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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5205 > unrolled thread

Class.forName().newInstance() vs new

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#5353

On Jun 17, 9:29 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsguy.com> 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 mostly agree with both of you, and I particularly admire your
erudition and your richly concise expository style.  Your points are
well-reasoned and your conclusions ineluctable.

--
Lew
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a, silly English
knnnnnnn-ighit!
- paraphrased from /Monty Python and the Holy Grail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5355

In article 
<1fe8b57a-4f43-4685-9d17-57b17247a98d@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
 Lewis Bloch <lewisbloch@google.com> wrote:

> On Jun 17, 9:29 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsguy.com> 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.

The term descriptivist is new to me; thank you.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description>
 
> > 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.

Subjectively, the impulse arose from realizing that "There's some 
[plural] ..." had slipped into my writing. It sounded right, but read 
wrong. The prescriptively correct contraction "There're some [plural] 
..." sounds awkward with my (customary) rhotic "r", but it sounds 
perfectly normal when spoken with Shelby Foote's mellifluous, 
non-rhotic, Mississippi accent.

> I mostly agree with both of you, and I particularly admire your 
> erudition and your richly concise expository style.  Your points are 
> well-reasoned and your conclusions ineluctable.

Well said.

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5357

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5363

On 18.06.2011 15:19, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> So that's why I like clear English.

I'm a bit embarrassed to not write more than "I couldn't agree more". 
Thank you, Arved!

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5428 — OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

[ snip ]

> 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:

[ snip lots of interesting digression ]

> 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". 

*Oh* yes.  EIther mistakes of this kind have become more common in 
recent years -- *even in prose that one would think had been reviewed
by someone with copyediting experience* -- or I'm noticing them more.

> 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.

You think?  I sometimes wonder if some people's brains are wired to
care about spelling, and others' aren't.  I'm in the former group,
and indeed find that unless I know how a word is spelled it's somehow
not real to me.  I don't have that problem with words whose spelling
I know but whose pronunciation I'm unsure of.  I wonder, though,
whether there are people for whom exactly the reverse is true.

I also wonder whether reading voraciously even helps, given that more
and more one can't rely on published prose to be correct.

Sigh.

[ snip ]

> 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. 

"Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the widespread 
practice of using the former to mean the latter means that one can't
really be sure, maybe.)

[ snip ]

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5433 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:19:56 +0000, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:

> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>, Arved Sandstrom 
> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You think?  I sometimes wonder if some people's brains are wired to care
> about spelling, and others' aren't.
>
I'm with Arved here: quite a lot of mistakes would appear to indicate the 
author is an almost illiterate person who listens more than he reads, e.g 
writing 'your' instead of 'you're'. A lot of the more (to me) irritating 
habits are probably the result of not realising that spoken idiom differs 
from written, e.g. using 'of' in place of 'with' - this seems to be a 
North American habit.
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5483 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

In article <itobj8$j1m$1@localhost.localdomain>,
Martin Gregorie  <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:19:56 +0000, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> 
> > In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>, Arved Sandstrom 
> > <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > You think?  I sometimes wonder if some people's brains are wired to care
> > about spelling, and others' aren't.
> >
> I'm with Arved here: quite a lot of mistakes would appear to indicate the 
> author is an almost illiterate person who listens more than he reads, e.g 
> writing 'your' instead of 'you're'. A lot of the more (to me) irritating 
> habits are probably the result of not realising that spoken idiom differs 
> from written, e.g. using 'of' in place of 'with' - this seems to be a 
> North American habit.

Say what ....  Can you give an example of that ('of' instead of
'with')?

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5486 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On 21 Jun 2011 20:42:16 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com
<blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <itobj8$j1m$1@localhost.localdomain>,
>Martin Gregorie  <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

>> I'm with Arved here: quite a lot of mistakes would appear to indicate the 
>> author is an almost illiterate person who listens more than he reads, e.g 
>> writing 'your' instead of 'you're'. A lot of the more (to me) irritating 
>> habits are probably the result of not realising that spoken idiom differs 
>> from written, e.g. using 'of' in place of 'with' - this seems to be a 
>> North American habit.
>
>Say what ....  Can you give an example of that ('of' instead of
>'with')?

     Perhaps, it is that you should of [sic] realised that he meant
using "of" instead of "have"?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5441 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>> 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. 
> 
> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the widespread 
> practice of using the former to mean the latter means that one can't
> really be sure, maybe.)
> 
> [ snip ]

I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer people
able to understand it. :-)

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5497 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
>> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the widespread 
>> practice of using the former to mean the latter means that one can't 
>> really be sure, maybe.)
>
> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer people 
> able to understand it. :-)

This less/fewer thing is largely dubious:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505

I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was incorrect. 
Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots would, and everyone 
understands it.

tom

-- 
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river
and he's not the same man. -- Heraclitus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5501 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On 11-06-21 07:29 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
>> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
>>> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the widespread
>>> practice of using the former to mean the latter means that one can't
>>> really be sure, maybe.)
>>
>> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer
>> people able to understand it. :-)
> 
> This less/fewer thing is largely dubious:
> 
> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505
> 
> I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was
> incorrect. Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots would,
> and everyone understands it.
> 
> tom
> 
In fact, in the original construction, if I had written

"the fewer people were able to understand it"

that would have been stilted and wrong. It's the "the" there that makes
all the difference. I could have written

"...went with it, fewer people were able to understand it."

and that would be OK (if still marginally US Constitution-sounding like).

"The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit.
Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to.

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5508 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

In article <QY9Mp.28015$F25.23411@newsfe04.iad>,
 Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> On 11-06-21 07:29 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > 
> >> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> >>> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
> >>> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> >> [ SNIP ]
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the 
> >>> widespread practice of using the former to mean the latter means 
> >>> that one can't really be sure, maybe.)
> >>
> >> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer 
> >> people able to understand it. :-)
> > 
> > This less/fewer thing is largely dubious:
> > 
> > http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505
> > 
> > I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was 
> > incorrect. Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots 
> > would, and everyone understands it.
> > 
> In fact, in the original construction, if I had written
> 
> "the fewer people were able to understand it"
> 
> that would have been stilted and wrong. It's the "the" there that 
> makes all the difference. I could have written
> 
> "...went with it, fewer people were able to understand it."
> 
> and that would be OK (if still marginally US Constitution-sounding 
> like).
> 
> "The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit. 
> Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to.

I read "less" as an adverb modifying "able", moved to enhance 
parallelism: "The higher ... the less able ..."

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5538 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, John B. Matthews wrote:

> In article <QY9Mp.28015$F25.23411@newsfe04.iad>,
> Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 11-06-21 07:29 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>>>> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>> [ SNIP ]
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the
>>>>> widespread practice of using the former to mean the latter means
>>>>> that one can't really be sure, maybe.)
>>>>
>>>> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer
>>>> people able to understand it. :-)
>>>
>>> This less/fewer thing is largely dubious:
>>>
>>> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505
>>>
>>> I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was
>>> incorrect. Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots
>>> would, and everyone understands it.
>>>
>> In fact, in the original construction, if I had written
>>
>> "the fewer people were able to understand it"
>>
>> that would have been stilted and wrong. It's the "the" there that
>> makes all the difference. I could have written
>>
>> "...went with it, fewer people were able to understand it."
>>
>> and that would be OK (if still marginally US Constitution-sounding
>> like).
>>
>> "The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit.
>> Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to.
>
> I read "less" as an adverb modifying "able", moved to enhance
> parallelism: "The higher ... the less able ..."

As in "... the degree to which people were able to understand it was 
less". Yes, Arved was entirely right the first time.

Now, on reading your rephrasing, it sounds like you're implying that as 
you move higher, the people get less able!

tom

-- 
No noon today. Noon tomorrow. There's always a noon tomorrow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5545 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

In article <nospam-BE4336.23005721062011@news.aioe.org>,
John B. Matthews <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <QY9Mp.28015$F25.23411@newsfe04.iad>,
>  Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 11-06-21 07:29 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > >>> In article <fB1Lp.9356$PA5.814@newsfe01.iad>,
> > >>> Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> > >> [ SNIP ]
> > >>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> "Less" or "fewer"?  (You probably do mean "less", but the 
> > >>> widespread practice of using the former to mean the latter means 
> > >>> that one can't really be sure, maybe.)
> > >>
> > >> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer 
> > >> people able to understand it. :-)
> > > 
> > > This less/fewer thing is largely dubious:
> > > 
> > > http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505
> > > 
> > > I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was 
> > > incorrect. Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots 
> > > would, and everyone understands it.

Just for the record, I don't think I meant to claim that there
was anything wrong with Arved's sentence, even to those pedantic
prescriptivists who disapprove of using "less" where "fewer" would
work.  I think there might be a subtle distinction between fewer
people who understand, and people in general understanding less,
but -- maybe not.

> > In fact, in the original construction, if I had written
> > 
> > "the fewer people were able to understand it"
> > 
> > that would have been stilted and wrong. 

Agreed.

> > It's the "the" there that 
> > makes all the difference. I could have written
> > 
> > "...went with it, fewer people were able to understand it."
> > 
> > and that would be OK (if still marginally US Constitution-sounding 
> > like).

I don't think that really works -- "the higher up" seems to me to 
want a parallel "the" before whatever follows the comma.

> > "The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit. 
> > Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to.
> 
> I read "less" as an adverb modifying "able", moved to enhance 
> parallelism: "The higher ... the less able ..."

I think you may be making the same point here I was getting at just
above ....

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5584 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> 
> Just for the record, I don't think I meant to claim that there
> was anything wrong with Arved's sentence, even to those pedantic
> prescriptivists who disapprove of using "less" where "fewer" would
> work.  I think there might be a subtle distinction between fewer
> people who understand, and people in general understanding less,
> but -- maybe not.

There's definitely a distinction between those two concepts. It's just
not definitively captured by the use of "less" in that sentence, which
could be interpreted as either without straining normal meanings of
the words involved.

However, convention suggests that "the less" in that sentence is the
adverbial "the less", and not part of a noun phrase "the less people"
meaning not as many people.

This is one place where, for clarity, it would be useful to use
"fewer" *if* that was what the author wanted to convey. (In this case
it wasn't.) As Arved said elsethread, however, you'd have to do some
editing to arrive at a palatable construction using "fewer". One
option would be "the higher you went ... the fewer the people who were
able ...".

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5583 — Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new)

John B. Matthews wrote:
> In article <QY9Mp.28015$F25.23411@newsfe04.iad>,
>  Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>> "The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit. 
>> Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to.
> 
> I read "less" as an adverb modifying "able", moved to enhance 
> parallelism: "The higher ... the less able ..."

Combine that idea with Arved's. "the [quantifier] ... the [quantifier]
..." is one of a set of idiomatic phrasal constructions acting as a
pair of parallel adverbs, typically modifying an adjective following
the second quantifier.

The idiomatic phrase "the [quantifier]" can serve as an adverb on its
own, too, as in "none the less".

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5435

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:19:06 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
<asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>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

[nice stuff snipped]

>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
                                                  ^^^
     What is this, please?

>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.

[more nice stuff snipped]

>So that's why I like clear English.

     I am rather fond of it myself.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5440

On 11-06-20 06:01 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:19:06 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 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
> 
> [nice stuff snipped]
> 
>> 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
>                                                   ^^^
>      What is this, please?

Ah, sorry, "proof of concept". POC = Proof Of Concept; POT = Proof Of
Technology.

[ SNIP ]

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5503

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
> 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.

This worry is ancient, of course, if we can substitute other languages
for English.

It's the overt root of the battle between the Periclean rhetors
(Plato, Socrates, Isocrates) and the Sophists: the Pericleans claimed
that ethics was inherent in rhetoric, and so using language to
persuade to an incorrect end was an unethical use of language (and not
just an unethical act in general), while the Sophists argued that it
was fine to formulate an argument in favor of an unethical end, if
your broader purpose was good.[1,2]

This argument over the coupling of rhetoric and ethics is older than
the ancient Greek rhetors - you can find versions of it in various
ancient cultures [3] - and it continues to this day [4].

But whether you think ethics inheres in rhetoric (like Plato) or not
(like Gorgias), you can dislike ill uses of rhetoric, of course.


[1] The classic example is the Sophist Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen", a
fairly short and entertaining essay about why Helen of Troy was a
pretty good kid after all, and not the villain traditional Athenian
lore made her out to be.

[2] The *covert* reason for the acrimony between the Pericleans and
the Sophists was that the latter were foreigners, come to Athens to
steal all the good rhetoric jobs. Periclean Athens did not have a
limit on H1-B visas.

[3] I think there's at least one example in the collection _Rhetoric
Before and Beyond the Greeks_, but it's too hot to go dig that out
right now.

[4] A well-known recent example is Katz's work on the rhetoric
employed in technical documents by Nazi scientists.[5]

[5] ObAntiGodwin: Note that there is no *comparison* to Nazis, etc,
here, so Godwin's Law does not apply.

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5544

In article <itrb2o02fff@news2.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik  <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> This worry is ancient, of course, if we can substitute other languages
> for English.
> 
> It's the overt root of the battle between the Periclean rhetors
> (Plato, Socrates, Isocrates) and the Sophists: the Pericleans claimed
> that ethics was inherent in rhetoric, and so using language to
> persuade to an incorrect end was an unethical use of language (and not
> just an unethical act in general), while the Sophists argued that it
> was fine to formulate an argument in favor of an unethical end, if
> your broader purpose was good.[1,2]
> 
> This argument over the coupling of rhetoric and ethics is older than
> the ancient Greek rhetors - you can find versions of it in various
> ancient cultures [3] - and it continues to this day [4].
>

Someone should perhaps mention, in this context, George Orwell's essay
"Politics and the English Language" [*]?  one of my favorites, which 
seems to make a similar connection between language and ethics.

[*] I'd say "GIYF", but maybe it would be worthwhile for me to save
people a bit of time ....  Good heavens, there's a Wikipedia article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

with links at the bottom to several versions of the original text.

[ snip ]

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web