Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum

spinoza1111 said:

On Jan 1, 6:00 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 said:

On Jan 1, 5:12 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

An incredible example of poor sportsmanship

Rubbish. You posted a broken test. It has no relevance. The 80% is
meaningless, as is your 76% and Randy's score.

Unless of course you're using YOUR SCORE to either boast,

I'm not. My score is as meaningless as yours, Randy's, or anyone else's.

or to give
yourself permission to judge the test, and (you don't notice) your
score itself in a self-consuming fashion.

No, I judge the test on objective criteria that *anyone* can compare
against the language definition, ISO/IEC 14882.

Remember the sociology test I posted? Stupid, right? No right answer,
right? When there is no right answer, there is no merit in indulging the
test-setter by producing a wrong answer. The proper course is to reject
the question.

In the test, even to question 6, there was a BEST answer.

I disagree. When all the proposed answers to a question are wrong, the
right response is to say "all the answers are wrong".

In the sociology test, they answers were all null.

Likewise in the C++ test, in some cases.


The rules of C++ are not defined by me or you but by ISO.

They are defined only in part by ISO. They are also defined in praxis.
The poor workman blames his tools and the test.

No, the poor workman chose a lousy test, and doesn't understand the
concept of a language definition.

I'm afraid I'm a better workman than you, because my knowledge of the
basics ported to a 76% score on a language I do not use, whereas you
choked on && and || and then you whined.

No, I accept that I mis-read that question and deserved to get marked down
for it. You seem to think that your 76% score is meaningful, however.
Well, it isn't, any more than anyone else's score is meaningful. Take a
real C++ test some time.

<pseud "sociology" snipped>

<snip>

Question 8 is broken. All of the suggested answers except A
exhibit undefined behviour, and answer A modifies the value of x.
There is no correct answer.

(A) x++;
(B) x += x--;
(C) x = x++;
(D) x = --x + 1;

The correct answer is D, and neither it nor any question exhibits
undefined behavior in C++, or in usable C compilers.

Wrong. See ISO/IEC 14882:1998 5(4): [...]

Bull***.

Go tell ISO.

I am familiar with your highly UNPROFESSIONAL use of citations to
texts which you do not understand.

Don't tell me. Tell ISO. If what you say is true, they need the benefit of
your highly professional advice.

<snip>

It was understandable of me, I believe, to think you lied earlier
today,

Yes, this newsgroup is accustomed to you jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Don't worry about it - we expect it of you now, so no harm done.

<snip>

in an
area in which he claims advanced competence,

I have never claimed advanced competence in C++.

...a language in which most C code runs today? Pity you don't have it.

C code doesn't run in a language. C code is code that is submitted as input
to a C compiler and accepted by that compiler. If a C++ compiler is used
and the compiler accepts the code, then the code is C++, not C.

To claim C++ expertise is a big deal, because C++ is a big language. I can
use C++, but I'm not a C++ expert, and there is much more to the language
than I am ever likely to discover, so I will never be able to claim
advanced competence therein - but I know it well enough to know that you
don't know it well enough to distinguish a good C++ test from a bad one.

<snip>

Thank you for your honesty: but in my book a professional programmer
sees immediately the difference between && and || in multiple
languages,

I have addressed this elsethread.

Using your rule, if it's embarassing, don't talk about it.

But I did talk about it. I acknowledged my error freely. Using *your* rule,
we'd talk about nothing else for weeks - but I prefer to say new things
than repeat old ones.

This wasn't a C++ issue. It was a C issue, and you dropped the ball.

No, it was a C++ issue, because it was a C++ test, not a C test. Yes, I
dropped the ball by misreading the code, overlooking one coding error
because I was too busy noticing another coding error. It happens. Unlike
you, however, I was only too willing to announce and acknowledge my error,
even though I knew perfectly well that you'd jump on it like a
half-starved ferret. I consider errors to be opportunities to learn, not
embarrassments to be denied at every turn.

<snip>

Why on EARTH should a simple, usable implementation of sqrt not be
static?

Because it's a stupid idea - inefficient and bloaty, that's why.

"Efficiency" is the last refuge of the computing scoundrel and the
cybernetic BOUNDER.

Presumably that's why you build as much inefficiency as possible into your
code.

<snip>

Your professional competence and your implicit claims
of leadership are on trial here, not mine.

No, there is no trial - just a Usenet discussion. You picked a stupid C++
test, failed to notice that it was broken, and challenged people to take
it. We did so, we beat your score even in the act of pointing out that the
score was meaningless because the test was broken, a fact that *you*
should have noticed when you first looked at it. Okay, so you're a C++
newbie, and you can be forgiven for not realising it was a lousy test, but
to continue to pretend that it has value even after the opposite has been
shown is just plain stupid.

I'm teaching PROFESSIONAL COURTESY and COLLEGIALITY.

No, you're displaying unprofessional incompetence and abusive behaviour.

I now see I was wrong. Very well: perhaps the courts shall decide this
after all.

Usenet is packed with evidence of your incompetence and evidence of your
libels against me. If you want to risk a court case, that's your
decision.

Try me.

I am not litigious by nature. If you want to sue me, that's up to you, but
don't hold your breath waiting for me to sue you.


You may see some value in giving incorrect answers just to please a
test marker, but I don't.

There's no one to please.

True enough - so there's even less reason to supply incorrect answers.

Word play, Dickwad.

Ah, back to childish name-calling, I see.

SO. The test was flawed:

Right.

you failed it

(a) How can anyone fail a flawed test? If the test is flawed, the results
are meaningless, so there is no pass/fail.
(b) If you (wrongly) insist on ascribing meaning to the score, since when
has 80% been a failure, especially when I refused on principle to answer
several of the questions because they had no right answer? (Had I chosen
to answer them, my score would presumably have been at least somewhat
higher.)

<snip>

I'll have to ask you to leave this discussion.

You can ask. That's what freedom of speech is all about.

SOD your "freedom of speech".

You seem to be very keen on *your* freedom of speech, but you don't like it
when other people exercise theirs.

<stupid stuff snipped>

I'm now going to take a small vacation from comp.programming

You keep saying this. I wish you'd get on with it.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.

Quantcast