Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How to torment Samaritans

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 1:35:16 AM10/5/05
to
Karl Rove of the Republican party asked me to write an essay on how to
torment Samaritans. I felt unqualified to write on the topic
generally, but I offered to write on the more limited topic of
comp.lang.* Samaritans who volunteer their time to help others with
computer problems:

1. be as vague as possible about your problem. Volunteer no relevant
details. Never mention your platform or any special libraries you are
using.

2. Use Marilyn Monroe baby-talk to describe symptoms. E.g. "broken"
"din't work". You don't want people guessing if you have a compile
time error, run time exception, or simply unexpected behaviour.

3. never post code. Claim national security if pressed.

4. When asking help with a compiler error or exception, paraphrase it.
Never quote the line in question or the code context.

5. When asked to perform an experiment to help narrow down the
problem. Don't do it. Pretend you did not hear the request.

6. Start off posts with "You have to help me." and "You have only10
hours to solve this for me.". Every hour add a followon post berating
people for not solving this yet to your satisfaction.

7. Post your old homework assignments verbatim under 5 assumed names.

8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html

9. When offered a solution or explanation of why what you want to do
is unwise or impossible, no matter how appropriate, say, "that's just
not good enough", but don't elaborate why.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 2:29:51 AM10/5/05
to
Roedy Green wrote:


> 3. never post code. Claim national security if pressed.

LOL! I've had a few like that recently. That
was my favorite, but 7. and 9. also deserve
'honorable mention'.

However you also forgot ..
10. Don't even consider reading the group, either for
answers to your question, or for tips on how to best get
answers (that would cut into the time you spend 'berating' -
see 6.).

Andrea Desole

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 7:01:06 AM10/5/05
to

Roedy Green wrote:
>
> 1. be as vague as possible about your problem. Volunteer no relevant
> details. Never mention your platform or any special libraries you are
> using.
>
> 2. Use Marilyn Monroe baby-talk to describe symptoms. E.g. "broken"
> "din't work". You don't want people guessing if you have a compile
> time error, run time exception, or simply unexpected behaviour.
>
> 3. never post code. Claim national security if pressed.
>
> 4. When asking help with a compiler error or exception, paraphrase it.
> Never quote the line in question or the code context.
>
> 5. When asked to perform an experiment to help narrow down the
> problem. Don't do it. Pretend you did not hear the request.
>
> 6. Start off posts with "You have to help me." and "You have only10
> hours to solve this for me.". Every hour add a followon post berating
> people for not solving this yet to your satisfaction.
>
> 7. Post your old homework assignments verbatim under 5 assumed names.
>
> 8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
> succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html
>
> 9. When offered a solution or explanation of why what you want to do
> is unwise or impossible, no matter how appropriate, say, "that's just
> not good enough", but don't elaborate why.

I'm sorry, but I have to add this.

How to be tormented:

answer the posts that follow one of more of the rules above.

I don't mean to be polemic, but these people will always be there, as
well as people who tend to be quite rude, if not offensive.
It can be annoying, but I don't really think you can change it. Just
forget them

Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 10:40:02 AM10/5/05
to
Roedy Green <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote on
Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:35:16 GMT in comp.lang.java.programmer:


>8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
>succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html


For a few years now Andrew Thompson has been relentlessly promoting
the use of the initialism "SSCCE", which stands for "Short,
Self-Contained Compilable Example". But a few minutes with Google
Groups reveals that a.) the term is used very infrequently outside of
comp.lang.java.* groups, and b.) in most instances where it's been
used, it was by Andrew himself, and c.) in most instances where Andrew
or others used it, they felt it necessary to provide a link to a page
explaining what the term means.

In other words, "SSCCE" has failed to enter the programmers' lexicon.
That's too bad, because SSCCEs are very useful things, and having a
commonly-recognized name for them would also be useful.

Why has the use of "SSCCE" not caught on? IMO, the main reason is that
"SSCCE" does not roll off the tongue, like a pronouncable acronym
(e.g. "SOAP") or initialisms with more distinct-sounding letters (e.g.
"XML" or "JDBC"). Try rapidly saying "SSCCE" to yourself three times
in succession and you'll see what I mean. And because "SSCCE" is so
cumbersome to pronounce, it's not easily remembered. And because it's
not easily remembered, it's not "sticky", i.e. it's not commonly used,
or associated in people's minds with the thing to which it refers.

Although I have no specific suggestion for a replacement, I think it
needs to be replaced.


--
Check out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based
front end for relational databases.

http://qform.sourceforge.net

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.

http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

HalcyonWild

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 11:04:37 AM10/5/05
to

Roedy Green wrote:
> 8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
> succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html

Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it is
required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a right
thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being done for a
company. Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.
If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track
the issue. One should try to post as much information as possible in
the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.

ER

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 9:57:19 AM10/5/05
to
Never the less I have the feeling that you people enjoy every moment of
it...

Just know this: there are some of us out there that appreciate what you are
doing.

Thank you.

Chris Smith

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 12:14:34 PM10/5/05
to
HalcyonWild <Halcyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it is
> required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a right
> thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being done for a
> company. Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.
> If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track
> the issue. One should try to post as much information as possible in
> the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.

I wrote the following some time ago to explain the exact purpose of this
general technique. This was way before Andrew's "SSCCE" acronym
existed, but it conveys the same point.

Incidentally, aside from the attitude (which I don't like), my problem
with the "SSCCE" fad is that it's used as a way to chastise posters for
not helping us. The concept is better understood as a debugging
technique, with recourse to asking others (on newsgroups or elsewhere)
as a last resort. There is no need for the adversarial context, wherein
we assume the role of deciding when the OP has given enough information
that they deserve our help.

Everything that follows is what I wrote several years ago.

----------------------------

Also, a bit of advice that's often heard in comp.lang.java.* is that,
once you've got a simple example that's working and a complex example
that's not, you take the following steps:

1. Make a copy of the more complex example, so you've got one that you
can keep, and one that you can play with.

2. Pick a detail (preferably one that you think shouldn't be relevant to
whether this works or not) that exists in the complex example, but not
in the simple example.

3. Remove it from the complex example, and retest. If the modified
complex example works, go to step 4; else, go back to step 2.

4. Think about why this fixed the problem. Do you understand what the
problem was now? If so, fix it in the original code and you're done.
Else, go to step 5.

5. Replace the change that fixed the problem, so that you've again got a
working and a nonworking version.

6. Avoid any changes that you know will cause the code to start working,
and pick a different and seemingly insignificant difference between the
working and non-working code. If there isn't any other difference you
can pick out, go to step 8.

7. Remove it and retest. If the modified code works, go back to step 4;
else, go back to step 6.

8. Post, to a relevant newsgroup, your current working and non-working
examples. Explain exactly what the differences are between the two
examples. Explain what happens with the working sample (ie, the
expected results) and what happens with the broken sample (ie, the
unexpected results). Post any error messages in their entirety, and if
your error messages contain line numbers, point out what lines those
are. Do it nicely.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 3:00:27 PM10/5/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.] On 2005-10-05,
HalcyonWild penned:

All of that is fine and dandy. But surely you recognize that an
inability to post concise and compilable code results in a reduced
chance of getting an answer.

People seem to assume that the request for source represents some sort
of hazing, or that it's some arbitrary and mean-spirited way to
withhold information until one performs the appropriate incantations.
It's not that at all. It's just that it's easier to solve a problem
when you can see the code. If you can't or won't provide the code,
that's fine, but it means that you're reducing the likelihood of
getting useful help.

Note that I don't hold with chastising people for not posting their
code. But I'm likely to ignore the post entirely. Chastising could
be interpreted as a better approach, in that at least a person knows
*why* they're not getting any useful feedback.

--
monique

Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 4:52:05 PM10/5/05
to

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128524677.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> 8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
>> succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html

I'm gonna some pedantic nitpicking here. Don't take it personally. I
agree with what you say, but I don't think it applies in the context of an
SSCCE.

> Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it is
> required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a right
> thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being done for a
> company.

An SSCCE is not a request for the complete code; quite the opposite,
it's a request for as small an example as possible which still demonstrates
the problem. If you need severals megs of code to demonstrate the problem,
then the problem probably lies in the design of the application, which is at
a higher level than programming in any particular language (e.g. Java). At
that level, you might want to describe the general algorithm and ask for
opinions why it would or would not work, and at that level, seeing actual
source code is less interesting.

> Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.

An SSCCE, by definition, is compilable.

> If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track
> the issue.

The intent of the SSCCE is to demonstrate the problem.

> One should try to post as much information as possible in
> the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.

This is the intent of the SSCCE, I think.

- Oliver


Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 4:58:20 PM10/5/05
to
"Roedy Green" <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote in
message news:7go6k1lhjtdejfpe2...@4ax.com...

> 3. never post code. Claim national security if pressed.

Alternatively, post code that is different from the code with which you
are working on. After the samaritans have spent hours debugging it and
showing you the line where the problem occurs, tell them that you had
mistyped that line, and that the *real* code already looks exactly like the
fix they proposed, and that the problem still exists elsewhere.

>
> 5. When asked to perform an experiment to help narrow down the
> problem. Don't do it. Pretend you did not hear the request.

Or pretend to do it, and make up the results based on what you think the
outcome would have been. If "thought experiments" are good enough for
Einstein, they should be good enough for the samaritans of comp.lang.*

- Oliver


HGA0...@nifty.ne.jp

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 8:02:32 PM10/5/05
to
11. Write a non-descriptive simplest subject title. "Help!", "Java
problem" and
"Urgent!" are the best among them.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 8:11:17 PM10/5/05
to
Dave Glasser wrote:

> Although I have no specific suggestion for a replacement, I think it
> needs to be replaced.

Good for you.

Thomas Weidenfeller

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 4:23:37 AM10/6/05
to
Roedy Green wrote:
> Karl Rove of the Republican party asked me to write an essay on how to
> torment Samaritans. I felt unqualified to write on the topic
> generally, but I offered to write on the more limited topic of
> comp.lang.* Samaritans who volunteer their time to help others with
> computer problems:
[...]

You are absolutely right Roedy. I stayed a way from the comp.lang.java.*
groups for some weeks, and started to read them again today. Just after
a few minutes of reading I again started to think that the time is
probably not worth it.

Just in these few minutes I saw two cases were regulars attempting to
help were flamed by incomprehensible first-time posters for "not being
helpful". People demanding answers. People posting their stupid
homework. People who can't read their textbooks, API docs, tutorials,
old postings, new postings, etc. even if their life would depend on it.

Reading clj* seems like a awful waste of time.

/Thomas
--
The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq
http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/computer-lang.java.gui.faq/

HGA0...@nifty.ne.jp

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 4:58:38 AM10/6/05
to
> Reading clj* seems like a awful waste of time.
Archive, search on them and the FAQ compiled
by T.W. is always invaluable. Often better than
the Sun Java forum archives because regular
writers quality is much higher.

zero

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 11:17:07 AM10/6/05
to
"Monique Y. Mudama" <sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
news:slrndk88m...@home.bounceswoosh.org:

> All of that is fine and dandy. But surely you recognize that an
> inability to post concise and compilable code results in a reduced
> chance of getting an answer.

Personally I prefer code snippets over compilable examples. I very rarely
take the time to compile anything posted here. Instead I carefully read
the code and try to see what's going wrong. If I can't figure it out, I
often write my own code in a small test program with an alternative
approach.

Compilable examples are fine for compiling, but usually to long to read.
Especially since 90% of the time the code gets jumbled up with linebreaks,
bad indentation etc.

Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 11:43:03 AM10/6/05
to

"zero" <ze...@this.hi> wrote in message
news:Xns96E7AFD34D...@195.130.132.72...

>
> Personally I prefer code snippets over compilable examples. I very rarely
> take the time to compile anything posted here. Instead I carefully read
> the code and try to see what's going wrong. If I can't figure it out, I
> often write my own code in a small test program with an alternative
> approach.

Sometimes obscure bugs become obvious once we have the benefit of syntax
highlighting and compiler warnings. For example, consider the code snippet:

class Foo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(12345 + 5432l);
}
}

This program doesn't print out "66666" like it should. Why not? If you
just stare at it, it might be very difficult to figure out. But once you put
it into a (sufficiently intelligent) compiler, it'll tell give you a warning
about using lowercase 'l' as a indicator for long values. Fix the warning,
and you get:

class Foo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(12345 + 5432L);
}
}

and then the bug becomes more obvious.

> Compilable examples are fine for compiling, but usually to long to read.
> Especially since 90% of the time the code gets jumbled up with linebreaks,
> bad indentation etc.

A good IDE should offer to automatically format the code to your
specifications.

- Oliver


Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:00:15 PM10/6/05
to
On 2005-10-06, zero penned:

Okay, you're right. I've never taken code from here and compiled it to
see what broke, either.

I think what I really meant above was, code that is syntactically true
to the code that is causing the problem. But that's harder to
explain.

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:03:39 PM10/6/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.] On 2005-10-06,
Andrew Thompson penned:

I won't claim that it needs to be replaced, but I will admit that
after several months of reading this NG, I can't remember how many S's
and C's there are in the acronym, but I do suspect that it has
something to do with short and compilable. Or is it concise instead
of short? Then why the S? Hrmm ...

"Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:22:07 PM10/6/05
to
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

>>Dave Glasser wrote:
>>
>>>Although I have no specific suggestion for a replacement, I think
>>>it needs to be replaced.

..
> I won't claim that it needs to be replaced, but ..


...
> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.

That often leads to code that is incomplete,
1400 lines, or does not display the problem.

Short, Self Contained, Compilable, Example.

It's not so much 'a piece of code' as 'a concept'..

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:25:04 PM10/6/05
to
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
..

> I think what I really meant above was, code that is syntactically true
> to the code that is causing the problem. But that's harder to
> explain.

I find this explains it pretty well, you
should check it out some time..
<http://www.physci.org/codes/sscce.jsp>

;-)

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:40:46 PM10/6/05
to
Andrew Thompson coughed up:


Don't take this personally. I also think that SSCCE is hard to remember,
because the phonemes involved make me sound like I'm lisping.

You will still be regarded as the originator. I might suggest something
like:

CRAP - Compileable, Runable, And Pared down

;)


--
I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
error and tries to cover it up by thinking
fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
only succeeds in looking worse.


Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:41:06 PM10/6/05
to

"Monique Y. Mudama" <sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message
news:slrndkam0...@home.bounceswoosh.org...
> On 2005-10-06, zero penned:

>>
>> Personally I prefer code snippets over compilable examples. I very
>> rarely take the time to compile anything posted here. Instead I
>> carefully read the code and try to see what's going wrong. If I
>> can't figure it out, I often write my own code in a small test
>> program with an alternative approach.
>>
>> Compilable examples are fine for compiling, but usually to long to
>> read. Especially since 90% of the time the code gets jumbled up
>> with linebreaks, bad indentation etc.
>
> Okay, you're right. I've never taken code from here and compiled it to
> see what broke, either.

For the record, there exists at least one person who occasionally takes
SSCCEs and actually compiles and runs them: me. I usually do this for GUI
programs because I have a hard time visualizing how they behave just from
reading the source code. Additionally, instead of posting 5 different
theories or tests for the potential "tormenter" to try out, I can quickly do
those tests myself.

- Oliver


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:42:21 PM10/6/05
to
Andrew Thompson coughed up:

Compilable and Self Contained intersect each other in intent.

Perhaps

SCE - Short Compilable Example

?

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 1:52:26 PM10/6/05
to
On 2005-10-06, Andrew Thompson penned:

Only because you snipped the part of my post in which I agreed that
being compilable isn't necessary.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 3:09:18 PM10/6/05
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:42:21 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote or quoted
:

>>> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.

Perhaps some conditioning is in order.

Every time someone posts code, thank them.

Every time they don't, refuse to speculate, just say "I can't tell
without seeing your code." or "The problem is in the code you didn't
post" without giving any further detail.

You have to decide on a case by case basis it the request for complete
code is reasonable. It certainly is for any newbie with a compile
error. At the very least for compile error you should demand the
declarations of all elements involved.

So long as people can sometimes get answers without posting code, they
will always try that first. They don't care how frustrating it is for
those trying to help them.

On our side, we should relax the request for short code. If it is too
long for a post, put it up on a website somewhere as a zip. For those
without websites, perhaps someone would volunteer space.

HalcyonWild

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 3:27:59 PM10/6/05
to

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> SCE - Short Compilable Example
>
>
>

What about Short And Compilable code. SACC. Pronounced "sec" as in
trigonometry.


Thomas Weidenfeller said :


"You are absolutely right Roedy. I stayed a way from the
comp.lang.java.*
groups for some weeks, and started to read them again today. Just after

a few minutes of reading I again started to think that the time is
probably not worth it. "


You have to ignore old posts. Sometimes, I have a weeks backlog of
posts to read, and I have to skip most of them. Or I open the post and
read it if it has an informative subject line.

Oliver Wong said :


"I'm gonna some pedantic nitpicking here. Don't take it personally. "

No I wont. And what you say is correct. If SSCCE means that you can
change names, or shorten it, but contains the main point. For example,
if I am having a problem with inheritance, I can use class names like
SuperClass and SubClass, instead of OrderXmlParser and
DeletionOrderXmlParser. Normally I try to post as much code as possible
with log messages.
Like if there is some problem why a method is returning null, it is
possible to just post the method , without the rest of code, and also
include the log messages in the post.

Guess we just have to strike the right balance, dont post too much
redundant code, or too less.

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 4:03:21 PM10/6/05
to
On 2005-10-06, HalcyonWild penned:

>
> No I wont. And what you say is correct. If SSCCE means that you can
> change names, or shorten it, but contains the main point. For example,
> if I am having a problem with inheritance, I can use class names like
> SuperClass and SubClass, instead of OrderXmlParser and
> DeletionOrderXmlParser.

I think most people would rather see OrderXmlParser and
DeletionOrderXmlParser, unless the question asked has absolutely
nothing to do with the problem domain.

Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 6:08:31 PM10/6/05
to
Roedy Green <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote on
Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:09:18 GMT in comp.lang.java.help:

>>>> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.
>
>Perhaps some conditioning is in order.
>
>Every time someone posts code, thank them.
>
>Every time they don't, refuse to speculate, just say "I can't tell
>without seeing your code." or "The problem is in the code you didn't
>post" without giving any further detail.

FWIW, here's my approach: If someone posts an intelligent question
with sufficient information for me to answer it, or at least take a
stab at it, I'll reply. If not, then I simply ignore them. On a few
occasions I've asked for a clarification or code, but in many of those
cases the OP didn't respond anyway, so I rarely bother anymore.

>
>You have to decide on a case by case basis it the request for complete
>code is reasonable. It certainly is for any newbie with a compile
>error. At the very least for compile error you should demand the
>declarations of all elements involved.
>
>So long as people can sometimes get answers without posting code, they
>will always try that first. They don't care how frustrating it is for
>those trying to help them.

Why get frustrated, when you can just ignore them? I like to help my
fellow Java developers as much as the next guy, but at the end of the
day, their problems are *their" problems, not mine. If they're too
lazy to provide sufficient information in a post, then good luck to
them, but I won't be wasting any of my time on them. Sometimes, sure,
it might be out of ignorance that they omit certain information, but
most times it seems to be out of indifference at best, or sheer
laziness at worst.

>On our side, we should relax the request for short code. If it is too
>long for a post, put it up on a website somewhere as a zip. For those
>without websites, perhaps someone would volunteer space.

Here again, my outlook is completely different from yours. You're
thinking, "gee, what can we do to help these people who make it so
hard for us to help them?" Even to the point of providing server
space, etc. In my view, they should be thinking "gee, what can I do to
make it as easy as possible for these busy people to help me?" This
was intuitive to me way back in the day when I would post to Fidonet
for help, say, getting a soundcard to work under DOS 4.0 on my 386. I
would automatically include the contents of my autoexec.bat and
config.sys files, and my environment variables, and jumper settings or
anything else I could think of, because even though I had no clue what
the problem was, I knew those things were relevant.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 8:03:20 PM10/6/05
to
Roedy Green coughed up:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:42:21 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote or quoted
>>
>
>>>> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.

This is the *WORST* job at snipping I've ever seen!!! *I* *DID* *NOT*
*WRITE* *THAT*.

Monique did.

...[rip]...

--
Puzzle: You are given a deck of cards all face down
except for 10 cards mixed in which are face up.
If you are in a pitch black room, how do you divide
the deck into two piles (may be uneven) that each
contain the same number of face-up cards?
Answer (rot13): Sebz naljurer va gur qrpx, qrny bhg
gra pneqf naq syvc gurz bire.


Alan Krueger

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 9:15:09 PM10/6/05
to
HalcyonWild wrote:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>> SCE - Short Compilable Example
>
> What about Short And Compilable code. SACC. Pronounced "sec" as in
> trigonometry.

NEWBIE: Help, I can't get this to work!

SAMARITAN: Show us your SACC.

NEWBIE: ...?!

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 9:43:28 PM10/6/05
to
On 2005-10-07, Alan Krueger penned:

That's what I was thinking.

Maybe it doesn't sound as vulgar to non-native-English speakers.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 11:12:36 PM10/6/05
to
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> ...I also think that SSCCE is hard to remember,

> because the phonemes involved make me sound like I'm lisping.
>
> You will still be regarded as the originator.

?

Beyond the acronym, there is nothing in the document
to claim originality over. A lot of the tips in the
SSCCE document were 'known to the Phoenicians'.

If it is so strongly associated with me, it is mostly
because I am the one who is promoting it (to the point
of generating animosity from those who have heard
..about it, or ..from me 'too often' already).

>..I might suggest something

> like:
>
> CRAP - Compileable, Runable, And Pared down

'Don't give us code snippets, give us CRAP'

...hmmm. I can't say it works for me. :-(

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:54:52 AM10/7/05
to
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Andrew Thompson coughed up:
...

>>Short, Self Contained, Compilable, Example.
>>
>>It's not so much 'a piece of code' as 'a concept'..
>
> Compilable and Self Contained intersect each other in intent.

Why do I get the feeling that so many of the people
suggesting I change the SSCCE document have not actually
read it?

> Perhaps
>
> SCE - Short Compilable Example

'Compilable' does not fit JS or HTML.

Basically. I chose that group of words very carefully,
they will not change. If anybody here feels thay have
a group of words as the 'phrase', with or without a
web page to expand on it, feel free to -promote-* it
here, there, or anywhere you like. I'm sticking with
'SSCCE'.

* The SSCCE phrase would not have become popular without
my constant references to it.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 3:00:41 AM10/7/05
to
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

> On 2005-10-06, Andrew Thompson penned:
>
>>Monique Y. Mudama wrote: ..
>>
>>>I think what I really meant above was, code that is syntactically
>>>true to the code that is causing the problem. But that's harder to
>>>explain.
>>
>>I find this explains it pretty well, you should check it out some
>>time..
>><http://www.physci.org/codes/sscce.jsp>
>>
>>;-)
>
>
> Only because you snipped the part of my post in which I agreed that
> being compilable isn't necessary.
>

Ooops! My bad, sorry.

Gordon Beaton

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 3:11:09 AM10/7/05
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:31 -0400, Dave Glasser wrote:
> FWIW, here's my approach: If someone posts an intelligent question
> with sufficient information for me to answer it, or at least take a
> stab at it, I'll reply. If not, then I simply ignore them.

That's my approach as well. I don't have enough time or interest to
hand-hold people who can't provide enough information for others to
help them solve their problems.

I ignore a lot of posts that I probably could have answered if the OP
had simply put a little more effort into posting.

/gordon

--
[ do not email me copies of your followups ]
g o r d o n + n e w s @ b a l d e r 1 3 . s e

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 3:29:37 AM10/7/05
to
Oliver Wong wrote:

> For the record, there exists at least one person ..

Two! (Not even bothering to trawl back through
the archives to find evidence of other examples).

>..who occasionally takes

> SSCCEs and actually compiles and runs them: me.

I've noticed you are a great advocate of the SSCCE,
with many links to it. :-)

But, do you really think I would write that document and
promote the concept so much without compiling the codes?!?
I have copied and compiled codes dealing with areas of
Java I've never encountered, just on the 'off chance'
I can spot the problem. '..oh, an NPE - that's easy..'

>...I usually do this for GUI

> programs because I have a hard time visualizing how they behave just from
> reading the source code.

I see what you're saying Oliver, but you're already
one step ahead of me. I have a hard time reading code
if it is not 'syntax colored'. 'Debugging' in a news
reader is like trying to debug code you are editing in
Notepad.

Some people enjoy the mental exercise involved in reading
code snippets with a view to uncovering bugs. I don't, I
prefer to devote my mental exercise to matters that machines
cannot (yet) address.

>..Additionally, instead of posting 5 different

> theories or tests for the potential "tormenter" to try out, I can quickly do
> those tests myself.

Yep. Change 'GUI' to 'applet' and that '5' becomes '14'. ;-)

HalcyonWild

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 5:20:36 AM10/7/05
to

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

> On 2005-10-07, Alan Krueger penned:
> > HalcyonWild wrote:
> >> What about Short And Compilable code. SACC. Pronounced "sec" as in
> >> trigonometry.
> >
> > NEWBIE: Help, I can't get this to work!
> >
> > SAMARITAN: Show us your SACC.
> >
> > NEWBIE: ...?!
>
> That's what I was thinking.
>
> Maybe it doesn't sound as vulgar to non-native-English speakers.
>

I did not know it is vulgar. And I still dont know why it is vulgar.
Anyway, lets stick to SSCCE.

Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 11:11:37 AM10/7/05
to

"Andrew Thompson" <seemy...@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:Btp1f.9702$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> I've noticed you are a great advocate of the SSCCE,
> with many links to it. :-)

Before I had ever heard of the acronym, I was already considered to be
"The Computer Guy" by my friends and family. I'd very often get request to
fix their (usually non-Java related) problems. The request would either
contain no description of the problem at all (e.g. "Can you fix my
computer?"), or contain a very vague description (e.g. "There's a problem
with my computer. Can you fix it?")

It turns out I usually don't need to actually to know what the problem
is. I just send back an e-mail saying "Try rebooting the computer" and
that'll usually fix whatever it was, and they'll go about their merry way.
It's only when rebooting fails that I have to actually start asking for a
description of what the problem actually is. E.g. how to reproduce it, what
did they see, what did they expect to see, how do these two things differ,
etc.

Most of the problems I see posted on this newsgroup don't seem like the
type for which rebooting would help, so the next step would be to ask for a
description of the problem, what code reproduces it, and so on. An SSCCE
contains all this information, and the websites explaining what SSCCE stands
for also typically explain why it's a good idea to post an SSCCE. So rather
than post a whole bunch of questions, wait for the "tormenter" to asks why I
need to know, and then post the reasons I need to know, I can just link to
one of those sites.

So in short, for any non-trivial problem (i.e. one for which rebooting
won't solve), I've *always* wanted an SSCCE (though I didn't have an acronym
for the concept back then). That's probably why I advocate it.

- Oliver


Chris Smith

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 1:46:07 PM10/7/05
to
Roedy Green <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote:
> Perhaps some conditioning is in order.
>

No, it's not. There's this little problem called human dignity.
Conditioning is for pets and small children. Respect is for fellow
adults. If you don't like some person or group, no one is forcing you
to interact with them.

> So long as people can sometimes get answers without posting code, they
> will always try that first. They don't care how frustrating it is for
> those trying to help them.

Yep, maybe they will. If you're frustrated, ignore them.

> On our side, we should relax the request for short code. If it is too
> long for a post, put it up on a website somewhere as a zip. For those
> without websites, perhaps someone would volunteer space.

I think that's exactly the wrong thing to ask for. I, for example, very
rarely pay much attention to posts that contain more than a screen-full
or so of code, unless they also contain a short, succinct description so
that I don't really have to read the code. If code absolutely has to be
incomplete (i.e., not compilable) to fit that need, then fine. I
DEFINITELY don't want to see unnecessary details, and I don't want to
comb through 2000 lines of code to find a problem when the OP had clues
about where the problem occurs.

It bears mentioning that most reasonable people will read code by hand
before compiling and running it, anyway. To do otherwise is simply
asking for someone to post code that really screws you over. So
anything that I can't read by hand and vet for harmful side-effects in
less than a couple minutes is pretty much out of consideration.
Anything I have to download from a web site is pretty much completely
out. Someone better have a way to convince me that I might be able to
say something about their problem BEFORE I go download a zip file from
their web site.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:19:55 PM10/7/05
to
On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild penned:

It sounds like you're requesting to view someone's scrotum.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:23:34 PM10/7/05
to
Oliver Wong coughed up:
> "HalcyonWild" <Halcyo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1128524677.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>> 8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
>>> succumb to writing an SSCCE. See
>>> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html

>
> I'm gonna some pedantic nitpicking here. Don't take it personally.
> I agree with what you say, but I don't think it applies in the
> context of an SSCCE.
>
>> Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it
>> is required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a
>> right thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being
>> done for a company.
>
> An SSCCE is not a request for the complete code; quite the
> opposite, it's a request for as small an example as possible which
> still demonstrates the problem. If you need severals megs of code to
> demonstrate the problem, then the problem probably lies in the design
> of the application, which is at a higher level than programming in
> any particular language (e.g. Java). At that level, you might want to
> describe the general algorithm and ask for opinions why it would or
> would not work, and at that level, seeing actual source code is less
> interesting.
>> Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.
>
> An SSCCE, by definition, is compilable.
>
>> If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track
>> the issue.
>
> The intent of the SSCCE is to demonstrate the problem.
>
>> One should try to post as much information as possible in
>> the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.
>
> This is the intent of the SSCCE, I think.
>
> - Oliver

It *is* time to rename this acronym. I can't even read this without
arduously sounding it out in my head. It's just a clumsy set of letters.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:23:34 PM10/7/05
to
Andrew Thompson coughed up:


Works well for me: "You have to give a CRAP in order to get help!"

--
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:28:40 PM10/7/05
to
Gordon Beaton coughed up:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:31 -0400, Dave Glasser wrote:
>> FWIW, here's my approach: If someone posts an intelligent question
>> with sufficient information for me to answer it, or at least take a
>> stab at it, I'll reply. If not, then I simply ignore them.
>
> That's my approach as well. I don't have enough time or interest to
> hand-hold people who can't provide enough information for others to
> help them solve their problems.
>
> I ignore a lot of posts that I probably could have answered if the OP
> had simply put a little more effort into posting.

The only problem I see with this approach is that it is so often the case
that a junior OP does not know *how to ask* the question in the first place.
Often learning the proper question is the best lesson of all.

HansF

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 2:56:32 PM10/7/05
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:23:34 +0000, Thomas G. Marshall interested us by
writing:

> It *is* time to rename this acronym. I can't even read this without
> arduously sounding it out in my head. It's just a clumsy set of letters.

(with tongue in cheek ...)

SSCCE has never caught on for several reasons:

- it has more than the accepted 3-4 characters
- it does not contain at least one J
- it can not be spoken in one syllable
- it can not be said while eating pizza (without making a mess)

I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
interpretations:

- Just A Dummied-up Example
- Java App Developer's Example

/Hans ;-)

Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 4:16:06 PM10/7/05
to
"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote on Fri,
07 Oct 2005 18:28:40 GMT in comp.lang.java.help:

>Gordon Beaton coughed up:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:31 -0400, Dave Glasser wrote:
>>> FWIW, here's my approach: If someone posts an intelligent question
>>> with sufficient information for me to answer it, or at least take a
>>> stab at it, I'll reply. If not, then I simply ignore them.
>>
>> That's my approach as well. I don't have enough time or interest to
>> hand-hold people who can't provide enough information for others to
>> help them solve their problems.
>>
>> I ignore a lot of posts that I probably could have answered if the OP
>> had simply put a little more effort into posting.
>
>The only problem I see with this approach is that it is so often the case
>that a junior OP does not know *how to ask* the question in the first place.
>Often learning the proper question is the best lesson of all.

That may be the case, but I give the junior OPs credit for enough
reasoning ability to eventually figure out why their post was ignored.
(Assuming they care. I still think a lot of them post a question and
then never come back to check for answers.)

Suppose that the first time someone visited a programming newsgroup,
they saw that about 3/4 of the threads consisted of a single post with
no responses, while the other 1/4 were answered with solutions to the
OPs' problems. I think they would quickly notice the traits that set
the successful posts apart from the unsuccessful ones.

As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
forgotton all about his post.


Message has been deleted

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 4:58:28 PM10/7/05
to
Andrew Thompson coughed up:


Your sensitivity in this matter is very evident, and IMO more than a little
alarming.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 5:01:16 PM10/7/05
to
Stefan Ram coughed up:

> HansF <News...@telus.net> writes:
>> I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
>> interpretations:
>> - Just A Dummied-up Example
>> - Java App Developer's Example
>
> "Jade" also is "James' DSSSL Engine":
>
> http://www.jclark.com/jade/
>
> "DSSSL" reminds me of "SSCCE". In "SSCCE" one can at least see
> that there are two "S", while in "DSSSL" one can't even count
> the "S" anymore.

The world has needed short examples such as the "SSCCE" is meant to indicate
for a long time. Is it possible that there is another acronym for it
already?

Message has been deleted

Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 5:59:24 PM10/7/05
to
"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote on Fri,
07 Oct 2005 20:58:28 GMT in comp.lang.java.help:

>Andrew Thompson coughed up:
>> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>> Andrew Thompson coughed up:
>> ...
>>>> Short, Self Contained, Compilable, Example.
>>>>
>>>> It's not so much 'a piece of code' as 'a concept'..
>>>
>>> Compilable and Self Contained intersect each other in intent.
>>
>> Why do I get the feeling that so many of the people
>> suggesting I change the SSCCE document have not actually
>> read it?
>>
>>> Perhaps
>>>
>>> SCE - Short Compilable Example
>>
>> 'Compilable' does not fit JS or HTML.
>>
>> Basically. I chose that group of words very carefully,
>> they will not change. If anybody here feels thay have
>> a group of words as the 'phrase', with or without a
>> web page to expand on it, feel free to -promote-* it
>> here, there, or anywhere you like. I'm sticking with
>> 'SSCCE'.
>>
>> * The SSCCE phrase would not have become popular without
>> my constant references to it.
>
>
>Your sensitivity in this matter is very evident, and IMO more than a little
>alarming.

And not to pick on Andrew, but the phrase has *not* become popular,
*despite" his constant references. I daresay it's become tiresome.


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 6:56:08 PM10/7/05
to
Dave Glasser coughed up:

When someone tries really hard to establish something, it can be a sore spot
if it doesn't work. But I do agree---I cringe when I see the thing.
Perhaps it's because it cannot sound out in my head with ease. I'm not
sure. I experimented with changing it to something less clumsy, like "ACR"
(no meaning---just a phonetic test). The posts about this thing read a lot
smoother for some reason. {shrug}

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 6:59:04 PM10/7/05
to
Dave Glasser coughed up:

I'm not willing to go /that/ far, but I do understand the ire.

HansF

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 9:43:19 PM10/7/05
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:50:01 +0000, Stefan Ram interested us by writing:

>
> "Jade" also is "James' DSSSL Engine":

So?

In this environment overloading is not only permitted, but occasionally
encouraged. It ALL depends on context, and in the event of context
collision, we can always fall back on using the appropriate namespace.

/Hans

David Zimmerman

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 10:23:50 PM10/7/05
to
HansF wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:23:34 +0000, Thomas G. Marshall interested us by
> writing:
>
>
>>It *is* time to rename this acronym. I can't even read this without
>>arduously sounding it out in my head. It's just a clumsy set of letters.
>
>
> (with tongue in cheek ...)
>
> SSCCE has never caught on for several reasons:
>
> - it has more than the accepted 3-4 characters
> - it does not contain at least one J
> - it can not be spoken in one syllable
> - it can not be said while eating pizza (without making a mess)
>

Just like PCMCIA - People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

blm...@myrealbox.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:01:35 AM10/8/05
to
In article <upkdk15lg6e5pep5e...@4ax.com>,

They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to
help, but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're
being ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and
observe which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this
is just bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.

>As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
>it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
>will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
>level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
>poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
>forgotton all about his post.

Seems like repeatedly posting links to a URL that describes how
to ask a question in a way that improves the odds of getting
helpful responses is the approach most likely to be effective in
training newbies -- the ones who are trainable, anyway. (Yes,
it's mildly offensive to speak of training other humans, but
I can't think of a better word right now.) Just ignoring them --
I don't know, but it seems to me that it's unlikely to induce
clue in very many, though perhaps if the others just give up and
go away, and the number of irate exchanges decreases, that could
be called a positive result. <shrug>

--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:14:27 AM10/8/05
to
David Zimmerman coughed up:

A /perfect/ example of an acronym that was 1. dumb and 2. universally
understood as dumb the moment it came out.

--
Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmalluntilsomeoneramsitupyournose.


Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 1:04:22 AM10/8/05
to
blm...@myrealbox.com (blm...@myrealbox.com) wrote on 8 Oct 2005
04:01:35 GMT in comp.lang.java.programmer:

Oh sure, some, perhaps most, will be beyond hope. That's why they're
also beyond help, IMO. Ignore them.

>>As it stands now, if someone posts "My program gives eror when I run
>>it. Plz HELP!!!!", they will likely get some responses, half of which
>>will be rude and condescending and only add to the overall noise
>>level, and another half from patient masochists who try to help the
>>poor fool, even though he's probably already dropped the class and has
>>forgotton all about his post.
>
>Seems like repeatedly posting links to a URL that describes how
>to ask a question in a way that improves the odds of getting
>helpful responses is the approach most likely to be effective in
>training newbies -- the ones who are trainable, anyway.

One would think so, but reality doesn't seem to bear that out.

> (Yes,
>it's mildly offensive to speak of training other humans, but
>I can't think of a better word right now.) Just ignoring them --
>I don't know, but it seems to me that it's unlikely to induce
>clue in very many,

As I said before, for those who are willfully clueless--and I still
think a lot of it is willful--it's their problem, not mine. I don't
really care if they get their questions answered or their problems
solved.

I think that's why my attitude about this is different from so many
others'. Some people seem to *need* to answer other people's
questions, and they get frustrated when the questioner makes it hard
for them to do so, and oftentimes their frustration manfifests itself
in snotty condescension, which annoys me a lot more than the "PLZ HELP
ME!!!" questions.

>though perhaps if the others just give up and
>go away, and the number of irate exchanges decreases, that could
>be called a positive result. <shrug>

It certainly would be in my opinion. It would definitely improve the
signal-to-noise ratio.


--
Check out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based
front end for relational databases.

http://qform.sourceforge.net

If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
Ear Training Software.

http://rpitch.sourceforge.net

steve

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 2:17:14 AM10/8/05
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:04:37 +0800, HalcyonWild wrote
(in article <1128524677.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> 8. even when tempted by a desperate need for a quick solution, never
>> succumb to writing an SSCCE. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html
>

> Many a times it is not possible to post the complete code, since it is
> required to hide internal logic of a program. I wonder if it is a right
> thing to do to reveal the source code of any project being done for a

> company. Also , many a times, a small code snippet might not compile.


> If it does, it probably does not give out enough information to track

> the issue. One should try to post as much information as possible in


> the code, while cutting out the irrelevant.
>

heres a "national Security one"

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:14:05 AM10/8/05
to
Stefan Ram wrote:

> "Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>The world has needed short examples such as the "SSCCE" is meant to indicate
>>for a long time. Is it possible that there is another acronym for it
>>already?

....
> "complete minimal comilable example" would be "CMCE", or
> "compmin compex". "complete" might be redundant, so one gets
> "minimal compilable example": "MCE" or "mincompex", or
> "minimal compex".

?? For those who might wish to link to the existing document,
but have trouble (technically or philosophically) with the current
acronym/URL, I've added a shorter URL that redirects to it.
<http://www.physci.org/code.jsp>

That sends the user to the existing document at..
<http://www.physci.org/codes/sscce.jsp>
(..and it's also 7 chars shorter)

Bjorn Abelli

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:34:37 AM10/8/05
to
After reading this thread I can't help myself. I must but in to express my
opionion on this matter... :-)

As the thread have been somewhat difficult to follow anyway, I've chosen to
write this without including other comments, though I will refer to some
other postings.

Occasionally I try to give a hand to the less expressive posters, for
several reasons.

I teach programming, and try to find new ways to explain the fundamental
things about it. Posting in these newsgroups is one way for me to improve
that skill.

But as in the classroom, the ways of the students differ much, and hence
there is no *one* way to approach a problem.

Sometimes a simple question from an OP is enough to express the problem, and
in those cases no code is needed.

Sometimes a post of "complete code" works, sometimes not. On occasion I've
cut and pasted such animals into the editor, just to see if it compiles or
not. If it could compile, it's fairly easy to spot the problem in most
cases. If it couldn't compile, I usually ask the OP to elaborate more on
what he/she is after, and possibly post an "SSCCE".

But as several posters have said, the acronym doesn't stick, even if the
concept is very useful.

Such a code does not always need to be "compilable", as the problem might
lie in just that, it doesn't compile for some reason.

If we want it to be a regular concept, maybe it needs to be changed into
something easier to pronunce, like SPOCIP (Shortest POssible Code
Illustrating the Problem).

Just my 2c

// Bjorn A


Chris Uppal

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:33:32 AM10/8/05
to
HansF wrote:

> I propose JADE as the replacement term. Two of the possible
> interpretations:

"Examplet" ?

-- chris


Henry Townsend

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 7:55:02 AM10/8/05
to
Chris Uppal wrote:
> "Examplet" ?

Brilliant!

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 10:23:58 AM10/8/05
to
Dave Glasser coughed up:

> If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch
> Ear Training Software.
> http://rpitch.sourceforge.net


That many claim that you cannot achieve "perfect pitch" through drills is
flat out wrong, (as I at least /suspect/ you suspect).

The people who have most often said this to me, seem to rattle it off as if
a phrase learned by rote over decades.

The *truth* is the following, from having been immersed and trained in music
most of my life:

1. You can be born without the ability to ever train yourself to perfect
pitch
2. You can be born with the ability to *instantly* exhibit perfect pitch
(once told /what/ the particular pitch is, of course).
3. There are an *entire spectrum of abilities in between these two*
extremes.

Slot #2 is not the common usage definition of the term. That is, "perfect
pitch" means the ability to identify particular pitches absolutely, it does
not mean the /ability/ to do it without training.

It is the folks that fall into slot #3 that can benefit from perfect pitch
training. 20 years ago at my university I saw it over and over; first hand
evidence. When people disagree about this with me, they almost always offer
only theory that they learned from someone else who does not know what
they're talking about. Music instructors *often* get this wrong as well.
Most at my university however *knew* better, and trained those that had
failed the perfect pitch testing into perfect pitch.


--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 10:37:20 AM10/8/05
to
Bjorn Abelli coughed up:

...[rip]...

> If we want it to be a regular concept, maybe it needs to be changed
> into something easier to pronunce, like SPOCIP (Shortest POssible Code
> Illustrating the Problem).

Perhaps just ZZZ (which stands for "short working example"---they're all
silent) ;)

I've taught all manner of folk all kinds of things, from programming to
beginner windsurfing (even though I am mediocre at the latter). It all
comes down to *how* it is presented, and so often less so *what* is
presented to the student.

I remember with pride the day that I taught someone the fundamentals of
windsurfing with a few *very* basic techniques, and he climbed aboard the
thing, took it from one end of the bay, turned around (!), and came straight
back. First time.

What I've identified in this time is that students (of any calibre) often
just don't know /how/ to ask the question in the first place. I see an
awful lot of ire in USENET reacting to such things, and I think it should
stop.

As far as your comment about easier to pronounce acronyms: A friend of mine
participates in barbershop quartet singing. The (main?) barbershop
organization is the SPEBSQSA. You will find it written here and there, but
almost no one that I've met uses it conversationally. SPEBSQSA makes SSCCE
seem as easy to pronounce as "S". But SSCCE still has a long way to go
before being a comfortable acronym.


...[rip]...


--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...


Tris Orendorff

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 11:44:02 AM10/8/05
to
"Monique Y. Mudama" <sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
news:slrndkam7...@home.bounceswoosh.org:

> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.
>

No! The listings have to be pruned down to a "short," "concise" and
"compilable" example. No one wants to wade through a listing longer than
pinocchio's nose.

I vote for "examplet."

--

Sincerely,

Tris Orendorff
[Two antennae meet on a roof, fall in love and get married. The ceremony
wasn't much, but the reception was excellent.]

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:48:02 PM10/8/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.] On 2005-10-08,
blm...@myrealbox.com penned:

>
> They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
> work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to help,
> but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're being
> ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and observe
> which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this is just
> bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.

Not to be a jerk, but if they can't figure out simple stuff like that,
I don't see how they'll ever amount to anything as a developer
(programmer, engineer, designer, architect). On some level, I don't
see the point of helping them.

I saw kids make it through their entire CS degree without ever once
developing a decent understanding of what they were doing. They would
hack something crappy, then go to a student and get one tidbit. Then
they'd go to another student and get another tidbit. Etc, till they
had something they could turn in. They never learned how to solve
problems for themselves; indeed, I didn't see any evidence that they
wanted to. Just grades, then a fat paycheck, please (this was back
when CS was "the" perceived route to beaucoup bucks).

I honestly believe that the approach of ignoring the poor posts while
answering the good ones is the most effective for people who have a
clue. It's certainly the way I learned. (Probably because, when no
one answered my posts, I took the time to think about what *I* was
doing wrong rather than blaming the group for being big meanies). It
cuts down on noise, and those who actually have a chance at being
productive members of usenet society *will* figure it out on their
own.

--
monique

Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:53:17 PM10/8/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.] On 2005-10-08,
Bjorn Abelli penned:

>
> Sometimes a simple question from an OP is enough to express the
> problem, and in those cases no code is needed.
>

Here we go. This is exactly what bugs me about responding to every
post with a request for a sasquatch, or whatever that acronym is. It
doesn't address the real need, which is "Give us enough information to
help you." That's the real point.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 3:30:48 PM10/8/05
to
Monique Y. Mudama coughed up:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.java.help.]

I've never liked this. If what you want is to keep your discussion out of
clj.programmer, then you should have restricted your post to .help. Don't
post in both places and attempt to restrict the replies.


On 2005-10-08,
> blm...@myrealbox.com penned:
>>
>> They don't have enough clue to figure out that "my program doesn't
>> work, someone help me!" isn't enough information for anyone to help,
>> but they do have enough clue to figure out why they're being
>> ignored, and enough clue *and* patience to stick around and observe
>> which questions get answered and which don't? Maybe this is just
>> bad attitude on my part, but that seems unlikely to me.
>
> Not to be a jerk, but if they can't figure out simple stuff like that,
> I don't see how they'll ever amount to anything as a developer
> (programmer, engineer, designer, architect). On some level, I don't
> see the point of helping them.

Again, I think that learning /how/ to ask is part of what they have to learn
to be a good developer. So I don't generally react harshly to questions
that are asked in what may seem a thoughtless fashion. /Generally/ that is.
I do tend to be vigorous (and hopefully not insulting) about educating
people about what subject lines to use.


--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 3:33:59 PM10/8/05
to
Tris Orendorff coughed up:

> "Monique Y. Mudama" <sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
> news:slrndkam7...@home.bounceswoosh.org:
>
>> "Post your code" is probably a more effective suggestion.
>>
>
> No! The listings have to be pruned down to a "short," "concise" and
> "compilable" example. No one wants to wade through a listing longer
> than pinocchio's nose.
>
> I vote for "examplet."

I do like examplet as well. I would have told Chris Uppal himself, but he
killfiled me for complaining about Roedy's political signatures. :-P

--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...


Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:14:32 PM10/8/05
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:00:27 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
<sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote or quoted :

> It's just that it's easier to solve a problem
>when you can see the code.

It gets ridiculous. No code. No error message. No stack trace. No
context. No explanation of the problem. You need SOMETHING to go on.

What gets really annoying is when people who do that complain no one
has helped them or that the answers offered did not help.

I am tempted to reply to such a post this way, "From what you said, I
have not the slightest clue what your problem is, much less the
solution, but it reminded be of problems other that have had where
this advice was appropriate."

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:15:54 PM10/8/05
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:00:27 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
<sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote or quoted :

>Note that I don't hold with chastising people for not posting their
>code. But I'm likely to ignore the post entirely. Chastising could
>be interpreted as a better approach, in that at least a person knows
>*why* they're not getting any useful feedback.

You can say "I can't solve this without seeing the code." That is not
chastising. It explain the problem. The user is left free to withhold
or not.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:17:07 PM10/8/05
to
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0400, Henry Townsend
<henry.t...@not.here> wrote or quoted :

>> "Examplet" ?
>
>Brilliant!

I think the rest of the world uses "snippet".

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:27:01 PM10/8/05
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:23:37 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller
<nob...@ericsson.invalid> wrote or quoted :

>You are absolutely right Roedy. I stayed a way from the comp.lang.java.*
>groups for some weeks,

I get angry every once in a while at those who demand others do the
impossible and are unwilling to put effort into solving their own
problems. Every once so often I just withdraw in disgust.

However, I remember my long term goal of helping spread computer
literacy to the entire planet. I can do that despite these twits.

There have been some promising newbies recently, e.g. Ajay, who
plugged away and plugged away diligently to solve his thread problem,
or Lindsay who tackled reflection.

I am much quicker to plonk than before. I see it more as prioritising
my time.

One thing I have noticed is the old timers work are working together
more smoothly than ever. That makes posting here more fun than ever.
It is nice to know that someone else will fill in the holes in your
knowledge without publicly humiliating you.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 4:36:23 PM10/8/05
to
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:53:17 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
<sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote or quoted :

>"Give us enough information to


>help you." That's the real point.

The thing that frustrates me is to me it should be OBVIOUS there is
nothing in the post to go on. It is terrifying someone could be so
clueless or self-centred as not to notice that.

I think the problem is mostly the OP is self centred. People will
tell you why it is important the poster get an immediate solution, how
frustrated they are, what crap Java is, ... rather than any clues to
help someone solve it. I think perhaps they are often just so
emotionally wound up they forget to provide clues. But on the other
hand, they rarely provide them when I ask. They seem to think others
should just magically know the answers without knowing the
circumstances.

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:11:59 PM10/8/05
to
Roedy Green coughed up:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:23:37 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller
> <nob...@ericsson.invalid> wrote or quoted :
>
>> You are absolutely right Roedy. I stayed a way from the
>> comp.lang.java.* groups for some weeks,
>
> I get angry every once in a while at those who demand others do the
> impossible and are unwilling to put effort into solving their own
> problems. Every once so often I just withdraw in disgust.
>
> However, I remember my long term goal of helping spread computer
> literacy to the entire planet. I can do that despite these twits.


Try to look at it this way.

These "twits" are not blocking your way and in your face demanding money at
an airport. They are in a room with their hand raised in the air asking for
help. You periodically walk by this room. Some try hard to help
themselves, some do not.

You have two sensible choices regarding those who do not try hard: 1. help
them, or 2. ignore them.

Getting agravated at them for not helping themselves is not sensible IMO.


...[rip]...


--
Onedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wherethehell'smypen???"

Dave Glasser

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:21:01 PM10/8/05
to
Roedy Green <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote on
Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:36:23 GMT in comp.lang.java.help:

>I think perhaps they are often just so
>emotionally wound up they forget to provide clues. But on the other
>hand, they rarely provide them when I ask.

Bingo.

My overall impression has been that in many, perhaps most, cases where
an OP is asked for more information -- even simple stuff, like what
version of Java they're using -- the request is ignored outright. And
I'd estimate that only about 0.01% of the tiresome, repetitive
requests for a so-called "SSCCE" actually result in one being
provided. That's why, with few exceptions, I only bother with those
posts that provide enough information up front. It may mean that a few
sincere, deserving OPs who would have cheerfully provided more info
when asked won't get helped by me, but hey, them's the breaks. That
way I never get frustrated and upset by the process.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:24:29 PM10/8/05
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:31 -0400, Dave Glasser <dgla...@pobox.com>
wrote or quoted :

>In my view, they should be thinking "gee, what can I do to
>make it as easy as possible for these busy people to help me?" This
>was intuitive to me way back in the day when I would post to Fidonet
>for help, say, getting a soundcard to work under DOS 4.0 on my 386. I
>would automatically include the contents of my autoexec.bat and
>config.sys files, and my environment variables, and jumper settings or
>anything else I could think of, because even though I had no clue what
>the problem was, I knew those things were relevant.

Hmm. I this were a sitcom, the obvious answer is to create some phony
identities and post some questions with the textbook perfect context.
The user gets a crisp clear answer and a pat on the back. Newbies
learn this is what works.

Your point is well taken if you bend over backwards to help demanding,
lazy, rude or ungrateful people, you must take responsibility for the
end result.

It is a variant on the old Buddhist story of the scorpion and the
frog. http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

I just wish I had the money to go back to university. I drives me
crazy seeing these kids with that opportunity of a lifetime tossing it
away.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:30:02 PM10/8/05
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:15:09 -0500, Alan Krueger
<wgzk...@sneakemail.com> wrote or quoted :

>NEWBIE: Help, I can't get this to work!
>
>SAMARITAN: Show us your SACC.

sounds like a Skull & Bones hazing ritual.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:32:02 PM10/8/05
to
On 7 Oct 2005 02:20:36 -0700, "HalcyonWild" <Halcyo...@gmail.com>
wrote or quoted :

>And I still dont know why it is vulgar.

sacc -- sack -- ball sack -- testicular sack -- scrotum

Same reason you don't mention Honoré de Balzac in polite company.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:32:57 PM10/8/05
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:54:52 GMT, Andrew Thompson
<seemy...@www.invalid> wrote or quoted :

>Why do I get the feeling that so many of the people
>suggesting I change the SSCCE document have not actually
>read it?

maybe they just read mine at http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sscce.html

steve

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 5:39:14 PM10/8/05
to
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 04:27:01 +0800, Roedy Green wrote
(in article <pbagk1lnq121pg6jj...@4ax.com>):

you want to know about public humiliation , then pop over to
"comp.databases.oracle.misc"

there's a guy "DA Morgan" who's been hanging about in the group for years, k
he's a bit crusty with newbies, but he is knowledgeable.

there's a log running "flame war" with "fabian pascal" an sql purist.
this is what "fabians" site says

"Fabian Pascal has a national and international reputation as an independent
technology analyst, consultant, author, and instructor of seminars"


so fabin posts a link to an article
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
basically insinuating that the whole group is 'scientifically' classed as
incompetent morons, apart from him.

very funny.


GreyBeard

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 7:05:09 PM10/8/05
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:20:36 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

>
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
>> On 2005-10-07, Alan Krueger penned:
>> > HalcyonWild wrote:
>> >> What about Short And Compilable code. SACC. Pronounced "sec" as in
>> >> trigonometry.


>> >
>> > NEWBIE: Help, I can't get this to work!
>> >
>> > SAMARITAN: Show us your SACC.
>> >

>> > NEWBIE: ...?!
>>
>> That's what I was thinking.
>>
>> Maybe it doesn't sound as vulgar to non-native-English speakers.
>>
>
> I did not know it is vulgar. And I still dont know why it is vulgar.
> Anyway, lets stick to SSCCE.

North Americans, especially English speaking ones, tend to have a fixation
about body functions and body parts. The closer something is to the
natural cleansing function or to sexual function, the more vulgar it is
interpreted.

In this case, SACC could be pronounced as 'sack' which, with a suitably
twisted or immature mind, could be misinterpreted as the common-speech
term for testicle or scrotum.

BTW - other cultures have their own problems as well.

/H

Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 8:09:52 PM10/8/05
to
On 2005-10-08, Roedy Green penned:

>
> The thing that frustrates me is to me it should be OBVIOUS there is
> nothing in the post to go on. It is terrifying someone could be so
> clueless or self-centred as not to notice that.
>
> I think the problem is mostly the OP is self centred. People will
> tell you why it is important the poster get an immediate solution,
> how frustrated they are, what crap Java is, ... rather than any
> clues to help someone solve it. I think perhaps they are often just
> so emotionally wound up they forget to provide clues. But on the
> other hand, they rarely provide them when I ask. They seem to think
> others should just magically know the answers without knowing the
> circumstances.
>

I used to work for tech support for a university. Tech support people
have to deal with this kind of problem day in and day out.

At some point, I came across an analogy that I think explains a lot
about why users can't or won't give us useful information.

Imagine you're a computer user. Computers are a mystery to you, and
yet you must use them to do whatever it is that you actually care
about. You imagine the tech support person to have near-omniscient
capabilities when it comes to computers. In your mind, all the tech
support person, who is surrounded by monitors and can pretty much see
everything you're doing anyway, has to do is push the big red button
in order to solve your problem. But first, you have to say the magic
words. Even though the tech support person could solve your problem
at any time, s/he refuses to do so until you've jumped through enough
hoops to satisfy their egos. And so you keep saying things, hoping
you'll say the right thing to trigger the "red button pushing"
response.

I think there's a layer of truth here. Non-technical people see those
who understand and work with computers as having some sort of magical
talent. And then there are all the movies suggesting that "hackers"
can do anything from reading your email to stealing your money, so why
shouldn't someone on a tech support line be able to tell you your
password or even see what your computer is doing? The same probably
goes for people seeking help for programming problems. From their
point of view, you've seen incomprehensible gibberish (a stack trace)
and from there solved a problem, so why wouldn't you be able to solve
the problem with no gibberish at all?

Bjorn Abelli

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 5:28:47 AM10/9/05
to

"Roedy Green" wrote...
> Henry Townsend wrote or quoted :

>
>>> "Examplet" ?
>>
>>Brilliant!
>
> I think the rest of the world uses "snippet".

"Examplet" is used in e.g. the "Java Developers Almanac", with the following
definition:


"Examplets are code snippets that illustrate a particular task. They're
designed to show which classes and members are involved in performing the
task, and how the classes and members interact with each other. You will see
blue italicized text in an examplet; this indicates code that should be
replaced if you use it in your program.

An examplet can have enough detail for you to use it, as is. Or you might
have to get more information about the involved classes. A good place to
find information about the Java 2 Platform APIs is the Java 2 Platform API
index."


I intrepret this as something more elaborated than just a "snippet", so it
would work for me.

Not quite an SSCCE, but maybe enough... ;-)

// Bjorn A

Chris Uppal

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 6:04:11 AM10/9/05
to
Bjorn Abelli wrote:

> "Examplet" is used in e.g. the "Java Developers Almanac", with the

> following definition: [...]

Bah! I might have known someone would have beaten me to it (</sob>).

-- chris


Chris Smith

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 11:41:35 PM10/9/05
to
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> I do like examplet as well. I would have told Chris Uppal himself, but he
> killfiled me for complaining about Roedy's political signatures. :-P
>

I don't think the problem is the acronym. I think the problem is that
newcomers to the newsgroup don't know the acronym/term. No matter what
word or acronym is invented, it's *never* going to be enough to just say
"post an examplet". There will always be a URL or standard explanation
associated with it. Inventing a new word is really completely devoid of
actual communication function. Some people, myself included, have a
natural backlash against rhetorical manipulation for ego reasons -- and
really, that's what this is.

That said, at least "examplet" is easier to say.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

Aki Laukkanen

unread,
Oct 10, 2005, 6:06:10 AM10/10/05
to
Roedy Green wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2005 02:20:36 -0700, "HalcyonWild" <Halcyo...@gmail.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
>
>>And I still dont know why it is vulgar.
>
>
> sacc -- sack -- ball sack -- testicular sack -- scrotum
>
> Same reason you don't mention Honoré de Balzac in polite company.

...Can you, by the way, imagine how tough international business is for
us Finns, with a capitol named "Helsinki"? ;-)

--
-Aki "Sus" Laukkanen

HalcyonWild

unread,
Oct 10, 2005, 11:10:47 AM10/10/05
to

Roedy Green wrote:

> >
> > sacc -- sack -- ball sack -- testicular sack -- scrotum
> >
> > Same reason you don't mention Honoré de Balzac in polite company.

Did not realize that. Anyway, can we verbally call SSCCE as "suskey". I
am trying to work out one single word for SSCCE. Well they pronounced
ASCII as "askey", so....

Aki Laukkanen wrote:

>
> ...Can you, by the way, imagine how tough international business is for
> us Finns, with a capitol named "Helsinki"? ;-)

What about cincinnati or chattanooga or okefenokee. American cities,
though okefenokee is a river too , I suppose.

Paul Cager

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 4:46:39 AM10/11/05
to
Tris Orendorff wrote:
> I vote for "examplet."
>

What about calling it an ANDREW - "A Neat Demonstration of the Real
Error or Warning"?


Although I think Chris Smith's two main points encapsulate my own
feelings:

1) *Any* acronym we choose is not likely to be known to the target
audience, and so has to be accompanied by an explanation. In that case
I think the acronym may be an obfuscation. Why not just cut and paste:

"We'll need more information before
we can help you. Have a look at
www.example.com/thing.html for
advice".

2) People deserve to be treated with respect. I remember one
"old-timer" on these groups who used to find great pleasure in publicly
humiliating posters. He has, fortunately, stopped posting.

Paul

Oliver Wong

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 9:48:48 AM10/11/05
to
"Chris Smith" <cds...@twu.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db390dc4...@news.altopia.net...

>
> I don't think the problem is the acronym.

From my reading of the thread, I think the acronym IS one of the
problems. People think it's hard to pronounce. [*] The other main problem is
that some people don't seem to like the concept of an SSCCE in the first
place (devoid of human dignity, not always nescessary, etc.) At least by
switching to examplet, we'll be halway towards a solution.

> I think the problem is that
> newcomers to the newsgroup don't know the acronym/term. No matter what
> word or acronym is invented, it's *never* going to be enough to just say
> "post an examplet". There will always be a URL or standard explanation
> associated with it. Inventing a new word is really completely devoid of
> actual communication function. Some people, myself included, have a
> natural backlash against rhetorical manipulation for ego reasons -- and
> really, that's what this is.

I'm not so sure about that; I think most people who make a post
requesting an SSCCE immediately provide an URL to a page explaining what an
SSCCE is. The intent isn't to obfuscate what we're "really" asking for;
rather, what we're asking for takes a while to explain[**], which is why we
need the webpage. But we'd like a way to refer to the concept without always
linking to the page in case we know the reader has already read the page (or
knows what the concept is about through some other manner), hence the need
for a "new word".

- Oliver

*: I don't see why the fact that SSCCE is hard to pronounce is such a big
deal. I've never used it outside of the newsgroups, and when you're posting
to a newsgroup, pronounciation isn't such a big issue (unless, I suppose,
you MUST vocalize everything you read to understand what you're reading). It
makes sense to request an SSCCE in a newsgroup style medium because of the
high latency of communication. If it takes about 24 hours for the OP to
reply to my reply to the OP's original question, then might as well spend an
extra 2 or 4 hours crafting an example, so that I'll be able to see the
whole problem and give a solution within the next post. If I'm
troubleshooting in-person, then an SSCCE doesn't make sense, because the
latency is very low. We can shoot questions and answers back and forth
really quickly, and perhaps solve the problem in less time than it takes to
actually craft an SSCCE. The intent of SSCCE is to save EVERYBODY's time,
not just the time of the samaritan who's trying to answer the question.

**: I say it takes a while to explain what an SSCCE is because I think it's
not sufficient to just say "post a short, self-contained, correct example".
There are 4 keywords here, and each one is important. However, each one is
not always nescessary in all situations! It is important for the OP to
understand what kind of information the samaritan wants. Obviously, if the
problem is that the OP can't get his program to compile, it's unreasonable
to demand that he submit a version of his program that compiles. But one
must understand the rules before one can understand when it's okay to
violate the rules. The OP should understand that we want the code to be
short because we don't want to sift through a lot of junk, but the OP should
also understand that the code needs to be "self-contained" and to actually
exhibit the problem. It does no good if the OP blindly obeys the "shortness"
rule, and cuts out the parts that are central to his problem.


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 10:30:08 AM10/11/05
to
Paul Cager coughed up:

I'm alPLmost posPLitive that I knPLow who you're talking about, but he's
been so long siPLnce plonked that I woPLulded know for sure.

>
> Paul


Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 10:32:21 AM10/11/05
to
Oliver Wong coughed up:

...[rip]...

> *: I don't see why the fact that SSCCE is hard to pronounce is such a
> big deal. I've never used it outside of the newsgroups, and when
> you're posting to a newsgroup, pronounciation isn't such a big issue
> (unless, I suppose, you MUST vocalize everything you read to
> understand what you're reading).

I suspect that most people at least "sound out" words in their head. At
least I do. And SSCCE trips over most of my neurons. :)


Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 9:26:13 PM10/11/05
to
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 18:09:52 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
<sp...@bounceswoosh.org> wrote or quoted :

>you've seen incomprehensible gibberish (a stack trace)


>and from there solved a problem, so why wouldn't you be able to solve
>the problem with no gibberish at all?

Stack-trace-as-shaman's-entrials theory of computer support.

I have been on the other end of it when a tech support person insisted
on collecting details that were irrelevant, such as my OS when I am
reporting a grammatical error or some ambiguous instructions on his
website. But his form requires collecting this.

Roedy Green

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 9:53:28 PM10/11/05
to
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:26:13 GMT, Roedy Green
<my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote or quoted :

>I have been on the other end of it when a tech support person insisted
>on collecting details that were irrelevant, such as my OS when I am
>reporting a grammatical error or some ambiguous instructions on his
>website. But his form requires collecting this.

It can appear like the bureaucrat who wants to wear you down about
filing a complaint by making the process endlessly tedious. It can
look as though you are just trying to make the complainant go away.

Andrew Thompson

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 10:10:47 PM10/11/05
to
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Paul Cager coughed up:
...

>>What about calling it an ANDREW - "A Neat Demonstration of the Real
>>Error or Warning"?

Ick! That would make me vomit, the only good thing about
it is that it would completely infuriate the people who
object to SSCCE purely on the grounds that I concoted the
acronym. ( but AFAIU, there are only two of them, so it
is hardly 'worth it' ;)
...


>>2) People deserve to be treated with respect. I remember one
>>"old-timer" on these groups who used to find great pleasure in
>>publicly humiliating posters. He has, fortunately, stopped posting.
>
> I'm alPLmost posPLitive that I knPLow who you're talking about, but he's
> been so long siPLnce plonked that I woPLulded know for sure.

LOL! I recall (had arguments with) that person.

Chris Smith

unread,
Oct 11, 2005, 11:29:08 PM10/11/05
to
Andrew Thompson <seemy...@www.invalid> wrote:
> > I'm alPLmost posPLitive that I knPLow who you're talking about, but he's
> > been so long siPLnce plonked that I woPLulded know for sure.
>
> LOL! I recall (had arguments with) that person.

Indeed.

Now, I wonder if the output of Double or Float's toString method is
sufficient to recreate the exact mathematical value of the original
without having any prior knowledge of the starting precision. :)

Thomas G. Marshall

unread,
Oct 12, 2005, 12:55:44 PM10/12/05
to
Chris Smith coughed up:

> Andrew Thompson <seemy...@www.invalid> wrote:
>>> I'm alPLmost posPLitive that I knPLow who you're talking about, but
>>> he's been so long siPLnce plonked that I woPLulded know for sure.
>>
>> LOL! I recall (had arguments with) that person.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Now, I wonder if the output of Double or Float's toString method is
> sufficient to recreate the exact mathematical value of the original
> without having any prior knowledge of the starting precision. :)

Far too specific. That's like saying that al capone was bad because he
cheated on taxes.... ;)

--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....


Monique Y. Mudama

unread,
Oct 12, 2005, 1:26:23 PM10/12/05
to
On 2005-10-12, Roedy Green penned:

>
> I have been on the other end of it when a tech support person
> insisted on collecting details that were irrelevant, such as my OS
> when I am reporting a grammatical error or some ambiguous
> instructions on his website. But his form requires collecting this.

In their defense, I am sure they can be reprimanded or fired for not
following procedure and sending out a new piece of hardware or
whatever when the forms weren't completed.

0 new messages