Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Non-professional programmers (was: Which language to teach first?)
Message-ID: <14582@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 24 Aug 89 00:32:15 GMT
References: <13433@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 25

In article <13433@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <14577@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Koldinger's point is correct, Gudeman's is actually arrogant.
>(1) I can't be arrogant since I don't have any faults.

The point was arrogant, not the person.  I'm sure Gudeman in person is
a prince of a fellow; I know the rest of us are.  Assertions, not authors,
are properly addressed in this newsgroup.  I am not sure how clear this
distinction would have had to be made in order to avoid Gudeman's
above quoted misinterpretation, but I apologize for omitting the
needed overkill. ;-)

>(2) (3) [ditto]
>
>I wasn't talking about engineers 

but Koldinger was - I address both points of view.

[ remaining silly flamage omitted - back to the point of the discussion ]

The arrogance of the point was its implication that programmers know what
elegance is and (e.g.) engineers don't.  This ain't so.
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET