|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: _Maxxx_ wrote: we seem to do everything else wrong here !
Your choice of tool should support that.
Managers always choose tools that make you do everything wrong, so no problem.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: tell you how to work
It's not the tool, it's the team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had the dubious pleasure to do a project with a whole team of tools. Most were of the Java cargo cult flavor, but they also were great thinkers. For example, they thought themselves to be very agile, but actually met everything outside their cargo cult with the agility of an anvil.
I really miss them. 
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like they managed to bend you 
|
|
|
|
|
No. They got me fired for the first time ever. The best thing that could have happened to me.
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language).
Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural:
...a couple of folk at...
...a couple of folks at...
It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere
A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural.
(Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr).
M
|
|
|
|
|
The quickest way to get your head around this is as follows.
Whatever the Yanks want to do is wrong. Do the opposite and she'll be right mate.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin wrote: Whatever the Yanks want to do is wrong
No, no, it's just 'American', that which has been corrected was 'English'  or at least my native version of it, I dare say you have another
|
|
|
|
|
And tell the yanks to folk off !
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
For interest (if indeed anyone is so), and it's just one view whereas there are indeed many views (probably more than versions, official or unoffical, of English):
The plurals problem[^]
dr lim chin lam: Then there are the nouns where the singular and the plural forms have slightly or entirely different meanings. For example, folk refers to people in general or people in a community (the folk at Tanjong Rambutan), whereas folks is a more intimate term, referring to members of one’s own family (he reminisced about the old folks at home); and desert is an arid, desolate area of land (there is scant vegetation in the desert), whereas deserts, pronounced “dizzerts”, is what one deserves as reward or punishment (he finally received his just deserts).
I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring.
M
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-MadBadger wrote: I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring.
Olde or archaic English. Just Deserts is archaic at least and in modern English deserts is the plural of desert, that place where Roger lives.
Generally speaking if there is an erroneous S at the end of a word or even an expected S missing, it is a Yank thing.
For instance Lego is correct, Legos not even a word. Math is the first 4 letters of Mathematics and when shortened is spelt (not spelled) Maths.
And lets not even get started on their inconsistent use of French pronounciation in words, places and products.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin wrote: Just Deserts is archaic at least
I've definitely said that recently (and heard it recently) so unless archaic means before 2010 I'm not sure I agree
Whereas I totally agree about Maths and Lego 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-MadBadger wrote: I've definitely said that recently (and heard it recently) so unless archaic means before 2010 I'm not sure I agree
The saying is still in common use, deserts as the meaning deserving of is definitely archaic and not used outside of said saying.
Google and Wikipedia back me up.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to be pedantic, but I think you will find the expression is just desserts
Of course, if you commute between the Sahara and the Kalahari, then you are quite right - it's just deserts. 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris C-B wrote: I hate to be pedantic, but I think you will find the expression is just desserts
Of course, if you commute between the Sahara and the Kalahari, then you are quite right - it's just deserts.
Yeah...No, you're wrong it is Just deserts[^]
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
"Folk" is a collective noun; don't pluralize it -- says the representative from the great state of Arizona.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to the collective nouns rule?
If the sentence suggests a group you should use the singular form. If it implies more individuality you should use the plural form.
A couple of folk is dancing together.
A couple of folks are in their own cars.
That's how I was taught English, I am not sure that it has anything to do with being American or British.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I suspect differences in usage as opposed to rules.
I would expect to hear:
A couple of folk are dancing.
My old folks (parents) are at home.
The old folk (parents again) are at home.
The s is optional and comprehensible in the second of those.
|
|
|
|
|
Trivial. You both are totally incapable of understanding or using the concept of genders in a language. 
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently learning French (because I now live there), in that context I agree I am totally incapable of using genders in language 
Although I would argue that French gender and pronunciation rules are sufficiently intertwined and confused thaat it's not my fault 
|
|
|
|
|
1. You should avoid using idiomatic speech in texts that are to be read outside of your idiom. This usage of "folk/s" is idiomatic, so the correction is no better or worse than the original text.
2. You should be as precise as possible, without adding words that do not add meaning, i.e:
-- What were these "folks" really? Developers? inventors? Users? Idiots?
-- By "a couple of", do you mean "two", "Dave and Arthur", or just developers/inventors/users/idiots?
The whole phrase could be replaced by a single word, which would communicate meaning better and to more readers.
3. You should show the written language the same respect that you do a programming language -- written languages are far more sophisticated and harder to use, granted, but that does not mean that using them badly is acceptable. Do you redesign "IF" statements, every time you use one? If not, don't screw with English, either. And note that "clever" use of written language doesn't communicate well; it just shows that the writer is a dick.
4. You never write for yourself -- actually, you can, but it's become a bit more difficult since Geocities went under -- so look at words you have written, think of the poor buggers who will have to read them, and make sure that they're a good match.
TBH, if I saw the phrase "a couple of folk/s" in a technical document, which is intended to inform people of how to do technical things that they don't already know how to do, I wouldn't release the document until it had been fixed.
The stuff people have to learn, and the hoops they have to jump through to make things work, are difficult enough already, without someone making it harder by writing instructions that do not communicate well to the reader.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of being a complete arse, I would say a "couple of people" as "folk" has rather a vernacular ring to it.
I would not use that term outside of speech.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Folk can hardly be singular; making it plural is redundant. It's only used in Simplified English (aka, American).
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
