2 ms·

Why are there so many comments disagreeing with the article on the grounds that good programmers are not poor writers when the article is quite obviously talkin

by donaq 17y ago

Why are there so many comments disagreeing with the article on the grounds that good programmers are not poor writers when the article is quite obviously talking about verbal communication?

neilc 17y ago
the article is quite obviously talking about verbal communication How is that "quite obvious"? The article plainly talks about "communication" in general, not "verbal communication" in particular. That may well be the author's intent, but that is not what is written.
- donaq 17y ago
  Hmm, allow me to elaborate. 1) In his point about DRY, he speaks of humans not remembering very well. It seems unlikely that he would be referring to written communication here, since there would be no need for memory on the part of the audience. It's pretty much why writing was invented. To implement DRY for speaking. 2) Let people be people -- let them be vague and a little incorrect -- listen more for the gist of what they're saying than the exact terminology. Be a compassionate speaker, a compassionate listener. Embrace the 'all too human' aspects of the strange bipeds you interact with. "Listening" and "speaking" tend to be used to refer to verbal communication. 3) References to real-time, in-the-flesh actions and reactions, i.e. "yelling", "watch as the eyes glaze over" and "look at us with that 'freak' expression". I do agree that if we subscribe to a literal interpretation of the post, then these points may not be conclusive, but then that would just prove the OP's point that us programmers find it hard to deal with ambiguity in communication. I don't know if that was a conscious intention on his part, but if it is, it's quite clever, especially given the reactions I mentioned in my first comment. Of course, there's also the possibility that I am wrong, in which case, I've read too much into his post. :)

by donaq 17y ago

Why are there so many comments disagreeing with the article on the grounds that good programmers are not poor writers when the article is quite obviously talking about verbal communication?

neilc 17y ago

the article is quite obviously talking about verbal communication How is that "quite obvious"? The article plainly talks about "communication" in general, not "verbal communication" in particular. That may well be the author's intent, but that is not what is written.

donaq 17y ago
Hmm, allow me to elaborate. 1) In his point about DRY, he speaks of humans not remembering very well. It seems unlikely that he would be referring to written communication here, since there would be no need for memory on the part of the audience. It's pretty much why writing was invented. To implement DRY for speaking. 2) Let people be people -- let them be vague and a little incorrect -- listen more for the gist of what they're saying than the exact terminology. Be a compassionate speaker, a compassionate listener. Embrace the 'all too human' aspects of the strange bipeds you interact with. "Listening" and "speaking" tend to be used to refer to verbal communication. 3) References to real-time, in-the-flesh actions and reactions, i.e. "yelling", "watch as the eyes glaze over" and "look at us with that 'freak' expression". I do agree that if we subscribe to a literal interpretation of the post, then these points may not be conclusive, but then that would just prove the OP's point that us programmers find it hard to deal with ambiguity in communication. I don't know if that was a conscious intention on his part, but if it is, it's quite clever, especially given the reactions I mentioned in my first comment. Of course, there's also the possibility that I am wrong, in which case, I've read too much into his post. :)