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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16146

Re: STATEless Forths

Show all headers | View raw

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b93b7ce7-4a7a-4b9d-a080-3766569c726e@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:03:17 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > > If you're hired as a programmer, you will indeed spend
> > > nearly 100% of your time writing code.
>
> > That's completely untrue.
>
> Most reasonable people don't count the time in necessary
> (or unnecessary) administrative or random ancillary work.

So, why did you do so in your initial statement of your job
being more than just programming?  That makes no sense.

> Such work is a given of pretty much every job of any real
> responsibility.  If you're going to play your usual games and
> count /all/ time, then you'll next probably try to count
> bathroom breaks, water-cooler discussions, time to find a
> parking spot, time for lunch, time for recovering from the food
> coma after lunch, etc.

I see you're playing your usual game of attempting to change
what you said - after the fact.  Why don't you spend more time
*thinking* about what you say means before you post?

> You have a talent for taking what people write, ignoring the reasonable
> interpretation, and going straight for the most ridiculous interpretation
> possible.

No, I hold people to 1) the truth and 2) what they stated.  You, and a few
others like Bernd, attempt to change what you state *after the fact* once
you realize that you've backed yourself into a corner.  You specifically
will snip out all your original comments in the reply in an attempt to hide
them.  I've previously mentioned to you that all you have to say is you
mispoke or clarify.  You choose to stick to your initial incorrect
statements and so get angry when you can't prove them correct, after the
fact.  Bernd goes into circular arguments, as demonstrated recently by me
again.

> > Many programmers want to just program.  They don't want to
> > handle the "BS" of non-programming business and corporate
> > political issues.  Why would they? [...]
>
> I don't consider the various other aspects of software development
> I listed (and didn't list) to be "BS".

Fine.  I didn't say you did.

> My point-- and one you don't seem to substantially disagree with-- is
> that software development is a (much) larger set of activities than just
> coding.

Yes.

> Hugh dismisses this.

The fact that he dismisses it doesn't mean he isn't doing it.  Obviously, he
has to think about how to implement a program's tasks in order to code it.
That constitutes simple analysis and design.  Obviously, he has to test and
maintain the program in order for it to work and continue to do so.  So,
he's doing at least four of the things you've claimed he isn't doing, albeit
at a basic level. [snipped, they were further below]

> The only reasonable interpretation of what Hugh has
> written on the subject is that anything beyond the act of banging
> on the keyboard and looking at a flashing cursor is stupid and/or
> unnecessary work.

This is a foolish claim.

> [far more politely than normal, bash of Hugh]

...

> > You're belittling him because he worked for a very small company?
>
> Certainly not!  I'm belittling him because he's a twit.

If you want to know why people hate you, reread that insult.  Maybe, he
should belittle you because you're a twit.

> He appears to have worked for *one* small company in the distant
> past, had a very narrow role and probably minimal responsibility,
> and despite all this, he feels that he can expertly comment on this
> and related issues.  If you don't see a problem with that, perhaps
> you need medical advice? [...]

Is there a double standard here?

Above, you criticize me for apparantly being too literal or pedantic,
and here you criticize Hugh for not being literal and pedantic enough.

Hugh needs to express precise and accurate "expert" commentary for you,
but Rod needs to accept imprecise and inaccurate "colloquial" conversation
from you.

WTF?  Do you recognize your irrationality?  What about when you reread it?

Just how exactly are we to know when to apply the non-literal and
non-pedantic requirements versus when to apply the literal and pedantic
requirements needed to satiate your distorted reality?

> > You don't know that it's his attitude that affected
> > his programming career.
>
> Correct, but it's not hard to infer from his own words.
...

> Hugh has stated in the past that he doesn't work well in groups [...]

Which programmer engineer, chemist, physicist, mathematician does?  None do.
They're all introverts.  They all deal with ideas or things, not people.
They don't like dealing with people.  Of course, they're all forced to lie
because hiring departments always want: 1) team players, and 2) employees
who fit the corporate culture.  Once they get past the hiring department,
then they can reveal to management what type of job they really want.

If he wanted to deal with people, he'd been in marketing, human resources,
or management.

> [...] and sees no value in doing research.

Many employers want the employees to do what they're told: nothing more,
nothing less.  Admittedly, that's more of a factory environment, but it
still goes for programming too.  In one case, I remember being very
hostilely scolded for spending time coding a few programs my manager didn't
ask for which dramatically reduced my work and improved my productivity.
It took a while for him to come around.

> Now, if you were interviewing him for a typical position, would
> you find that a plus or a minus?

Both appear to be a plus to me...

> Do that for Hugh, and compile in your own head if his attitude,
> skills, knowledge, and experience make him a
> prime candidate for anything but the lowest-level code monkey.

A large company I worked for had a entire floor of programmers, maybe over
200 people.  A small company I worked for had exactly one.  He programmed
the microcontrollers and DSPs for dozens of products.  When the engineers
changed the DSP to a different one, he rewrote all the DSP code.

> > It could easily be numerous unrelated life events.
> [...]
>Then the little Ayn Rand in the back of my head kicks in and I don't care.

But, you bring it up as frequently as Hugh brings up his sob story.  If you
don't care, why do you bother bringing it up repeatedly?  It seems to just
be a pretext for you to trash him.

> Hugh offers endless excuses [...]

Every emotional person I've known is like that.  They still cope with their
emotions, with harsh reality, with an average IQ, and manage get a bunch
stuff done.

> [...] various bizarre conspiracy theory involving Elizabeth Rather, etc.

I take most of those as a form of humor.  Some don't even seem to be
actually directed as Ms. ER but to an imaginary foe: "the gods of Forth", of
which Ms. ER is the only one he has access to.

> Don't let Occam's Razor accidentally cut you, Rod.  Feel free to
> freely generate more speculation about what Hugh's problem is.

You initiated the speculation.  I was pointing out your speculation could be
specious.  You certainly thought mine was.  Why isn't yours?

> When you're done, you might consider using Hugh's own words.
> That seems a more reliable indicator of reality than your ability to
> invent sad circumstance.

I agree.  So, why did you speculate on the "failure" of his career?

Wow, now you're doing the "Bernd-Circular-Argument" thing too!

> That last one is probably the core of the problem.

A few snipped sentences ago you didn't care.  What changed?
Oh, I almost forgot: continue to trash Hugh ...

> Part of the reason why people do research and study the work
> of others is that they want to learn.  And with learning comes
> an implicit understanding of one's limitations.  You get to see
> problems from new perspectives, appreciate clever solutions,
> and learn about problems you didn't even know existed.

That's pure speculation.  And, it's incorrect too.  Learn some
psychology before you make such claims. MBTI (psychology)
indicates that only a small percentage of people are
interested in learning and knowing.

> Hugh doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Isn't that true of anyone?  Or, is it implied that the phrase is only true
for a higher IQ individual than Hugh?  I.e., are you belittling or
patronizing Hugh again?

> And when I and others point out what he doesn't know, his
> reaction isn't to go, "oh wow, I should look into that."
> His reaction is "you're all wrong."

So?  People can only understand what their intellect allows them too.  If a
complete stranger, a physicist with a genius level IQ, accosts you, and told
you were wrong about something you knew was true, would you believe him?  Of
course, you wouldn't.  You wouldn't say "oh wow, I should look into that"
either.  As far as you know, the guy is mentally impaired, possibly
homeless, a religous lunatic, or, at best, of average IQ.  You're arguing
with Hugh from the perspective that you're the well known and well regarded
genius, when you're basically a total stranger.  Since you've apparently
never actually posted any Forth here, how can he confirm you're good at it?
I'm not good at Forth, yet I know who here posts decent Forth and who
doesn't.  Does this make any sense to you?


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

STATEless Forths Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-03 13:15 -0700
  Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-03 15:32 -0700
  Re: STATEless Forths Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-03 17:56 -0700
  Re: STATEless Forths Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-03 18:11 -0700
  Re: STATEless Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-04 13:10 +0000
    Re: STATEless Forths Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-04 14:17 -0700
  Re: STATEless Forths "Charles Childers" <crc@retroforth.org> - 2012-10-04 09:44 -0400
  Re: STATEless Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-04 10:56 -0500
    Re: STATEless Forths Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-04 14:33 -0700
      Re: STATEless Forths John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-10-06 10:21 -0700
        Re: STATEless Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 18:06 -0400
          Re: STATEless Forths Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-06 16:05 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-06 13:56 -1000
              Re: STATEless Forths Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-06 18:48 -0700
          Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-07 04:21 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-07 19:07 -0400
              Re: STATEless Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-07 13:42 -1000
                Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-08 02:29 -0700
              Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-08 02:41 -0700
          Re: STATEless Forths Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 08:18 -0700
          Re: STATEless Forths John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:11 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 02:09 -0700
              Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-09 04:39 -0700
                Re: STATEless Forths Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 05:13 -0700
                Re: STATEless Forths Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-09 05:37 -0700
              Re: STATEless Forths John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 11:59 -0700
                Re: STATEless Forths Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 12:31 -0700
                Re: STATEless Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:45 -1000
                Re: STATEless Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-10 04:00 -0400
              Re: STATEless Forths mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-09 21:07 +0200
                Re: STATEless Forths Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 19:09 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 16:44 +0200
              Re: STATEless Forths John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 12:13 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 12:03 -0700
              Re: STATEless Forths John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 12:22 -0700
            Re: STATEless Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-10 03:53 -0400

csiph-web