Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/10/16/14:15:56
[Hey, Chuck, do you think we should start selling tickets? :-) ]
ChuckEasttom wrote:
>
> In article <39EAF73E DOT ECA52E1A AT antlimited DOT com>,
> Richard Heathfield <richard AT antlimited DOT com> wrote:
> < a lot snipped>
>
<snip>
> >
> > If Schildt has an "advanced degree", why does he make so many
> mistakes,
> > and (more importantly) why does he fail to acknowledge them so that he
> > does not unwittingly mislead people? And why should he be immune to
> > criticism? Surely someone with an advanced degree should be
> under /more/
> > scrutiny than someone who does not?
>
> I am more of a C++ guy, so I am looking in Schilds "C++ the complete
> reference" in the about the author section. It mensions his having:
> 1. A Masters in CS from the University of Illinois
Then he should know better than to write the kind of code that he /does/
write. He is a persuasive author; this should be a good thing but,
unfortunately, in his case it is not. He covers difficult topics with
aplomb - perhaps this is a consequence of his Masters degree. What a
pity, then, that I cannot trust his code.
There are signs that he is improving. I believe he's finally worked out
that main returns int. It's a start.
> 2. Being a member of the ANSI C++ standardization committee.
I can't answer for the C++ side of things, but I am given to understand
that he also claims membership of the ANSI C committee, but that he is
actually an "observing member", and IIRC a committee member said last
year that he doesn't recall seeing Schildt at any actual meetings.
> 3. And president of a consulting firm.
Yes, a lot of us are in that position.
<snip>
>
> I do realize you have coauthored the book "C Unleashed" which btw I like.
I'm glad you like it, but I don't think that I am more qualified to
criticise Mr Schildt's code now than I was before I co-wrote that book.
I am also acutely aware that the book has errors. It is therefore
incumbent upon me to publish those errors as and when they are
discovered (and, in fact, I have a small backlog of errors which I have
not yet published - remind me to do it this weekend, would you? ;-) ).
> What I am stating is this. Pointing out errors is an excellent
> thing to do especially in these newsgroups.
Right, because we don't want people being misled.
> However most of the
> posters I see who prolifically pounce on any error I see (either real
> or imagined) are people with very limited credentials themselves who
> are frankly attempting to bolster their own self image by slamming
> those who have accomplished.
Irrespective of their motives or their credentials, either they're right
or they're wrong. If they're wrong, they get slammed themselves. If
they're right, they're right. Their manner (and perhaps mine) may leave
something to be desired in your eyes, but Usenet is not a place for the
faint-hearted. With the threat of immediate physical violence being
conspicuous by its absence, Mr Pimplyface is a lot braver and a lot more
strident in Usenet than he would be in a face-to-face encounter with the
object of his criticism. That's human nature, and old-time Usenetters
not only replace their keyboard regularly (it's usually their ENTER key
which breaks first...), but also learn to cultivate a thick skin.
> I am also NOT stating that merely having credentials means a persons
> word is infallible.
That's just as well, because it's provably false. Dennis Ritchie himself
has been known to screw up on Usenet. On one celebrated occasion, he was
duly corrected, and the person who (rightly) corrected him was then
subjected to a searing flame from someone who was momentarily too dense
to realise that Mr Ritchie is human too. (Of course, Mr Ritchie defended
the guy who had corrected him - and I suspect that he would have done so
even if the corrector had been wrong; Mr Ritchie is nothing if not a
gentleman.)
> I am simply stating that when weighing opinions on
> a subject ones experience and training do factor in to the weight of
> ones opinion.
Of course they do. But in a technical forum, weight of opinion is not
the final arbiter. Some things are a matter of opinion, but other things
are a matter of fact. If I don't like someone's indentation style
because it inhibits my ability to analyse the code he wants debugged, I
might mention that good indentation can make a program easier to read.
That's a matter of opinion. But when someone says (for example) that you
can clear the input buffer using fflush(stdin) and still have a valid C
program, he's wrong, wrong, wrong, and that's *not* a matter of opinion
- it's an error, pure and simple, and it's quite appropriate for anyone
to point out this error, whether they have 20 years, or only 20 days
experience of C, and whether they have a CS degree or a cycling
proficiency certificate.
[How that correction is *phrased* is of course a matter of taste and
decency, which appear to be somewhat variable concepts in the minds of
Usenet subscribers. :-) ]
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
- Raw text -