammar checks on their resume. If they're
> not willing to pay attention to detail on that, I shudder to think how much
> they'll give the code they write.

Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails. Ah well, in a few
decades more, dinosaurs like us won't matter.

At the same time, I have to add that some of the best programmers I've
ever known, were also dyslexic. They would make us crazy with
variables like "_reslut" instead of "_result". Even if you pointed it
out, they really couldn't see the mistake. Anyway, we just let it go
most of the time.

Cheers, Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> I know some very bright and highly paid software engineers that can't
> communicate worth a crap.

I don't. Usually these are people who a particular skill that they've
developed through personal interest and motivation, but they are not
exceptionally bright overall. There's a tendency to assume that someone who
excels in a specific technical domain must be more intelligent than average,
but this is not necessarily so.

The brightest engineers I have known were also good communicators, written and
spoken. But you don't have to be a genius to be good at programming.

> Is there a Microsoft Human Resource simulator, too?

Not that I'm aware of. FWIW, Microsoft has long placed a strong emphasis on
general intelligence in employee selection, which is one of the reasons for
its success.

Which reminds me: Lately I've been surprised at the poor writing quality in
official FAA documents. The AIM used "confliction," which is not a word. I
guess nobody proofs them, or the proofreaders are just as incompetent in
English as the writers. People feel compelled to "write smart" when writing
official documents, and often they get in over their heads.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
> abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails. Ah well, in a few
> decades more, dinosaurs like us won't matter.

Actually, in a few years, the abbreviations those kids use will be obsolete,
and their use of them will mark them as oldsters. They only use them to save
bandwidth, but bandwidth is always increasing.

I hate using telephone text messages because the keyboards are so small, but I
can type normal English on a standard keyboard a lot faster than those kids
can abbreviate their text messages.

> At the same time, I have to add that some of the best programmers I've
> ever known, were also dyslexic. They would make us crazy with
> variables like "_reslut" instead of "_result". Even if you pointed it
> out, they really couldn't see the mistake. Anyway, we just let it go
> most of the time.

So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are very
serious in software engineering.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

> Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
> abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails. Ah well, in a few
> decades more, dinosaurs like us won't matter.

It was different of course in the more civilized days of telegrams,
where no abbreviations were needed, and full flowery sentences were
commonplace.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 May 2007 19:09:09 -0700, Kev > wrote in
. com>:

>Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
>abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails.

Didn't the old telegraphers employ a similar shorthand?

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
> abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails. Ah well, in a few
> decades more, dinosaurs like us won't matter.

Well, it's obvious pilots can't spell either. Most weather forecasts I read
don't have a single word spelled correctly :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kev writes:
>
>> Kids not only can't spell these days, they use tons of text-messaging
>> abbreviations that drive us nuts in formal emails. Ah well, in a few
>> decades more, dinosaurs like us won't matter.
>
> Actually, in a few years, the abbreviations those kids use will be
> obsolete, and their use of them will mark them as oldsters. They only
> use them to save bandwidth, but bandwidth is always increasing.
>
> I hate using telephone text messages because the keyboards are so
> small, but I can type normal English on a standard keyboard a lot
> faster than those kids can abbreviate their text messages.

WTF would want to talk to you anyway?

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> WTF would want to talk to you anyway?

Do you see the irony in your post?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
> very
> serious in software engineering.
>

A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have little
to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax and
structure.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> programming regardless of your insistance.

What you believe or doubt is of no importance to me.

> Programming languages have little to do with spelling and grammar
> skills, and much more to do with syntax and structure.

There's a reason why they are both called _languages_.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>> programming regardless of your insistance.
>
> What you believe or doubt is of no importance to me.
>
>> Programming languages have little to do with spelling and grammar
>> skills, and much more to do with syntax and structure.
>
> There's a reason why they are both called _languages_.
>

And you continue to prove yourself both dishonest and clueless.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> WTF would want to talk to you anyway?
>
> Do you see the irony in your post?

Nope. Might have if you'd ignored it, th0ugh, wannabe terrorist luser.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Is Mxsmanic a terrorist? > wrote in
:

> MXMORON WROTE:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>>> WTF would want to talk to you anyway?
>
>>Do you see the irony in your post?
>
> This is the funnist thing I've seen on usenet this year!!!!
>

I know, he's priceless, isn;t he?


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

xsmanic > wrote in :

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>> programming regardless of your insistance.
>
> What you believe or doubt is of no importance to me.

Installing Final Fantasy IV is not programming luser boi.


bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>> very
>> serious in software engineering.
>>
>
> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have little
> to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax and
> structure.

Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.

And, BTW, you misspelled insistence.

Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:09:09 -0700, Kev wrote:

> like "_reslut" instead of "_result". Even if you pointed it out, they
> really couldn't see the mistake.

I'm sure that that's what they told you.

Re-slut indeed.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:25:24 -0500, Maxwell wrote:

> Programming languages have
> little to do with spelling and grammar skills

I don't know. I still remember how often I misspelled "implicit" when I
first started using FORTRAN. That was painful.

<grin>

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:00:18 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

> Well, it's obvious pilots can't spell either. Most weather forecasts I
> read don't have a single word spelled correctly :)

Pilots don't write those; meteorologists do. So they're the people that
cannot spell. We spell goodest.

- Andrew

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote

> Pilots don't write those; meteorologists do. So they're the people that
> cannot spell. We spell goodest.

Nah, that's not right; it's "more better."
--
Jim in NC

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 22:31:52 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> Nah, that's not right; it's "more better."

Wups. Me more sorriest.

- Andrew

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>>> very
>>> serious in software engineering.
>>>
>>
>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
>> syntax and structure.
>
> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.

Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.


> And, BTW, you misspelled insistence.

And apparently just as anal.

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>>>> very
>>>> serious in software engineering.
>>>>
>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
>>> syntax and structure.
>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
>
> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.

But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
how well your program works.


>> And, BTW, you misspelled insistence.
>
> And apparently just as anal.

No, just more literate than you.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me how
> well your program works.
>
Get a few years of programming experience, and come back and tell me how
much of a PROBLEM that is.

>
>>> And, BTW, you misspelled insistence.
>>
>> And apparently just as anal.
>
> No, just more literate than you.

Just like MX, you're a legend in your own mind.

Get this group together for a party, and take a vote on making a spelling
bee the first thing on the activities list.

This is alt.aviation.piloting not alt.english.anal.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Maxwell wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Maxwell wrote:
> >>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
> >>>> very
> >>>> serious in software engineering.
> >>>>
> >>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> >>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
> >>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
> >>> syntax and structure.
> >> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
> >> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
> >
> > Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.

> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
> how well your program works.

Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
natural language word?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> natural language word?

Yes, some do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> serious in software engineering.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
>>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
>>>>> syntax and structure.
>>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
>>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
>>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
>
>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
>> how well your program works.
>
> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> natural language word?
>

I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
a new variable for you and carry on.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me how
>> well your program works.
>>
> Get a few years of programming experience, and come back and tell me how
> much of a PROBLEM that is.

Get any programming experience at all and then come back and discuss
this intelligently.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that the
> ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable the
> same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create a
> new variable for you and carry on.

In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with Fortran.

For the final project, the goal was to predict the performance of an
airfoil, with different Reynolds numbers, or something like that. It has
been 25 years, so the detail are a bit blurred. (along with my brain, from
growing up in the 70's and 80's <g> )

I made an impossibly small mistake (can't remember what it was, anymore) but
it outputted the results of the equation, one line per page, instead of one
result per line. Ooops!

OSU used high speed printers, in one location for the whole university. I
wasn't there when my program ran and printed, but I was on one occasion when
someone else made the same kind of mistake.

It was on side hole continuous (but perforated paper) and when it did
something like that, instead of folding neatly into the paper catcher, it
literally shot paper out into the room about 8 feet, until the Tec on duty
could scramble over and abort the printing.

I got about a ream of paper back, for what should have taken about 5 pages!
<G>

So yes, I agree that Fortran is very picky about spelling and syntax, or a
whole different result could happen.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that the
>> ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable the
>> same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
>> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create a
>> new variable for you and carry on.
>
> In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with Fortran.
>
> For the final project, the goal was to predict the performance of an
> airfoil, with different Reynolds numbers, or something like that. It has
> been 25 years, so the detail are a bit blurred. (along with my brain, from
> growing up in the 70's and 80's <g> )
>
> I made an impossibly small mistake (can't remember what it was, anymore) but
> it outputted the results of the equation, one line per page, instead of one
> result per line. Ooops!
>
> OSU used high speed printers, in one location for the whole university. I
> wasn't there when my program ran and printed, but I was on one occasion when
> someone else made the same kind of mistake.
>
> It was on side hole continuous (but perforated paper) and when it did
> something like that, instead of folding neatly into the paper catcher, it
> literally shot paper out into the room about 8 feet, until the Tec on duty
> could scramble over and abort the printing.
>
> I got about a ream of paper back, for what should have taken about 5 pages!
> <G>
>
> So yes, I agree that Fortran is very picky about spelling and syntax, or a
> whole different result could happen.

Wow, that is even better than having your card deck spit out of the
machine ... when you failed to punch sequence numbers since they were
such a pain when you had to insert another card... :-)

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Maxwell wrote:
> >>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Maxwell wrote:
> >>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>> serious in software engineering.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> >>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
> >>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
> >>>>> syntax and structure.
> >>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
> >>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
> >>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
> >
> >> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
> >> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
> >> how well your program works.
> >
> > Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> > you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> > anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> > natural language word?
> >

> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
> the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
> the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
> a new variable for you and carry on.

Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
to declare variables.

But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
name and not spelling the english word correctly.

As long as it isn't a reserved word, no lanuage is going to care if
you spell it account, acount, or akount.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> serious in software engineering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>>>>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
>>>>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
>>>>>>> syntax and structure.
>>>>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
>>>>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
>>>>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
>>>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
>>>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
>>>> how well your program works.
>>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
>>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
>>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
>>> natural language word?
>>>
>
>> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
>> the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
>> the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
>> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
>> a new variable for you and carry on.
>
> Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
> to declare variables.
>
> But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
> name and not spelling the english word correctly.

True, but the recent discussion wasn't about the English language it was
about the erroneous statement above: "Programming languages have little
to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax
and structure."

Saying that spelling doesn't matter much with respect to programming
languages is just flat out false. Misspelling a symbol name in many
programming languages is far more serious than misspelling an English
word in a sentence. In the former, this will cause a compile error if
you are lucky and a very obscure run-time error if you aren't lucky. In
the latter, it makes you look illiterate, but often the reader still
knows what you meant by the context. Most compilers aren't very good at
using context. :-)

Matt

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> > you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> > anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> > natural language word?

> Yes, some do.

Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
of user defined identifiers?

To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
allow characters like "-" in an identifier).

And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
differently after it has been defined.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >>>> Maxwell wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
> >>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>> serious in software engineering.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> >>>>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
> >>>>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
> >>>>>>> syntax and structure.
> >>>>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
> >>>>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
> >>>>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
> >>>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
> >>>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
> >>>> how well your program works.
> >>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> >>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> >>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> >>> natural language word?
> >>>
> >
> >> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
> >> the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
> >> the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
> >> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
> >> a new variable for you and carry on.
> >
> > Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
> > to declare variables.
> >
> > But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
> > name and not spelling the english word correctly.

> True, but the recent discussion wasn't about the English language it was
> about the erroneous statement above: "Programming languages have little
> to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax
> and structure."

> Saying that spelling doesn't matter much with respect to programming
> languages is just flat out false. Misspelling a symbol name in many
> programming languages is far more serious than misspelling an English
> word in a sentence. In the former, this will cause a compile error if
> you are lucky and a very obscure run-time error if you aren't lucky. In
> the latter, it makes you look illiterate, but often the reader still
> knows what you meant by the context. Most compilers aren't very good at
> using context. :-)

Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.

But since the words they can't spell correctly are always spelled the
same incorrect way, it doesn' matter.

I just don't let them write the end user documentation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> It was on side hole continuous (but perforated paper) and when it did
> something like that, instead of folding neatly into the paper catcher, it
> literally shot paper out into the room about 8 feet, until the Tec on duty
> could scramble over and abort the printing.

That's a computer's way of sticking its tongue out at you.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
> name and not spelling the english word correctly.

Yanno, English doesn't care if you spell a French word incorrectly and
incorporste that error into English. So long as you do it the same way
every time.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
> of user defined identifiers?

COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them. The
spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any reserved words,
it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number of characters and/or
free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on. The spelling may also be
restricted by data type (such as the implicit typing of FORTRAN based on the
first letter of an identifier).

None of this has anything to do with aviation, however, so perhaps it's best
to just drop it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

> And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> differently after it has been defined.

Isn't that what mis-spelling is, in English?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with Fortran.

On my PC, I simulate flight with a program.

> So yes, I agree that Fortran is very picky about spelling and syntax, or a
> whole different result could happen.

Just about all programming languages are picky about this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
> and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.

I have yet to meet a truly good programmer who had poor spelling and grammar
skills. Both are linked to general intelligence, and one just doesn't often
see one without the other.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Wow, that is even better than having your card deck spit out of the
> machine ... when you failed to punch sequence numbers since they were such
> a pain when you had to insert another card... :-)

I only heard tales of using the cards, as they were still in use, but
fading, so I never had to use them.

It seemed that at the end of the quarter, there were always cards blowing
around campus. I think people hated them so much, they liked to see them
"blowing in the wind" better than anything, except sex, perhaps! <g>

My hated experience from that Fortran course was running on the mainframe.
You would submit your program, then wait to see what number you were in
line, to have your program run. Since I was a lowly undergrad, It was not
unusual to see my number get down to the teens, then a bunch of people with
higher rank would submit their program, and I could find myself in the
hundreds!

AAAAAAAARRRRRG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Time to go home and have a beer, and
check back in the morning! <g>

Today's youth have no idea, do they? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> > differently after it has been defined.

> Isn't that what mis-spelling is, in English?

Well, that's kind of murky since there is no spelling standard for
user defined identifiers.

If I defined it as

vdsMessage.vdsStatus.vdsLocation.device_location.l atitude

But used it as

vdsMessage.vdsStatus.vdsLocatin.device_location.la titude

would you call that a spelling error or a typo?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
> > of user defined identifiers?

> COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them. The
> spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any reserved words,
> it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number of characters and/or
> free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on. The spelling may also be
> restricted by data type (such as the implicit typing of FORTRAN based on the
> first letter of an identifier).

Which part of

"To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
allow characters like "-" in an identifier).

And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
differently after it has been defined."

did you not understand?

> None of this has anything to do with aviation, however, so perhaps it's best
> to just drop it.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Get any programming experience at all and then come back and discuss this
> intelligently.

Got a little over 25 years experience now bucko, that's what made it so easy
to see through the smoke screen.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
> > and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.

> I have yet to meet a truly good programmer who had poor spelling and grammar
> skills. Both are linked to general intelligence, and one just doesn't often
> see one without the other.

I doubt you have met very many real people and even fewer real
programmers.

And for the nit, spelling and grammar are learned, not innate.

If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and grammar
are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent they are.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that the
> ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable the
> same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create a
> new variable for you and carry on.

Still clueless.....

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>

> In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with Fortran.
>
> For the final project, the goal was to predict the performance of an
> airfoil, with different Reynolds numbers, or something like that. It has
> been 25 years, so the detail are a bit blurred. (along with my brain, from
> growing up in the 70's and 80's <g> )
>
> I made an impossibly small mistake (can't remember what it was, anymore)
> but it outputted the results of the equation, one line per page, instead
> of one result per line. Ooops!
>
> OSU used high speed printers, in one location for the whole university. I
> wasn't there when my program ran and printed, but I was on one occasion
> when someone else made the same kind of mistake.
>
> It was on side hole continuous (but perforated paper) and when it did
> something like that, instead of folding neatly into the paper catcher, it
> literally shot paper out into the room about 8 feet, until the Tec on duty
> could scramble over and abort the printing.
>
> I got about a ream of paper back, for what should have taken about 5
> pages! <G>
>
> So yes, I agree that Fortran is very picky about spelling and syntax, or a
> whole different result could happen.

Was it a spelling error?

[Maxwell]

>
> Wow, that is even better than having your card deck spit out of the
> machine ... when you failed to punch sequence numbers since they were such
> a pain when you had to insert another card... :-)

Well if your experience long enough ago to required card decks, no wonder
you're still don't get it.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
>> In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with Fortran.
>
> On my PC, I simulate flight with a program.
>
>> So yes, I agree that Fortran is very picky about spelling and syntax, or
>> a
>> whole different result could happen.
>
> Just about all programming languages are picky about this.

I thought you said you were a former OS programmer.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
>> and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.
>
> I have yet to meet a truly good programmer who had poor spelling and
> grammar
> skills. Both are linked to general intelligence, and one just doesn't
> often
> see one without the other.

You have yet to meet a hell of lot of people. You certify your ignorance
daily.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
>> > of user defined identifiers?
>
>> COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them. The
>> spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any reserved
>> words,
>> it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number of characters
>> and/or
>> free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on. The spelling may also
>> be
>> restricted by data type (such as the implicit typing of FORTRAN based on
>> the
>> first letter of an identifier).
>
> Which part of
>
> "To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
> invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
> words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
> avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
> allow characters like "-" in an identifier).
>
> And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> differently after it has been defined."
>
> did you not understand?
>
>> None of this has anything to do with aviation, however, so perhaps it's
>> best
>> to just drop it.
>
> Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
>

Well Jim, it looks like it time once again to play "Let's Spin the Thread".
And our first contestant will be our current champion and overall high time
points leader,,,, "MXSMANIC". (applause)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> In college, I was taking a beginning course in programming, with
>> Fortran.
>
> On my PC, I simulate flight with a program.

Now you don't. you jerk off and pretend you're a pilot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for
>> "spelling and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.
>
> I have yet to meet a truly good programmer who had poor spelling and
> grammar skills. Both are linked to general intelligence, and one just
> doesn't often see one without the other.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Jose]

> If I defined it as
> vdsMessage.vdsStatus.vdsLocation.device_location.l atitude
> But used it as
> vdsMessage.vdsStatus.vdsLocatin.device_location.la titude
> would you call that a spelling error or a typo?

I would call it the same thing that I would call "experiense" in a
resume or cover letter. It doesn't matter that the identifier you
mistyped is one you have defined yourself; it could easily be one
somebody else defined, in another part of the program, years ago, or
even in a function unrelated to the program (except that you are calling
it). Just like English.

Yanno, the whole thing comes down to what it is an employer is looking
for in a candidate. When I look for people, the most important thing I
want to know is "do you care". I can teach the job, I can show you the
resources, I can get you the tools. None of this matters if you don't care.

The question is general. It's a matter of temperment - of attitude.
It's not that I want to know if they care about having great camera work
in my film, or getting all their lines right. I want to know if they
=care=.

Misspellings make a resume or cover letter or script hard to read. Hard
for =me=, the recipient, the one who will make the hiring decision, to
read. If the applicant doesn't care enough to spend a moment to avoid
making =my= life harder =right= =now=, they probably don't care enough
to do a good job all around, later on. And even if they are good at
whatever it is I'm looking for, arrogance evidenced by an attitude of "I
don't have to be considerate because I'm a hot ****" will be a detriment
later on.

Spelling, by itself, doesn't indicate aptness for a particular job.
However, misspelling is certainly a red flag. <aviation content> I can
fly an aircraft that has some things wrong with it. It's perfectly safe
for example, to fly day VFR in an aircraft whose landing light burned
out. But I would be reluctant to fly =any= aircraft in =any= flight
conditions from an FBO that tends to have these things wrong with their
aircraft. </aviation content.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
>> of user defined identifiers?
>
> COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them.
> The spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any
> reserved words, it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number
> of characters and/or free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on.
> The spelling may also be restricted by data type (such as the implicit
> typing of FORTRAN based on the first letter of an identifier).
>
> None of this has anything to do with aviation, however, so perhaps
> it's best to just drop it.
>


You don't have anything to do with aviation either, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and grammar
> are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent they are.

Actually, intelligent people will become fluent and will make very few
mistakes even without any formal instruction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and
>> grammar are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent they
>> are.
>
> Actually, intelligent people will become fluent and will make very few
> mistakes even without any formal instruction.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and grammar
> > are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent they are.

> Actually, intelligent people will become fluent and will make very few
> mistakes even without any formal instruction.

I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
people.

If they are young enough, their English spelling and grammar may
become "fluent", but not likely withoug formal instruction and
very unlikely if their native language is very different from
English as in Chinese or Farsi.

Their conversational English will be OK, but their written English
will be full of strange grammatical constructions and word use.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and
>> > grammar are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent
>> > they are.
>
>> Actually, intelligent people will become fluent and will make very
>> few mistakes even without any formal instruction.
>
> I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
> people.

He's had little experience, period. Except with his playstation, of
course.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If one has never had an English class, their English spelling and grammar
>> are not likely to be too great no matter how intelligent they are.
>
> Actually, intelligent people will become fluent and will make very few
> mistakes even without any formal instruction.
>

You mean pretentious people don't you?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
> people.

I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.

> If they are young enough, their English spelling and grammar may
> become "fluent", but not likely withoug formal instruction and
> very unlikely if their native language is very different from
> English as in Chinese or Farsi.

They need not be young, and I know people who have become completely bilingual
in adulthood. It's mostly a matter of motivation, and practice.

> Their conversational English will be OK, but their written English
> will be full of strange grammatical constructions and word use.

Not if they are smart and motivated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You mean pretentious people don't you?

No, I mean what I write, and thus I meant intelligent people, which is what I
wrote.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
>> people.
>
> I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.
>
>> If they are young enough, their English spelling and grammar may
>> become "fluent", but not likely withoug formal instruction and
>> very unlikely if their native language is very different from
>> English as in Chinese or Farsi.
>
> They need not be young, and I know people who have become completely
> bilingual
> in adulthood. It's mostly a matter of motivation, and practice.
>
>> Their conversational English will be OK, but their written English
>> will be full of strange grammatical constructions and word use.
>
> Not if they are smart and motivated.
>

Why do they need to be smart, motivated, taught and invest in a good bit of
practice?

Only yesterday you were insisting good English and spelling was a simple
matter of intelligence.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You mean pretentious people don't you?
>
> No, I mean what I write, and thus I meant intelligent people, which is
> what I
> wrote.
>

Well there is a "flip" in less than 60 seconds according to the time and
date stamp. You just stated they needed to be smart, motivated, taught and
invest in a good bit of practice in the post just above.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
> > people.

> I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.

> > If they are young enough, their English spelling and grammar may
> > become "fluent", but not likely withoug formal instruction and
> > very unlikely if their native language is very different from
> > English as in Chinese or Farsi.

> They need not be young, and I know people who have become completely bilingual
> in adulthood. It's mostly a matter of motivation, and practice.

Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

I've met cab drivers that can speak 3 to 5 languages but were fluent
in maybe one.

Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
takes is intelligence?

> > Their conversational English will be OK, but their written English
> > will be full of strange grammatical constructions and word use.

> Not if they are smart and motivated.

Babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
>> people.
>
> I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.
>

To you tech them to be assholes too?

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Why do they need to be smart, motivated, taught and invest in a good bit of
> practice?

Motivation is the most important, and they need to be of at least average
intelligence. Smart people make more progress with less effort and therefore
require less motivation. Just about everyone needs some amount of practice.
Being taught accelerates learning but is not essential.

> Only yesterday you were insisting good English and spelling was a simple
> matter of intelligence.

Language fluency and intelligence are closely correlated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

"Completely bilingual" is.

> Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
> takes is intelligence?

Nobody learns anything without motivation. Even smart people have a reason to
learn, otherwise they tend not to pay attention.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

> "Completely bilingual" is.

> > Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
> > takes is intelligence?

> Nobody learns anything without motivation. Even smart people have a reason to
> learn, otherwise they tend not to pay attention.

Here we go with the semantic game playing.

Responding to you really is a waste of time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Get any programming experience at all and then come back and discuss this
>> intelligently.
>
> Got a little over 25 years experience now bucko, that's what made it so easy
> to see through the smoke screen.
>
>

You haven't made an intelligent response yet to my points about
misspelling variable names. So, obviously your 25 years of experience
taught you little. I graduated with my BSCS in 1983 so I'll let you do
the math.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
>> Wow, that is even better than having your card deck spit out of the
>> machine ... when you failed to punch sequence numbers since they were such
>> a pain when you had to insert another card... :-)
>
> Well if your experience long enough ago to required card decks, no wonder
> you're still don't get it.
>
>

I've forgotten more than you know... You have yet to give a single
example or argument that supports your ridiculous claim that spelling is
if little concern in programming. Experience is only valid if it
teaches you something, and in our case it didn't.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> serious in software engineering.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
>>>>>>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
>>>>>>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
>>>>>>>>> syntax and structure.
>>>>>>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
>>>>>>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
>>>>>>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
>>>>>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
>>>>>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
>>>>>> how well your program works.
>>>>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
>>>>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
>>>>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
>>>>> natural language word?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
>>>> the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
>>>> the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
>>>> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
>>>> a new variable for you and carry on.
>>> Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
>>> to declare variables.
>>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
>>> name and not spelling the english word correctly.
>
>> True, but the recent discussion wasn't about the English language it was
>> about the erroneous statement above: "Programming languages have little
>> to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax
>> and structure."
>
>> Saying that spelling doesn't matter much with respect to programming
>> languages is just flat out false. Misspelling a symbol name in many
>> programming languages is far more serious than misspelling an English
>> word in a sentence. In the former, this will cause a compile error if
>> you are lucky and a very obscure run-time error if you aren't lucky. In
>> the latter, it makes you look illiterate, but often the reader still
>> knows what you meant by the context. Most compilers aren't very good at
>> using context. :-)
>
> Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
> and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.
>
> But since the words they can't spell correctly are always spelled the
> same incorrect way, it doesn' matter.
>
> I just don't let them write the end user documentation.
>

They obviously aren't using a language with reserved words...

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
>>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
>>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
>>> natural language word?
>
>> Yes, some do.
>
> Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
> of user defined identifiers?
>
> To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
> invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
> words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
> avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
> allow characters like "-" in an identifier).
>
> And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> differently after it has been defined.
>

Not counting the second use is like saying that all misspellings of
English words don't count once they are spelled the first time in the
dictionary. Just as an English dictionary sets the standard for the
spelling of English words, the symbol definition (explicit or implicit)
sets the standard for the symbol. Any different spelling subsequently
is a misspelling. Your exception of anything other than the first use
is just goofy.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
>>> of user defined identifiers?
>
>> COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them. The
>> spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any reserved words,
>> it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number of characters and/or
>> free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on. The spelling may also be
>> restricted by data type (such as the implicit typing of FORTRAN based on the
>> first letter of an identifier).
>
> Which part of
>
> "To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
> invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
> words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
> avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
> allow characters like "-" in an identifier).
>
> And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> differently after it has been defined."

Then you aren't talking about spelling period; either in the English
language or a programming language.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >
> >>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> >>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> >>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> >>> natural language word?
> >
> >> Yes, some do.
> >
> > Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
> > of user defined identifiers?
> >
> > To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
> > invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
> > words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
> > avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
> > allow characters like "-" in an identifier).
> >
> > And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> > differently after it has been defined.
> >

> Not counting the second use is like saying that all misspellings of
> English words don't count once they are spelled the first time in the
> dictionary. Just as an English dictionary sets the standard for the
> spelling of English words, the symbol definition (explicit or implicit)
> sets the standard for the symbol. Any different spelling subsequently
> is a misspelling. Your exception of anything other than the first use
> is just goofy.

Yes, and no.

Once defined, an identifier has to be consistent, obviously.

But a user defined identifier does not have to be spelled according to
any dictionary spelling, which is what MX said when he started this
nonsense.

No programming language checks an English (or any other) dictionary
to see if user defined identifiers, which just happen to be English
words for the sake of readability, are spelled correctly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
> >>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>> serious in software engineering.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
> >>>>>>>>> programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
> >>>>>>>>> little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
> >>>>>>>>> syntax and structure.
> >>>>>>>> Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
> >>>>>>>> quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
> >>>>>>> Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
> >>>>>> But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
> >>>>>> variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
> >>>>>> how well your program works.
> >>>>> Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
> >>>>> you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
> >>>>> anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
> >>>>> natural language word?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
> >>>> the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
> >>>> the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
> >>>> happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
> >>>> a new variable for you and carry on.
> >>> Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
> >>> to declare variables.
> >>>
> >>> But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
> >>> name and not spelling the english word correctly.
> >
> >> True, but the recent discussion wasn't about the English language it was
> >> about the erroneous statement above: "Programming languages have little
> >> to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax
> >> and structure."
> >
> >> Saying that spelling doesn't matter much with respect to programming
> >> languages is just flat out false. Misspelling a symbol name in many
> >> programming languages is far more serious than misspelling an English
> >> word in a sentence. In the former, this will cause a compile error if
> >> you are lucky and a very obscure run-time error if you aren't lucky. In
> >> the latter, it makes you look illiterate, but often the reader still
> >> knows what you meant by the context. Most compilers aren't very good at
> >> using context. :-)
> >
> > Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
> > and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.
> >
> > But since the words they can't spell correctly are always spelled the
> > same incorrect way, it doesn' matter.
> >
> > I just don't let them write the end user documentation.
> >

> They obviously aren't using a language with reserved words...

Non sequitur.

The reserved words in most languages are the same world wide and a small
subset of English words.

A programmer doesn't need to know English, how to spell other English
words, or anything else about English to write a working program.

If a non-English speaking programmer writes a program that has a
user defined identifier that means to him "acknowledge" and he spells
it (consistently) in the program as "iknoledge", it doesn't matter.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >
> >>> Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
> >>> of user defined identifiers?
> >
> >> COBOL, FORTRAN, C, BASIC, ALGOL, assembly language ... most of them. The
> >> spelling has to be consistent, it has to be different from any reserved words,
> >> it sometimes has to be unique within a certain number of characters and/or
> >> free of case-insensitive duplication, and so on. The spelling may also be
> >> restricted by data type (such as the implicit typing of FORTRAN based on the
> >> first letter of an identifier).
> >
> > Which part of
> >
> > "To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
> > invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
> > words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
> > avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
> > allow characters like "-" in an identifier).
> >
> > And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
> > differently after it has been defined."

> Then you aren't talking about spelling period; either in the English
> language or a programming language.

I never was.

MX says spelling is important when programming.

I say you have to use reserved words correctly (which requires no
knowledge of English even though almost all reservered words are
English) and have to be consistent in user defined identifier usage.

The ability to spell English dictionary words is not a requirement to
be able to program.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> But a user defined identifier does not have to be spelled according to
> any dictionary spelling

.... and a nonce word doesn't have to be spelled according to any
dictionary either.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Here we go with the semantic game playing.

There's no shame in admitting that one doesn't understand.

> Responding to you really is a waste of time.

If that were true, you wouldn't be doing it. You hope to make me look stupid
at some point, but it hasn't worked so far, largely because I'm not stupid.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> You haven't made an intelligent response yet to my points about
> misspelling variable names. So, obviously your 25 years of experience
> taught you little. I graduated with my BSCS in 1983 so I'll let you do
> the math.

Just more smoke. You are still clueless.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> I've forgotten more than you know... You have yet to give a single
> example or argument that supports your ridiculous claim that spelling is
> if little concern in programming. Experience is only valid if it teaches
> you something, and in our case it didn't.

What do you mean "our" case, you gotta mouse in your pocket?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

snip -. all

Clearly a attempt to spin off topic.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> They obviously aren't using a language with reserved words...

Sure we are.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You mean pretentious people don't you?
>
> No, I mean what I write,

No you don't, you're a proiven liar.


Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why do they need to be smart, motivated, taught and invest in a good
>> bit of practice?
>
> Motivation is the most important, and they need to be of at least
> average intelligence. Smart people make more progress with less
> effort and therefore require less motivation. Just about everyone
> needs some amount of practice. Being taught accelerates learning but
> is not essential.
>
>> Only yesterday you were insisting good English and spelling was a
>> simple matter of intelligence.
>
> Language fluency and intelligence are closely correlated.

s displatyed amply by your dismal aviation-speak.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.
>
> "Completely bilingual" is.
>
>> Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
>> takes is intelligence?
>
> Nobody learns anything without motivation.

Explains you then.

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snip -. all
>
> Clearly a attempt to spin off topic.
>
>
plonk - clearly clueless