Talk:Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:46, 30 May 2008

Revision as of 02:02, 5 June 2008

Line 24:

As it was, it sounded a little bit like "A Schlemiel the Painter algorithm is something that losers do because they're stupid and don't know the first thing about progamming." [[Special:Contributions/81.156.111.254|81.156.111.254]] ([[User talk:81.156.111.254|talk]]) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:Even keeping your points in mind, the edit didn't work, and here is why:

#The reason the first sentence sounds a bit like "<code>they don't know the first thing about programming</code>" is because (and besides the fact that that is what "improperly-educated" implies) it is what Spolsky says. ''Explicitly''. Compare:<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>"<code>... from a weak or broken understanding of a few simple things at the very lowest levels.</code>"</small> (Spolsky's own words, and also quoted verbatim in the article)<br />with...<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>"<code>... having an incomplete understanding of basic issues at the very lowest levels</code>"</small> (article lead)<br />There is no functional difference between them, and is actually only paraphrased (instead of being quoted verbatim) because I didn't want to use the same words twice.

#That new third para (plus your justification for it above) is called [[WP:OR|original research]], which in this case is reading into the source what is not directly evident in the source. Its a no-no.

#* There is nothing from which to conclude that Spolsky saw 'Schlemiel the Painter' practices as "pandemic" or even "widespread." Spolsky does not use those words. He does not even use the word "common." He does suggest something to that effect in relation to graduates, but thats not the same thing as schlemiels being ''generally'' widespread.

#* Spolsky reference to education is mentioned (actually ''quoted'') in the first section, and is properly contextualized there.<br />In contrast, the new third para in the lead is out of context, is misleading (if not downright false), and does not have the weight to warrant mention in the lead. Here is why:

#** First, Spolsky did ''not'' see "<code>the schlemiel as a pandemic spread by improperly-educated Computer Science graduates.</code>"<br />'Schlemiel' is Spolsky's word for ''any'' kind of inefficient code/coding practice, of which he provides six or seven examples. Lack of understanding of the basics (irrespective of the cause of that lack) causes such poor coding habits. That lack of education ''in'' the basics results in lack of understanding ''of'' the basics is orthogonal to his point, which is "[Back to] Basics."<br />There is also nothing in the essay that suggests that the issue is ''specific'' to improperly-educated Computer Science graduates.

#** Also, Spolsky was making a ''prediction'' that poor education would lead to inefficient programming. Note the future tense in "<code>this is a pedagogical disaster waiting to happen.</code>"

#Finally, "<code>[Spolsky saw] the schlemiel as a pandemic spread by improperly-educated Computer Science graduates</code>" is a poor choice of words.<br />A 'schlemiel' is an inefficient way to do something. It is not an infectious disease. It does not spread. An 'improperly-educated Computer Science graduate' is not a host of an infection.<br />"<code>The 'schlemiel' was identified and named by software engineer ...</code>" is hardly better, but is superfluous anyway since it duplicates the opening words of the very next paragraph.<br />A better way to have said all that might have been: "<code>The term 'schlemiel' was originally used to express a dissatisfaction with the beginner-level education of computer science students; <etc>.</code>" But as noted in #2 above, it would have still been incorrect.

:-- [[User:Fullstop|Fullstop]] ([[User talk:Fullstop|talk]]) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)