From: ChuckEasttom <chuckeasttom AT my-deja DOT com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Undertaking a programming journey
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:36:20 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <8sfhr4$si2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <MOqE5.2173$W31 DOT 29870 AT news1 DOT online DOT no> <8scg36$gsm$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <39E9CF07 DOT 785C0C0F AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> <8scls9$kth$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <rgnjusgvadc5q9d53jticrrgdthc9af3lv AT 4ax DOT com> <39E9FAD5 DOT DE1FDAE4 AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> <8sdrub$h7u$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <39EAA40B DOT 31B0CA89 AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> <8seoli$65v$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <39EAF73E DOT ECA52E1A AT antlimited DOT com> <8sfbu7$n06$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <39EB4271 DOT 85CE6874 AT antlimited DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.177.217.114
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Oct 16 18:36:20 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x69.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 208.177.217.114
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDchuckeasttom
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In article <39EB4271 DOT 85CE6874 AT antlimited DOT com>,
  Richard Heathfield <richard AT antlimited DOT com> wrote:
> [Hey, Chuck, do you think we should start selling tickets? :-) ]
>

Absolutely!:)


> 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.
>
I am not saying his code or his books are perfect.  I am saying,
however, that your statement "I cannot trust his code" is simply too
strong.


> There are signs that he is improving. I believe he's finally worked
out
> that main returns int. It's a start.

I was certain you would like that change :)

>
> >      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.

I do not know about any claims to the ANSI C committee.

>
> >      3.  And president of a consulting firm.
>
> Yes, a lot of us are in that position.

Congratulations.

>
> <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? ;-) ).
>

Oh I will undoubtably be scouring your book for errors:)

But my point is this: Your book has some errors, Schildts book has some
errors... I have a little epublished VB book that I am currently
revising because of...yep errors.  But your statements seem to indicate
that if his books have any errors, then they cannot be trusted.


> > 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.

I guess that is my real compaint.  I would think that professional
people, most of whom have a formal education, could express their
criticisms in a very civillized manner.

Maybe I am too faint of heart for usenet.


 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.
>

Well you are 100% correct here.


> >    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. :-) ]
>

Well perhaps that is my problem..I just don't have the stomach for
usenet.
> --
> 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
>

--
http://www.geocities.com/~chuckeasttom/


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.