|
Although Webopedia equates "kernal" with "kernel", Spell-O-Matic refuses to honor this version of the word for the following reasons:
- Everyone knows Webopedia is for wimps
- "kernel" is a real word, which means the same thing in regular English as it does in OS parlance
- No jargon entry refers to "kernal", while several refer to "kernel"
So there. 
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
http://www.ravib.com
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Spell-O-Matic has spoken!
"kernal" -> "kernel"
I really think "kernal" is an acceptable misspelling,
as Biologically a kernal and a kernel are the same, so it should follow through to other meanings, especially since the pronunciations are intermingled.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davies wrote:
acceptable misspelling
Acceptable misspellings are precisely what Spell-O-Matic is tying to rid the world of! 
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
http://www.ravib.com
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Acceptable misspellings are precisely what Spell-O-Matic is tying to rid the world of!
I disagree with Spell-O-Matic's principals.
English is a living language which makes it subject to change, however a standardization of english and a move towards making the language more phonetic would be a great achievment.
We have now developed a metality that there is good English, and bad English, I believe this is incorrect and betrays the roots of the language.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davies wrote:
I disagree with Spell-O-Matic's principals.
Just as long as you don't disagree with his principles.
Colin Davies wrote:
English is a living language
You're absolutely correct. Most languages evolve over time, and English is certainly no exception. It just bothers me when people misspell or misuse words. I admit this is more my failing than anyone else's!
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
http://www.ravib.com
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Just as long as you don't disagree with his principles.
Yes, you got me there Ravi
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
I admit this is more my failing than anyone else's!
Nice to see Ravi aka Spell-O-Matic also has failings.
But as English is evolving we need to fix the language to be more suitable for mass usage. Even Latin had its variants over the Roman Empire it appears. And English is similar with its discrepancies.
If we fix and stone the spelling for the word "kernal" as "kernel" how will we evolve the word.
Note: how the word Okay and others have entered the English domain recently, when I went to school the word was banned from usage.
The language will change, but a uniform change will be best for all.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if it has anything to do with the differences in spelling for locality for instance, in the United States "color" is spelled ha, "color", but in England it is spelled "colour".
hmmm... very interesting.
Checkout my Guide to Win32 Paint for Intermediates
|
|
|
|
|
kilowatt wrote:
I wonder if it has anything to do with the differences in spelling for locality
I don't think so!! "kernel" is spelled "kernel" and not "kernal".
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
http://www.ravib.com
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
If kernal is an acceptable mis-spelling, does this mean I can interchangeably use kernul, kernil or kernol?
  
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, no! "kernal" is completely, wholly and totally unacceptable. I am making it my life's goal to eradicate this unholy notion from the face of CodeProject. That is, until I get beaten around the head with semicolons and assorted debug debris, thrust upon me by my peers who really don't care one way or the other.
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
http://www.ravib.com
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Spell-O, you have one less person to worry about converting.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know if the skill level has changed, I only moved into this office full of nutters a while ago, they seem like a knowlegeble bunch
Wudan Master
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you're correct. Another interesting axis of correlation might be with educational background. For example, CS/IT, engineering, hard science, soft science, nontechnical, and no degree. I have engineering degrees and probably am toward the upper end of the age spectrum and voted that skills have dropped a lot. I think a lot of the problem is attributable to the PC explosion with the supply of trained developers never catching up with demand. Any warm body who could code at all was suddenly a "software engineer". Much the same thing happened more recently with the internet explosion where people were web developers if they could string together enough HTML to get a web page up.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 17.5 years old and I voted answer 4.
However, your theory is right
It's just that my father studied computers many years ago and he knew assembler and all that crap
- Dan
"Intel inside - Idiot outside"
|
|
|
|
|
Think, you're not right. At least, as far as me concerns. I'm 55 years old, so I remember the very first machines, and my first programming language was even not Assembler, but machine code. And nevertheless my answer was 3. If the skills are supposed to be not the sum of knowledge, but rather the ability - think, we weren't changed much.
BTW, for real developer the broken standard had never been something amazing. Quite the reverse: developing is in certain sense the breaking of standards.
As for education - once upon a time, when there were no respective courses in the Universities, in my group worked people from different, sometimes very exotic areas. And saying truth, the mathematicians were not always the best programmers. "Programmer" is not the speciality, it is the diagnosis.
For me the distillation of the developer is in the following joke:
"Can you play the violin?" - "Don't know, never tried."
Regards,
Gennady
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that developers haven't changed much because it is all relative.
I think that in years passed, it was necessary to live in all of the low-level tools and languages, that is all that existed. Now we do have all of these tools that generate code for us, and encapsulate the messy details, letting us focus on the task at hand.
Just because you were a great developer from yester-year does not make you a great developer today. I knew a developer who was excellent at HEX conversions in his head and assembly. But object-oriented concepts were past him. He could not function with this new paradigm of thinking. The people that are the great developers are the ones that can learn and adapt to new technologies, and shift their thought process when the old one becomes obsolete.
I think that one other thing to take into consideration is the fact that there is more knowledge to learn today than 20 years ago. I read some statistic that all of human knowledge doubles every 2 years. That is a lot of information to learn for all of the new people that are learning to develop. They first need to learn the foundations, then learn the history of the technologies, and decide what is useful now, and what can be tossed a side.
Checkout my Guide to Win32 Paint for Intermediates
|
|
|
|
|
kilowatt wrote:
I knew a developer who was excellent at HEX conversions in his head and assembly. But object-oriented concepts were past him. He could not function with this new paradigm of thinking.
That soundz like me
kilowatt wrote:
Just because you were a great developer from yester-year does not make you a great developer today.
True.
kilowatt wrote:
I think that one other thing to take into consideration is the fact that there is more knowledge to learn today than 20 years ago. I read some statistic that all of human knowledge doubles every 2 years. That is a lot of information to learn for all of the new people that are learning to develop. They first need to learn the foundations, then learn the history of the technologies, and decide what is useful now, and what can be tossed a side.
To counter that one of the ways we are combatting it is via specialization, in "yesteryear" everone on a team understood the rest of the teams work, and that is not so today.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
because we have languages that hold your hand and IDE's that do the work for you. Someone today on CP claimed if you wrote code in COM you could not remove a method once you added it, which is true only if you don't know how to do anything beyond the wizards.
You simply had to work harder that is currently the case, which is good in some ways, but does not lead to the average ability of coders to do anything but drop. Of course, there always have been good and bad coders, and always will be.
Christian
The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little.
"I'm somewhat suspicious of STL though. My (test,experimental) program worked first time. Whats that all about??!?!
- Jon Hulatt, 22/3/2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Someone today on CP claimed if you wrote code in COM you could not remove a method once you added it, which is true only if you don't know how to do anything beyond the wizards.
I saw that and wondered, what it meant Thanks
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course, there always have been good and bad coders, and always will be.
Thats the truth, but even us bad coders can be productive still.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, and would also point to education as a factor. A woman i work with has an IS degree, and has been taking additional C++ and VB classes on the side. I was astonished recently to learn that she had barely a working knowlege of boolean algebra, and did not know what a stack was.
You'r apostrophe bug's me.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's education so much as the difference betwen people doing a course because they percieve there's money in it, and people who live and breathe programming. But I'd agree it's shocking that someone with a degree has not been taught boolean algebra.
Christian
The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little.
"I'm somewhat suspicious of STL though. My (test,experimental) program worked first time. Whats that all about??!?!
- Jon Hulatt, 22/3/2002
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote:
A woman i work with has an IS degree
Shog9 wrote:
I was astonished recently to learn that she had barely a working knowlege of boolean algebra
OMG, that is real bad.
boolean algebra is so necessary at such a variety of levels.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
The theory is that once an interface is published, it should never be changed. That is why you get IMSInterface2 and IMSInterface3.
Tim Smith
I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Smith wrote:
The theory is that once an interface is published, it should never be changed. That is why you get IMSInterface2 and IMSInterface3.
Yes that is the theory for compatibility issues in the wild, but I think Christian was explaining that you couldn't remove a method with using the wizards, rather than editing/commenting out a few lines of code.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
|
|
|
|
|
I realise that, but that is not what I meant or he said. Correct behaviour after publishing a COM interface was not the point, the point was not being physically *able* to remove a method 'once you added it with the wizard'.
I'm sorry if I was not clear, but the point was that this person did not know it was physically possible to change a COM interface, because the wizards don't let/help you.
Christian
The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little.
"I'm somewhat suspicious of STL though. My (test,experimental) program worked first time. Whats that all about??!?!
- Jon Hulatt, 22/3/2002
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
