Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...

On 16/09/2024 04:05, Tim Rentsch wrote:

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
 

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>

And yes I'm still committed to that symmetry.  I'ved used it for countless
language implementations.  C is little different other than it has a
700-page standard that suggests a recommended model of how it's supposed to
work.
>
You can't really use that to bash me about the head with and maintain that
all my ideas about language implementation are wrong because C views
assignment in its own idiosyncratic manner.

>
I don't want to bash you about the head, but what C says about
assignment has /always/ been the point, and your implementation of C
will be wrong if you don't follow the rules about C's assignments.  You
/know/ the LH and RH side of a C assignment have different constraints
(you have said so yourself) yet you persist in defending your original
claim that what is needed on the two sides "is exactly the same".  You
must, surely, be arguing simply for the fun of it.
>
Tim suggests that there is communication failure here -- that you have
not expressed what you mean clearly enough.  That may be so, but I can't
see how to interpret what you've written in any other way.

 I'm coming around to the point of view that Bart isn't really
interested in communicating.  He seems not to listen to what
other people say, and either he can't be bothered to say what
he really means or he says things in a personal idiosyncratic
vernacular that no one else understands.  I'm okay with people
who are making a sincere effort to communicate and are just
having trouble doing so.  With Bart though more and more the
impression I get is that he isn't really trying because at
some level he doesn't care if he communicates or not.

Trying to communicate in this Standards-obsessed newsgroup is like trying to have a meaningful discussion with Bible-bashers.