| William M. Klein 2004-05-15, 7:30 pm |
| Not that I really think that it will do much good, but before we "turn off"
many more people (as we did last time) when we tried to deal with post that lead
to "naming calling" and other unpleasantries, let me explain what as I see as
the problem.
Generalizations that are NOT qualified often end up as useless (fruitless)
diatribes back and forth.
Take the statement (for example) from a recent thread,
"Did you mean statically linked? Only mainframers still do that."
There are so many "easy to find" exceptions to this generalizations, that the
POINT that was trying to be made was (or might be) lost. If the last statement
were changed to any of the following, I think it would advance rather than
restrict discussion. Consider:
A) I haven't seen a statically linked application except on an (IBM) mainframe
for years.
B) I don't recommend using statically linked programs and haven't seen others
using it - except on certain mainframes.
C) In all of my recent jobs, they have told us NOT to use statically linked
applications.
D) I don't use statically linked applications. Can others tell me if they do or
don't and if so why?
***
Each of these (like many other possible wording) AVOIDS using an
(unsubstantiated and easy to dispute) "generalization which is phrased as if it
were a FACT.
From my experience in comp.lang.cobol (and many other forums) - those who
express their personal opinions and experiences CLEARLY identified as such
tend to be well respected and listed to.
Those who make generic statements and state opinions AS IF THEY WERE FACTS
tend to cause arguments and have their opinions be-littled.
***
It seems to me to be SO easy (and profitable) to always express opinions and
experiences clearly identified as such.
Any time you (generic) are tempted to write a statement of the type
Everyone ....
No one ...
Every compiler ...
COBOL programs always ....
Modern programs always/never ...
Mainframes (all) ....
be very VERY careful. The chances (again from my experience) are that
1) you are wrong
2) your point will be lost in arguments about terminology and counter-examples
****
Finally, I know that I (and others) can simply IGNORE those stating opinions as
facts. However, as threads in comp.lang.cobol ARE archived and the
"unsuspecting" may find such posts. Therefore, I do think it is important that
such semi-truths and misinformation be refuted and/or corrected.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
|