Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25575

Re: Why “new”?

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:24:13 +0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

> On 2/8/11 7:17 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
>> [...]
>> Sure I could have tried mucking about with assorted google queries. I
>> just plain didn't feel like it. Satisfied?
> 
> Yes.  That's all I wanted: your admission, even absent an apology, that
> you were lazy.

But you didn't get it. I don't agree that it is "lazy" to ask someone 
instead of googling.

What do you usually do if you're talking to someone and they mention the 
name of something you're unfamiliar with, but in a manner that strongly 
implies that they know exactly what it is? Do you

a) ask them or
b) jump up, run off to the public library, and start poking about in
   their card catalog? Or even
c) pull out your smartphone and start searching the net?

I'm guessing the answer is a. The same applies if the conversation itself 
is online. It's much more natural to respond where you are rather than 
switch tasks (and mental gears) to something else entirely (such as from 
usenet to web surfing) for a while.

Furthermore, consider what happens if a number of people read a post and, 
say, wonder what J is.

What happens if one asks almost immediately? The others see the question 
posted, mostly wait unless they really need to know quickly, and 
eventually may see an answer posted. The human effort involved: 1 
question typed and, a bit later, 1 answer typed, with no research since 
the answerer is presumed to have already known the answer (the original 
mentioner of J presumably knows).

What happens if nobody asks, say because they know they're likely to get 
flamed if they do? All of the people who want to know each go to google 
and start trying various queries. Maybe they get a likely definitive 
answer after three queries on average. Assume each query involves the 
same amount of human effort as posting a question or a brief answer on 
the same topic.

As soon as there are just 2 people wanting to know the answer, break-even 
is achieved. The effort querying equals the effort for q&a.

Once there are three or more, the effort is lower for q&a than for 
querying; and with even more people, there is quite a wasteful 
duplication of effort with their respective google searches.

What you call laziness, therefore, I call efficiency. And I shouldn't 
need to remind you that efficiency is a virtue.

> Now, was that so hard?

I categorically refute the negative implications regarding my character 
and personality that you have insinuated here and in your other recent 
posts, via loaded words such as "lazy" and via condescending language 
such as lmgtfy and "now, was that so hard?".

Christ, this is ridiculous. I'm starting to sound slightly like Twisted. 
If this newsgroup is usually this hostile to people that ask innocuous, 
not-in-the-group-FAQ questions, I begin to understand how he got the way 
he is!

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 16:23 +0100
  Re: Why “new”? Jerry Gerrone <scuzwalla@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 22:12 -0800

csiph-web