Allen Nelson
Member
I know I'm going to regret this....
This is an actual conversation I had once:
BOSS (entering my cubical while I'm working): So, how soon before you're done?
ME: Define "done".
BOSS: Can we bill the customer for the work completed so far?
ME: Yes...
BOSS: Then you're done. Here's your next assignment.
Terry:
Roger's point (although he hasn't quite said it this plainly) is that for a student, good enough IS good enough. It has to be. They've got a limited amount of time to learn about EVERYTHING, so they can figure out what interests them (beside *** and beer, I mean). And you and I both know that their instructor doesn't care if the program is any good or not - that's not what he's looking for. He want's to see that the student grasped enough of the FUNDEMENTALS to make something that works well enough. He knows that most of his students (and I'm guessing even the HNC ones over there) won't touch a PLC again in their lives.
Now we could all get into a fun debate about whether this is the way the world should work, and the state of modern education, but let's not, at least today.
Roger:
If you find Terry to be arrogant and out of control, I suggest you look in the mirror. He did not start of by insulting you, but you were quick to take offense, and deliver back.
Terry took you to task for a logical fallacy, and rubbed you nose in it. Some of it comes from how he works with PLCs. He's a plant engineer (for want of a better title). His job is to live with the PLC he programs every day. For him, everything has to be perfect, or as close as he can make it. Me, I'm an integrator. Every few months, I send my children off into the world, hopefully never to hear from them again. As some point, yes, like the story above, I have to stop before I'm fully satisfied, and move on. I don't know your background. Perhaps you've had to compremise on your quality so many times that you think that's the way it is. Not so.
You said that you could improve on Terry's code. I strongly doubt that. Terry is THE best PLC programmer I've ever run across. I can usually code as well or better than any other engineer. But any time where both he and I offered code, Terry's offering has been vastly superior to mine. Yeah, mine will/does work (and yes, I know that is your point), but Terry's is the way it should be done (i.e, the way I will do it in the future). I haven't seen too many solutions offered by you yet (you're still new, although have over 50 posts already), but I haven't been all that impressed with what you've had to say so far.
I'm sure Terry understood everything you were saying or trying to say (even before I repeated it back above). Did you listen to him, and the point he was making? Judging from your posts, I don't think so.
Try easing up on the POST REPLY button, and just listen for a bit. You might learn something.
Real Deal:
Your 'voice' reminds me of a fellow that used to show up on the old forum, and post things just to watch us get all riled up. A Mr. M**sh, was it, the "so-called friend of the site"? If that's your game, please stop.
Ronald Scott:
I hope you are enjoying watching all this happen to someone else for a change. You've certainly come a long way (or is it us who've changed?)
To all:
One thing I've learned over the years is, when in arguements, if you find yourself repeating yourself more than twice, the other guy is not listening. Repeating yourself a third time won't make him listen. So it's best just to walk away. Anything else is a waste of time.
C.S. Barnett seens to have solved HIS problem. Can we just drop all this now, before Phil has to do something that everyone will regret?
This is an actual conversation I had once:
BOSS (entering my cubical while I'm working): So, how soon before you're done?
ME: Define "done".
BOSS: Can we bill the customer for the work completed so far?
ME: Yes...
BOSS: Then you're done. Here's your next assignment.
Terry:
Roger's point (although he hasn't quite said it this plainly) is that for a student, good enough IS good enough. It has to be. They've got a limited amount of time to learn about EVERYTHING, so they can figure out what interests them (beside *** and beer, I mean). And you and I both know that their instructor doesn't care if the program is any good or not - that's not what he's looking for. He want's to see that the student grasped enough of the FUNDEMENTALS to make something that works well enough. He knows that most of his students (and I'm guessing even the HNC ones over there) won't touch a PLC again in their lives.
Now we could all get into a fun debate about whether this is the way the world should work, and the state of modern education, but let's not, at least today.
Roger:
If you find Terry to be arrogant and out of control, I suggest you look in the mirror. He did not start of by insulting you, but you were quick to take offense, and deliver back.
Terry took you to task for a logical fallacy, and rubbed you nose in it. Some of it comes from how he works with PLCs. He's a plant engineer (for want of a better title). His job is to live with the PLC he programs every day. For him, everything has to be perfect, or as close as he can make it. Me, I'm an integrator. Every few months, I send my children off into the world, hopefully never to hear from them again. As some point, yes, like the story above, I have to stop before I'm fully satisfied, and move on. I don't know your background. Perhaps you've had to compremise on your quality so many times that you think that's the way it is. Not so.
You said that you could improve on Terry's code. I strongly doubt that. Terry is THE best PLC programmer I've ever run across. I can usually code as well or better than any other engineer. But any time where both he and I offered code, Terry's offering has been vastly superior to mine. Yeah, mine will/does work (and yes, I know that is your point), but Terry's is the way it should be done (i.e, the way I will do it in the future). I haven't seen too many solutions offered by you yet (you're still new, although have over 50 posts already), but I haven't been all that impressed with what you've had to say so far.
I'm sure Terry understood everything you were saying or trying to say (even before I repeated it back above). Did you listen to him, and the point he was making? Judging from your posts, I don't think so.
Try easing up on the POST REPLY button, and just listen for a bit. You might learn something.
Real Deal:
Your 'voice' reminds me of a fellow that used to show up on the old forum, and post things just to watch us get all riled up. A Mr. M**sh, was it, the "so-called friend of the site"? If that's your game, please stop.
Ronald Scott:
I hope you are enjoying watching all this happen to someone else for a change. You've certainly come a long way (or is it us who've changed?)
To all:
One thing I've learned over the years is, when in arguements, if you find yourself repeating yourself more than twice, the other guy is not listening. Repeating yourself a third time won't make him listen. So it's best just to walk away. Anything else is a waste of time.
C.S. Barnett seens to have solved HIS problem. Can we just drop all this now, before Phil has to do something that everyone will regret?
