Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Readability part II - comments |
| Date | 2015-04-16 10:54 -0400 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <552FCD25.4020200@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <mgo5p7$9lt$1@dont-email.me> <mgo6pv$djl$1@dont-email.me> <mgo77v$ek9$1@dont-email.me> <mgo86j$i4m$1@dont-email.me> <mgo9f8$n02$1@dont-email.me> |
On 04/16/2015 08:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/04/15 13:00, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote: >>>> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd >>>>> > be in big trouble. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, >>>>> isn't it? >>>> >>>> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our >>>> education system - they used their home country's education system, >>>> which we have no power to fix. >>> >>> >>> But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we >>> wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local >>> economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their") >>> were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd >>> fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round. >> >> We're importing their programmers because their education system is >> producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is >> that really evidence that their education system needs fixing? > > Your argument appears to be that English fluency should not be a > requirement for programmers working on English-based projects because > you can't get enough programmers who are fluent in English. Clearly > /something/ is broken /somewhere/. Sorry - I conceded a point, but only informed you of the fact implicitly, by failing to object, which is a lousy way to communicate. I thought your original comment about "the" education system was in reference to teaching English. When I realized you were talking about the teaching of computer programming, I also realized that you were right about that. We wouldn't need to import programmers if our education system were producing enough adequately-trained programmers.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 10:42 +0200
Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-16 22:01 +1200
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 11:40 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:09 -0400
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:18 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:36 -0400
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:43 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 08:00 -0400
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 13:21 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 10:54 -0400
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:45 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:00 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:52 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:40 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 03:33 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 21:10 -0500
Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:20 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:53 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 17:34 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 19:15 +0100
Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:25 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 12:45 +0200
Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 17:31 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:48 +0200
Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 06:35 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-18 19:47 +1200
Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 12:54 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 08:43 +1200
Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 12:36 +1200
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 13:58 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 21:02 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 23:38 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-21 16:39 +1200
Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-18 14:21 -0400
Re: Readability part II - comments August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 19:18 +0200
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 16:16 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:19 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 11:15 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 11:37 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 02:02 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 09:48 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-23 21:57 -0700
Re: Readability part II - comments "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 09:14 +0200
csiph-web