Re: "Name calling" - Generalizations - "who you are" vs "wha

Re: statically linked applications.

FWIW,  I am presently working at a shop where this is still a standard
practice.  Much to my dismay, convincing them to change to DYNAM is proving
to be more difficult than I expected.  Change is a constant in this
business, except where Standards are concerned.  :-)


"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Caxpc.1777$SZ4.537@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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
>
>