Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > [META] Talking about talking about C.

Reply
Thread Tools

[META] Talking about talking about C.

 
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2010
On 2010-10-25, Kenneth Brody <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 4:54 PM, MartinBroadhurst wrote:
>> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> Engineers suck at communicating.


>> No, everyone sucks at communicating.


><nit>
> And, since the set of "engineers" is a subset of "everyone", the first
> statement is still true. &smiley;
></nit>


Heh.

That said, engineers tend to be worse at some specific aspects of
communication, because we tend very much to be used to working in terms
of things where true and false are nicely unambiguous, so we have less
experience with some of the communications skills that are necessary
when a field admits multiple ways of describing what's happening.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
Seebs wrote:
> So, watching the typedef battles, something has become clear to me.
>
> Engineers suck at communicating.


Well you *may* be one then because starting a post with a lame
generalization *is* an f'd-up attempt (were you attempting?) to
communicate.

>
> Underneath it all,


Oh, the proverbial "bottom line". Seebs, that is a *cliche*.

> it is perhaps useful to remember that most of the
> active participants here are people who have successfully written
> reasonably large programs in C, so however they're thinking about C
> inside their heads, it *works*.


Ah ha, you motive is "union rep"? Seebs, be it to your dismay, not
everyone who is in this group or visits it is "buying the C spiel". K?

> Maybe it's not exactly correct, but
> at the bare minimum, you
> can be reasonably confident that it's a good enough model to have both
> explanatory and predictive power for the behavior of programs on real
> machines.


So you are preaching "coding in your father's language" as a *good*
thing?

>
> One of the most useful non-engineering skills I've ever applied to
> engineering is learning to communicate better.


Wow, you were actually worse than this before? Rain Man!

> Interestingly,
> writing clearly, while certainly useful, is by far the lesser part of
> this.


More generalization. Age and IQ *do* matter, even though they are
outlawed (how else could a politician attain office without an IQ test?).

> The big thing is to learn to listen better.


Who you preaching to? Here's a "cliche": In life, you hear and see more
and more, then you die.

> And I still have
> a long way to go on that.


Are you drunk? ("for the record").

>
> A friend of mine gave me an excellent summary of a useful tactic


Were you seeking "tactics"?

> when
> someone who is otherwise apparently pretty rational or well-informed


qualification aside, ...

> says something obviously false:
> Rather than thinking of it as false, think of it as true, and try
> to figure out what it could be true *of*.


You had to *learn* that?

>
> That's certainly contrary to the way engineers usually think!


You don't speak for any other engineer, other than yourself if you are
one or wannabe one.

> However, it's very useful.


When did c.l.c become a confessional?

>
> Here's an example of how I might apply that.


I think I have enough info at this juncture about you (not that I need
it).

[snipped what Seebs could not or would not "communicate" concisely, and
the large passage of text delves into technical detail that swamps all he
wrote above]


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> So, watching the typedef battles, something has become clear to me.
>>
>> Engineers suck at communicating.
>>

>
> No, everyone sucks at communicating.


**** you, bitch!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> So, watching the typedef battles, something has become clear to me.
>>
>> Engineers suck at communicating.
>>

>
> No, everyone sucks at communicating.
>


I was just kidding, I couldn't resist. (OK, I'm bad now... I'm still an
angel compared to "y'all", especially that Kite guy).


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> So, watching the typedef battles, something has become clear to me.
>>
>> Engineers suck at communicating.
>>

>
> No, everyone sucks at communicating.
>
>> A friend of mine gave me an excellent summary of a useful tactic
>> when someone who is otherwise apparently pretty rational or
>> well-informed says something obviously false:
>> Rather than thinking of it as false, think of it as true, and try
>> to figure out what it could be true *of*.
>>

>
> Much too absolute.


!!! Don't *respond* to "him", *think* about him.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-10-23, MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Here's an example of how I might apply that. ?It is obvious to me
>>> that size_t is distinct from any of the standard unsigned integer
>>> types.

>
>> No, no! It's distinct from *all but one* of the standard unsigned
>> integer types.

>
> It could be distinct from all of them -- it could be an extended
> unsigned integer type.
>


Seebs, are you an unsigned integer type? ("The Matrix Reknown").


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
pete wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
>> On 2010-10-23, MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 23 Oct, 19:44, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Here's an example of how I might apply that. ?It is obvious to me
>>>> that size_t is distinct from any of the standard unsigned integer
>>>> types.

>>
>>> No, no! It's distinct from *all but one* of the standard unsigned
>>> integer types.

>>
>> It could be distinct from all of them -- it could be an extended
>> unsigned integer type.

>
> You just made that up.
>
> The standard says that size_t is
> "the unsigned integer type of the result of the sizeof operator".


Umm, news for you Pete: kmart sucks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-10-24, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Re-reading it, though, it seems that the extended types have to use
>>> identifiers reserved for any use (footnote 2. So it seems to me
>>> that there must exist some name for that type which is not size_t,
>>> so size_t has to be an alias for some type, though there may be no
>>> way for standard code to use that type directly.

>
>> A conforming program can use the type name directly. (A strictly
>> conforming, or even a portable or "clc-compliant" program, cannot.)

>
> I am toying with a notion:


TOO MUCH INFO!!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
Seebs wrote:
> Imagine a compiler which has extended
> types which you are NOT allowed to use -- any attempt to declare an
> object of these types gets you compiler errors. And which then has
> typedef "bless" them, so a typedef name pointing at them can be used.
>


"Consider that you, may be in, the twilight zone."



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2010
Kenneth Brody wrote:

> Sorry... Couldn't help myself.


But she's still pregnant. *You* *were* "the man", now *she* is. < or some
ironous "joke" >


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE: MVP's pls help.. 2 PC's not talking... Ack =?Utf-8?B?Q2hpYWN0b3I=?= Wireless Networking 0 02-04-2006 06:35 PM
4 computers 2 not talking to each other Carol Wireless Networking 8 12-30-2005 06:11 PM
Netscreen-Remote client talking to Cisco VPN 3005? Road Rage Cisco 0 05-11-2005 03:26 PM
ATM links not talking polifemo Cisco 1 10-20-2003 02:28 PM
where can I find book/resources talking about DSP design using VHDL? walala VHDL 1 09-01-2003 09:54 AM



Advertisments