Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list.
Message-ID: <256@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 05:12:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.256
Posted: Wed Jun 10 05:12:31 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 04:14:23 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <139@academ.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 125
Keywords: unmoderated news
Summary: Yes, I did say humanizing C sources


In article <142@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes:
> In article <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
> >[postnews wouldn't permit cross posting between comp.sources.d and news.group]
> >...
> >This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling errors.
> >If the code doesn't have enough documentation to be useful to you, then
> >there is no reason for you to save it.  Not every posting on the net
> >was created expressly for your particular situation. 
> 
> Hello? You mean you like all the extra work of creating your own makefile
> and manual page AND doing the first pass yourself? Fine. You obviously have
> loads of spare time on your hands. Must be nice.  

Actually, the days here are only 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.091 seconds also.
Support the space program.  Someday you may be able to go to a decent planet
with a 25 hour day.

Sources are volunteered as is.  They are accepted as wanted.  I put in
as much effort as the source seems worth and if it seems to require
more effort than it is worth, I don't bother with it.  This is quite
tautological.  Doubtless, some sources are posted and never used by
anyone on the net.  However, I certainly wouldn't want to look at a source
and try and guess how many people on the net would want to devote enough
effort to get something out of it.  I will settle for deciding how much
effort I want to spend and let others decide how much they want to spend.
I think that it is hard enough to write a source that it is not unreasonable
to distribute it throughout the news system.  Certainly most people spend
more time composing their sources than composing their news postings
(kilobyte per kilobyte).

> By the way, your analogy makes no sense. Lots of people make speeling errors
> (see!), but you can still understand the jist of it. Some programs are not
> so easily parsed. Perhaps you are adept at reading someone else's code, but
> then again you may have to look at alot of student labs and have developed
> that talent. I have not. Documentation helps me.

Yes I have read tons of student code.  One does develope a knack for separating
wheat from the shaft (although there are of course some who disagree with
whether or not I can actually do this).  Anyway, there are lies, damn lies,
and documentation.  However, if you can't or don't want to do read such
sources, that's fine by me.  Like I said, not all groups are for everyone.

> Also, I don't believe every posting on the net was made to suit my situation.
> I never implied this. To think otherwise it a grossly inaccurate 
> interpretation of my previous postings. I have hear that Texans are hard
> to understand, but I thought we still write in the same language.

Glad to hear you don't begrudge me an unmoderated sources group.

> >If someone wants to moderate sources, that is fine; create a group called
> >comp.sources.mod and run it, but I strongly object to having moderated 
> >sources be the only option on the net.
> 
> I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal.
> (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience 
> indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources
> postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group
> can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%!

Why do you care what appears on the list?  Perhaps you are obsessed with
the word sources.  It seems to me that an unmoderated group contains whatever
people choose to post to it.  If people who post stuff that is inappropriate
are ignored on the list and responded to by mail, the stuff goes away.
By far, most of the non-source on the old list was replies.  Refusing
to allow people to reply to a sources message would easily clean this up.
(and it would certainly be more useful than not letting people crosspost
to comp.sources.d because it is a sources group).

> Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained
> by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa).

Somehow I think that news.lists is more relevant to Usenet people.  On
what basis would you say the other is more `correct'?

> It still sez that it gateways net.sources. I guess they need to update
> this to whatever it really gateways.

Yeah.  So much for `correct'.

> >There is no notion that the unmoderated group would carry
> >better sources, except to the extent that you would expect that a 
> >programmer that understood the foolishness of restricting sources to
> >a moderated forum would probably be capable of analyzing other
> >problems correctly also.  (Incidently, I see no reason to segregate discussions
> >of sources from listings of sources, such a separation dehumanizes C code.)
> >
> Hmm. Well, there seems to be a few people that disagree with the discussion
> aspect. I am one, but we seem to disagree on may issues surrounding this.
> I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that
> don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are
> incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that

Well, anyone that posts on Usenet after reading the cost information
is not exactly non-egotistical.  The philosophy of a programmer is
often reflected in the strategies chosen for implementing various tasks.
Of course, the philosophy will have little to do with the skill with which
the strategy is implemented, but it may have something to do with how you
perceive the usefulness of what was done.

> discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to
> hear more on that :-).

I guess the smile means you really wouldn't.  I can live without discussion
in the sources group (particularly if it gets us unmoderated sources quicker),
but I am not offended by it.  However, I really don't see a clear distinction
between source and non-source.  Is Lisp code source to someone that
does not have a Lisp interpreter?  Is an English language algorithm description
only a source if everyone has a natural language interpretor hooked up to
a mechanical theorem prover?  If I place this message in a printf (as
I have done on other occasions), does it magically become a source?  How
about if I write a Doctor program and make this message what it says in
response to the question `Should I vote for unmoderated sources?'.
Why do so many people object to binaries on sources groups?  Is it because
they can't be read by most humans any more?  If I cast a question in the
predicate calculus syntax of Prolog, does it become a source?  Wouldn't
you like to see an unmoderated sources group just to see someone do half
the things mentioned above?

As for how C source could be humanized, consider the Literate Programming
concept being pushed these days by Donald Knuth.  [An easy introduction 
is in Communications of the ACM, May and June 1986, Programming Pearls
Column of Jon Bentley.]

----- (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)