Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5357
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new |
| References | (4 earlier) <nospam-93A28B.15500711062011@news.aioe.org> <a4567ca3-6268-41e7-8293-b6f9121c2765@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com> <itdo3m02lcd@news2.newsguy.com> <e43ff9cb-73a9-4d24-8dae-4b0e7ec6d4d1@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <itg212017j5@news1.newsguy.com> |
| Message-ID | <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Public Usenet Newsgroup Access |
| Date | 2011-06-18 10:19 -0300 |
On 11-06-17 01:29 PM, Michael Wojcik wrote: > lewbloch wrote: >> >> There's some folks even more pedantic than I, apparently. Welcome to >> the club, Michael. > > Alas, I am that most unsatisfied of creatures, a pedantic > descriptivist. I am annoyed by awkward constructions but lack the > consolation of labeling them as wrong. > > But then I do employ casual constructions and idiomatic expressions in > my writing (and speech) - often even in formal writing, when > appropriate for reasons of style. I was merely agreeing with John's > impulse to correct the agreement in number in his first post. I've been trying for years to hit the right balance in blog articles, design documents, RFP responses, presentations, tutorials, teaching handouts, Usenet posts and Web forum questions, and also my own writing for pleasure (this latter itself being of many different types). All I know for sure is that I dislike (in varying degrees) the following: 1) _excessive_ use of elaborate or unusual words: I don't believe, like many seem to do, that every use (utilisation) of big words is an affectation (puttin' on airs) or replaceable with a smaller, easier word. Many of these big words actually have subtle, enhanced meanings that their simple proposed substitutes don't. But the prerequisites for using big words include understanding the exact meanings, knowing that the simple word is not a close-enough substitute, and remembering to write for the audience. There are few things worse than an unrelenting barrage of complex, Latin-based verbiage. 2) incorrect spelling, _particularly_ when it's obvious that it's not a typo. Examples: "she poured over her material", "that was a breech of security", and "the shed wreaked of gasoline". I blame lack of reading for this problem; it's not possible to make these mistakes (or for that matter, to be a bad speller, period) if you read voraciously. 3) writing without a plan: a disorganized and tenuous grasp of facts and conclusions in one's head translates to an equivalent mess on paper. The act of writing does not improve the material. 4) using language as a nefarious tool: this technique often makes use of my first point. It also employs skillful tense and pronoun and adjective selections to divert and diffuse responsibility, or to disguise a lack of real content. There is no shortage of software consultancies that do exactly this, and it gets really horrendous when the clients are government departments. I'll produce one common example - a notional consultancy is called upon to produce a software design document. You and I, being software developers, would like to think that technical people are the audience for such a document, and that technical people pronounce on the acceptability of the finished version. Such is rarely the case - the authoring consultancy produces beautiful but vapid high-level bumwipe that is presented to the PMs and higher, and approved by higher client management. Little matter that it's a useless design document devoid of concrete information that would help implementors. Even better, when the project fails, weasel-English can now be used to blame the _implementors_. The typical design doc I've seen parrots the *business* requirements (few clients know what technical requirements are) and pads out the design with some pretty but fairly useless UML. But all the PMs and client managers understood and liked this design doc - still do - and they _approved_ it, so clearly the coders must be at fault. It's the _coders_ that don't get the design doc. Right? In fact there's nothing there to get, but the bosses don't want to hear that. I had the pleasure some months back of being commissioned to do 20 days worth of work writing up a detailed design document in such an environment. Normally for this client I do maintenance rescue coding, but in this case the problem was complex and actually required a developer - not a BA - to do the design. At the end of the 20 days I had not only a clear and concise *real* detailed design document - one that another developer could use - but also a working POC of the solution...which hadn't even been expected by the client. It hadn't been expected mainly because the other software consultancies are loaded with PMs, BAs and mediocre coders, so the clients aren't used to adequate performance. The best measure of this detailed design document that I produced is that, in marked contrast to the usual design docs that floated around that office, the higher up the food chain you went with it, the less people were able to understand it. Any other coder, excellent grasp of what I wrote. An architect, not so good, because a lot of architects are not good coders (in my experience). PMs and mid-level managers, serious struggling. High-level managers and directors, hang it up - you read the executive summary I prepared. The point being, I've found that obfuscatory English is used as a weapon to disguise incompetence and inefficiencies, or worse. I've seen some pretty horrible wastage of taxpayer money precisely because muddy and weaselly English let all the players wriggle out of accountability, and often enough even get rewarded for their previous disaster. So that's why I like clear English. AHS
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-11 22:43 +0530
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-06-11 13:46 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-11 19:49 +0200
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-11 11:04 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-11 23:52 +0530
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-12 14:05 +0200
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-12 07:10 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-12 14:37 +0000
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-12 18:17 +0200
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-12 15:25 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 06:58 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Nigel Wade <nmw-news@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2011-06-16 10:16 +0100
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-12 18:10 +0200
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-11 23:53 +0530
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-11 15:43 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-11 15:50 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 06:49 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-16 11:21 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 06:45 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-17 12:29 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Lewis Bloch <lewisbloch@google.com> - 2011-06-17 11:07 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-18 02:01 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-18 10:19 -0300
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-18 20:16 +0200
OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 19:19 +0000
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-20 20:46 +0000
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 20:42 +0000
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-21 14:22 -0700
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-20 18:55 -0300
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-06-21 23:29 +0100
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-21 20:39 -0300
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-21 23:00 -0400
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-06-22 20:02 +0100
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 20:03 +0000
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-23 12:04 -0400
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-23 11:58 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-20 14:01 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-20 18:53 -0300
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-21 19:53 -0400
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-23 12:16 -0400
OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 19:18 +0000
Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-20 20:52 +0000
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-12 14:14 +0200
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-11 11:01 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-06-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new Ian Shef <invalid@avoiding.spam> - 2011-06-14 20:07 +0000
csiph-web