Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!panix!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail From: docdwarf@panix.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.clos,comp.lang.cobol Subject: Re: I need your experience - classification and comparison of languages Date: 21 Jan 2002 19:38:04 -0500 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <928495c6.0201211211.4192730d@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 1011659884 2560 166.84.1.1 (22 Jan 2002 00:38:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jan 2002 00:38:04 GMT Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.ada:123677 comp.lang.beta:13104 comp.lang.c++:650118 comp.lang.clos:15838 comp.lang.cobol:112975 In article <928495c6.0201211211.4192730d@posting.google.com>, Stephen J Spiro wrote: >docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:... >> In article , >> Yvan Radenac wrote: >> >I am writing a small report about "Object oriented languages and their >> >public implementations" for a course in Software Engineering. >> >> Please do your own homework. >> >> DD > > >Not fair, Doc. He is doing generalized research on an extremely wide >field, in which he cannot possibly have personal expertise. Given the >topic, and in spite of the refernce provided by another post-er, it is >sufficiently current and topical that there is probably very little in >the literature which is relavant. "Field research", such as inquiring >of experts, is completely appropriate in such a case. What is being done, it seems, is a scattershot approach of gathering data from sources which cannot be verified: 'Well, I asked the question on The Internet and a bunch of folks told me...' Is this how one 'create(s) some tables to find the best choice for a kind of software development'? It seems like GIGO to me. > >When I was in college, I had a "major paper" topic for which I could >not find a resolution. I had done what I considered a very thorough >analysis of the literature. Finally, I realized that one of the >frequent contributors on the topic was on the faculty of my school. I >looked him up, and aked him if there was (yet) a firm determination of >the Genetic Cause of Audiogenic Seizure Susceptibility in Mice. >Rather than tell me to do my own homework, he invited me to sit down, >and told me what he knew. You familiarised yourself sufficiently with the discipline to learn the name of a frequent contributor, you did nto wander about the school, pasting notes on bulletin-boards. > >I think, given the topic, Mr Radenac is entitled to the same courtesy. I think, given the quantity of learning and initiative Mr Radenac has shown, 'Please do your own homework' is *most* courteous. Were he given utterly spurious replies - 'Sure, the *best* way to deal with screen i-o is found in COBOL '68, honest!' - how would he know who is pulling the long bow... *unless* he does his own homework, first? > >{Just for the record, Doc, I usually back you up when you give that >advice. For someone who just hasn't paid attention in class, or >hasn't cracked the book, it's FINE advice. Mr Radenac's assignment, >on the other hand, requires a legitimate search for expert opinion.} Mr Radenac has not shown that he has paid any attention anywhere, except to the examples his textbook gave... or did you see something I didn't? DD