ATC CONTROLLER HIRING PUSH CREATES CLASS STRUGGLE

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

You mean pretentious people don't you?

No, I mean what I write, and thus I meant intelligent people, which is
what I
wrote.


Well there is a "flip" in less than 60 seconds according to the time and
date stamp. You just stated they needed to be smart, motivated, taught and
invest in a good bit of practice in the post just above.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
people.

I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.

If they are young enough, their English spelling and grammar may
become "fluent", but not likely withoug formal instruction and
very unlikely if their native language is very different from
English as in Chinese or Farsi.

They need not be young, and I know people who have become completely bilingual
in adulthood. It's mostly a matter of motivation, and practice.

Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

I've met cab drivers that can speak 3 to 5 languages but were fluent
in maybe one.

Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
takes is intelligence?

Their conversational English will be OK, but their written English
will be full of strange grammatical constructions and word use.

Not if they are smart and motivated.

Babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

I see you've had little experience with foreign born technical
people.

I teach them English, so I have years of experience with them.


To you tech them to be assholes too?

Bertie

Maxwell writes:

Why do they need to be smart, motivated, taught and invest in a good bit of
practice?

Motivation is the most important, and they need to be of at least average
intelligence. Smart people make more progress with less effort and therefore
require less motivation. Just about everyone needs some amount of practice.
Being taught accelerates learning but is not essential.

Only yesterday you were insisting good English and spelling was a simple
matter of intelligence.

Language fluency and intelligence are closely correlated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

"Completely bilingual" is.

Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
takes is intelligence?

Nobody learns anything without motivation. Even smart people have a reason to
learn, otherwise they tend not to pay attention.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Being bilingual is not the same as being fluent.

"Completely bilingual" is.

Why would they need motivation and practice when you said all it
takes is intelligence?

Nobody learns anything without motivation. Even smart people have a reason to
learn, otherwise they tend not to pay attention.

Here we go with the semantic game playing.

Responding to you really is a waste of time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maxwell wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Get any programming experience at all and then come back and discuss this
intelligently.

Got a little over 25 years experience now bucko, that's what made it so easy
to see through the smoke screen.



You haven't made an intelligent response yet to my points about
misspelling variable names. So, obviously your 25 years of experience
taught you little. I graduated with my BSCS in 1983 so I'll let you do
the math.

Matt

Maxwell wrote:
Wow, that is even better than having your card deck spit out of the
machine ... when you failed to punch sequence numbers since they were such
a pain when you had to insert another card... :-)

Well if your experience long enough ago to required card decks, no wonder
you're still don't get it.



I've forgotten more than you know... You have yet to give a single
example or argument that supports your ridiculous claim that spelling is
if little concern in programming. Experience is only valid if it
teaches you something, and in our case it didn't.

wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Maxwell wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
So how did they manage to write decent programs? Errors like that are
very
serious in software engineering.

A question like that makes me really doubt that you have ever done any
programming regardless of your insistance. Programming languages have
little to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with
syntax and structure.
Really? Every Pascal, FORTRAN, C, and COBOL compiler I ever used was
quite picky about spelling and syntax is just a subset of grammar.
Then you are as clueless on this one as he is.
But still much less clueless as you. Misspell a previously defined
variable in a language with implicit variable declaration and tell me
how well your program works.
Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
natural language word?

I don't know all programming languages so I can't say, but I know that
the ones that I've used were quite picky about spelling a given variable
the same way EVERY time you use it. Misspell it once and bad things can
happen, especially in languages like Fortran that will happily create
a new variable for you and carry on.
Yes, that is one of the failings of languages that don't require you
to declare variables.

But that has nothing to do with using an english word for a variable
name and not spelling the english word correctly.

True, but the recent discussion wasn't about the English language it was
about the erroneous statement above: "Programming languages have little
to do with spelling and grammar skills, and much more to do with syntax
and structure."

Saying that spelling doesn't matter much with respect to programming
languages is just flat out false. Misspelling a symbol name in many
programming languages is far more serious than misspelling an English
word in a sentence. In the former, this will cause a compile error if
you are lucky and a very obscure run-time error if you aren't lucky. In
the latter, it makes you look illiterate, but often the reader still
knows what you meant by the context. Most compilers aren't very good at
using context. :-)

Well, I know a lot of programmers that have zip point squat for "spelling
and grammar skills", but are really good programmers.

But since the words they can't spell correctly are always spelled the
same incorrect way, it doesn' matter.

I just don't let them write the end user documentation.


They obviously aren't using a language with reserved words...

wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Well, that's true enough, but does any programming language care if
you declare something response, resp, Respond, RESP, rasponse, or
anything else which may, or may not, be similar or the same as a
natural language word?

Yes, some do.

Care to name any programming language that cares about the spelling
of user defined identifiers?

To prevent anal nitpicking, a user defined identifier is a name
invented by the programmer that does not conflict with any reserved
words or identifiers and contains only alphabetic characters (to
avoid an endless discussion about languages that may or may not
allow characters like "-" in an identifier).

And, to make it crystal clear, I'm not talking about spelling it
differently after it has been defined.


Not counting the second use is like saying that all misspellings of
English words don't count once they are spelled the first time in the
dictionary. Just as an English dictionary sets the standard for the
spelling of English words, the symbol definition (explicit or implicit)
sets the standard for the symbol. Any different spelling subsequently
is a misspelling. Your exception of anything other than the first use
is just goofy.

Matt