Ok Lee wrote:I love to read Java Ranch.
I noticed one of the moderators seems arrogant in writing replies for a few times. He wrote like "shouting" at people.
I don't want to say which one.
The courtesy of writing should be controlled.
Ok Lee wrote:I love to read Java Ranch.
I noticed one of the moderators seems arrogant in writing replies for a few times. He wrote like "shouting" at people.
I don't want to say which one.
The courtesy of writing should be controlled.
Dennis Deems wrote:
is that it's quite possible this person doesn't realize that what he writes comes across as arrogant. And if that's the case, then viewing this thread isn't going to make him consider trying to soften his tone, as he wouldn't realize it's about him.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
fred rosenberger wrote:In my opinion, part of that is also in the mind of the reader. If someone said to me "I assume you don't have experience in...", my first thoughts would be "Hmmm...perhaps I don't understand this as well as I thought. Maybe I should re-think my approach".
Ok Lee wrote:"Completely Wrong!". can be changed into "This has a technical issue.....It should be...."
Bear Bibeault wrote:I can mostly agree with your examples except for this one:
Ok Lee wrote:"Completely Wrong!". can be changed into "This has a technical issue.....It should be...."
If someone posts something that is completely incorrect (as has happened at least twice today in the JSP forum), I'm going to spell it out clearly so that no one, especially a novice, can be unaware that the post is, indeed, completely wrong. Saying "it has an issue" pussy-foots too much and doesn't convey the importance of the fact that bad information is being posted.
But mostly, I agree with fred. The reader has the choice to read something as if the author is smiling and trying to be helpful, or as being arrogant and disdainful. In the absence of other cues, assume the former.
Ok Lee wrote:This is a good point too. In writing, we should assume we are writing to our company's executives. I dare not to write to my boss "Completely Wrong!" in email.
Or, I may write "This is not true.", or "that is not the case. The truth is ...."
I assume you are a student with very little (or none) experience in development (in a professional environment). That might explain why your code snippets are such a mess: lacks formatting, doesn't compile (because of typos I assume),...
Seems to me you don't have a clue at all what you are doing (or what I'm suggesting) and you are just copying the Monkhouse book. So everything that's different from the approach in the Monkhouse book is beyond your understanding.
I'm not going to solve the issue for you....
I'm really wondering if you debugged the application thoroughly. I even doubt if you took time to read the javadoc of each invoked method, because if you did you certainly would have spotted the problem.
I tried explaining it in several posts, but you are not able to understand it.
I'm still wondering if you took the time to study the used API carefully. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the new concurrency API, it makes it harder to understand a code snippet. I'm also not a concurrency guru....
Ok Lee wrote:Actually, I want to be specific and point out that one of the moderators always writes posts in a straightforward tone.
I read his/her posts a lot. Frankly, he/she is helpful.
No matter what culture backgrounds readers come from, some readers may get offended by this moderator.
Steve
I assume you are a student with very little (or none) experience in development (in a professional environment). That might explain why your code snippets are such a mess: lacks formatting, doesn't compile (because of typos I assume),...
The courtesy of writing should be controlled.
Check out my kickstarter CLICK HERE
My book, my movies, my videos, my podcasts, my events ... the big collection of paul wheaton stuff!
I agree. Here's the link: http://javaranch.com/programming-pearls.jsp |