Re: All "Acknowledgement" replies
There's a lot of 'you' in this post isn't there Francis? 
By all means share ideas and be thought provoking. If, during your
creative endeavours, you don't want to credit people for their help (either
because you don't have the time or you morally feel it is a bad thing to
do) then fine. No one can force you. But please please please don't
criticise other people for doing so.
Your quote:
"Work in the real world long enough and you will find not all people are
"polite". I am one of these people."
is surpassed only by a guy in a team I worked with last year:
"I don't come to work to make friends."
He thought he was being "professional" with such an approach. Guess how
many friends he has?
BTW I love the Petzold quote. After all your ranting about quoting and
crediting people being a waste of time you waste yours by quoting Charles
Petzold. The exact edition and page numbers is a really humourous and
ironic touch - thanks, it tickled me.
Regards,
Andy Cranston.
At 14:26 27/09/02 +1200, you wrote:
>
>Response to David Cuny:
>
>>Funny, I find credit given to people in C code all the time.
>>
>>To point out the obvious: if the code were entirely trivial, there would
>be
>>no need to have taken someone else's work. But since you grabbed someone
>>else's work, why not not acknowledge the source? There's no actual cost -
>it
>>doesn't make the code go any slower. It's good form, and good karma.
>>
>>Heck, if someone wanted to acknowledge his 5th grade math teacher in the
>>credits, or Plato for inspiring a love of all things logical, what's the
>>problem with that? For most of us, it's the only reward we'll see for
>putting
>>hours of time that would have been better spent with our families and
>friends
>>into this software. We've got no obligation to write this code at all. If
>>you're going to begrudge people for giving credit for work, what form of
>>reward will be left?
>>
>>By the way, Pete Eberlein probably should get the credit for coming up
>with a
>>lot of the code for working with structures.
>>
>>-- David Cuny
>
>-Fair enough, I'm not on a personal crusade to discredit you here - I am
>within all legal and human rights here
>to think it is a waste of time, consider it "expressing my personality". I
>hold Euphoria in high esteem indeed,
>I think it needs to be marketed more than anything. I'm not actually
>stopping you from commenting anything you
>want, if it makes your world seem more civil. I do not have the authority
>or express desire to do so, and last
>time I looked I was completely entitled to express my opinion.
>
>Take Charles Petzold Programming Windows 95, 4th Edition, Chapter 2 Page
>23-24: [after a 80 line example of
>code for the first windows program: HELLOWIN]
>
>"As I mentioned eralier, most of HELLOWIN.C is overhead found in virtually
>every Windows program. Nobody really
>memoriz[s]es all the syntax to write this overhead; generally, Windows
>Programmers begin a new program by
>copying an existing program and making appropriate changes to use it."
>
>This is precisely the reason I, and many other programmers *do* this. To
>quote you, "If the code were entirely
>trivial, there would be no need to have taken someone else's work". Take
>this up with Petzold then.
>
>
>Response to Andy S:
>
>>It is just being polite really. I doubt anyone does it out of a sense
>of legal obligation.
>
>Work in the real world long enough and you will find not all people are
>"polite". I am one of these people.
>
>
>Response to Chris B:
>>Also, Jason Mirwalds has recently released his tcp.ew lib. It's async,
>and seems to be more stable than winsock.ew
>
>Excellent. I wasn't aware of this. I don't "sync" with this mailing list
>or the recent user contributions
>enough obviously.
>
>>No matter how small and insignificant the code, if you took it from
>someone else, you must have had reason to do so, so credit the person.
>How hard is that!? Takes less than 1 minute of your time, to save
>yourself 10. Aren't you grateful for the bits of code that you take from
>others?
>
>I disagree on the fact you cannot copyright "coneceptual protocol" - you
>can patent algorithms yes, but they
>usually have to be fairly complicated and actually *do* something more
>complex than calling a native language
>function or DLL function. This seems to me "extreme", this was all I
>endeouvoured to point out. I'm not asking
>you to agree with me, nor did I expect "positive" feedback from my post.
>
>
>Response to Ray S:
>
>>Out of interest what have you "shared" with the community?
>You will get out what you put in!
>Are you planning on releasing your now finished project?
>
>
>To be honest,I have shared little. My full name is d(censored)
<snip>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
