🚀 go-pugleaf

Quoted from below:


> And to all of Charlie's fellow myopics who latched on to my
> recommendation of VB over Pascal, sorry but I still stand by that.
> Both
> originated - as I mentioned in the column - as teaching languages.
> Forget technical merit and OO concerns; clearly only one is winning.

>  (Just look at the job vacancy ads to get an idea of which one that
> might be.)

Forget technical merit ...  ???  !!!!!!!
Why do reviews - why not just measure sales and previous/current market
share ?



Aage J.




James M Sandbrook wrote:

>  Geoff wrote:
>
> Hello Geoff,
>
>> I love a good debate and an informed discussion so I've been
>> following this thread with interest.  Most of the correspondence
>> I've seen
>> (and had) has been intelligent and well-informed, but since Charlie
>> Lear's posting neatly encapsulates most of the "blinkered,
>> philistine
>> pig-ignorance*" of the silliest ones, I'll take it point by point:
>>                         (*'The Architect's Sketch', Monty Python.)
>
> You should be enjoying this one.
> You have really opened a can of worms this time.
>
> PC World is a good magazine and it helps computer users in many ways,
> its
> good to have magazines like this available to the public.
>
>
>> >Proof positive that NZPCW will publish utter bilge from total
>> losers,
>> >as long as it puts a positive spin on Microsoft.
>>
>> I couldn't care less what you think of me, but you obviously haven't
>> read my August and September Consumer Watch columns, or my
>> reply to Microsoft's letter in the September issue.  And you
>> definetely don't want to read Consumer Watch or the letters column
>> in the
>> forthcoming November issue because your infantile beliefs might take
>> a further knock.
>
> Many people have the same opinion about PC World being a magazine
> devoted only
> to Microsoft products. I have read in past issues (letters) people
> stating exactly that.
> I have to stand by what I originally said, a Visual basic programmer
> should not make comments about a product he/she does not know anything
> about.
> You are not a Delphi programmer, it appears you do not want to be a
> Delphi programmer, thats fine, but why run-down a product you don't
> even want to try to use, or know anything about.
> Borland's Delphi is a great product, and you have upset many people by
> your abrasive comments.
> A good writer/editor etc., never writes about something they know
> nothing about, its an old law and a good one, its bad for the
> magazine.
>
>> >Getting bitten by unpacking IOCCC code on a Windows box and then
>> >having the CRLF stuff things on Linux?  And then admit it in
>> >print????  Give me strength.
>>
>> Smug, supercilious bastards like this are the bane of the industry.
>> EVERYBODY makes mistakes but it takes  guts to stand up and
>> admit them.
>
> Geez, I hope your "Consumer Watch & Code Cutter columnist" is never
> written with you using this type of language.
>
>>  These guys never do - but they always have the most creative
>> excuses.  What's more, they never admit that there are all
>> sorts of experience levels within the industry.  Some of the best,
>> most experienced programmers I know have never stepped off a
>> mainframe.  But of course, they would rate a derisive sneer from
>> Lear for not knowing about the CR/LF differences between Dos and
>> Unix systems.
>>
>> BTW It says "PC World" on the cover in  letters at least 45mm high.
>> Not "Unix World" or "Linux Systems Journal".  Most of the stuff
>> inside is about PCs using Windows operating systems.  (Or did you
>> miss all that and just buy the mag for my column, Charlie?  I'm
>> flattered!)  Since, for most of our readers, Linux is an interest,
>> not a mainstay, publishing little tips like CR/LF differences helps
>> them out.
>>  But that, of course, is a bad thing to people like Lear because it
>> threatens to erode their tiny little empires of technical
>> expertise.  Too
>> many tips like that and less experienced people around them start to
>> see that these self-appointed technical emperors really do have no
>> clothes on.
>
>> >Of course, rather than attacking the author who clearly didn't have
>> a
>> >remote clue about what the hell he was supposed to achieve...
>>
>> And what's that Charlie?  No, please tell me since you've obviously
>> been appointed editor.  Or do you just have in mind some mindless
>> chanting like the sheep in Orwell's 'Animal Farm':  "Borland good,
>> Microsoft B-A-D!  Borland good, Microsoft B-A-D!  ..."
>
> There is no need to get nasty Geoff, it makes a man look weak, and it
> doesn't make PCWorld look any better you acting like this in a public
> newsgroup.
> Please stick to the facts.
> I think it would be nice to see PC-World hire a Delphi programmer for
> any
> reviews about Delphi products, then this person can give a reasonable
> review/comments.
> You could then stick to your Visual Basic/C reviews/comments and keep
> your part of the programming world happy.
>
>> >...we should probably send a broadside at the editor...
>>
>> Please, by all means, do.  (See the above comment about 'informed
>> discussion').  But you'd have to put together a cogent and
>> reasoned argument, not just a half-baked ad hominem attack.
>
> I would like to see fellow Delphi programmers write to your Editor
> and ask them to please add a Delphi programmer to your staff
> to make Delphi related comments and reviews.
>
>> >...for not finding someone who
>> >actually used Delphi to do the review and if he couldn't find one
>> >(as is apparent here) then at least give firm editorial direction
>> so
>> >that we didn't get a column of stream-of-unconsciousness page
>> filler
>> >instead of a review.
>>
>> Review?  Did it say 'review' in the column?  Code Cutter is NOT a
>> reviews column.  (Surely, as self-appointed editor, you'd know that
>> Charlie?  I'll whisper this quietly so no one else hears: reviews
>> are done in the New & Improved section.  See, I really don't mind
>> sharing
>> my knowledge...)  And didn't I even state that I wasn't qualified to
>> 'review' the product IN THE COLMUN?  (Like the "PC" on the cover
>> you obviously missed that too.  Better get those glasses changed.)
>
> It read like a review in my opinion, any attack (my word, not yours)
> like yours is bound to have a bad effect on Delphi sales in New
> Zealand, and to upset the NZ Delphi programmers.
> Your article: http://www.pcworld.co.nz/magazine/pcworld/oct99/code.htm
>
>> And to all of Charlie's fellow myopics who latched on to my
>> recommendation of VB over Pascal, sorry but I still stand by that.
>> Both
>> originated - as I mentioned in the column - as teaching languages.
>> Forget technical merit and OO concerns; clearly only one is winning.
>
> But have a look at these compiler ratings:
> http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11954&PCID=11803
>
>>  (Just look at the job vacancy ads to get an idea of which one that
>> might be.)  If my comments help spur Borland to pull finger and
>> tackle VB head on at what it does best - luring new users in with
>> its initial simplicity - then we might have some real competition.
>
> Delphi has been, from what I have seen, competition for Microsoft for
> years, why else
> would Microsoft buy-out the Developers of Delphi whenever they can.
>
>> Geoff Palmer
>> Consumer Watch & Code Cutter columnist
>> NZ PC World
>
> --
> All the best from James Sandbrook.
> ****************************************************