[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vynd:
why Rabe shouldn't say he thinks the VQ is "broken" and needs to be "fixed." That's hardly what I consider offensive language. I have trouble believing that the devs are as overly sensitive to criticism as you're portraying them to be.

His isnt so bad. Not as bad as some.

Its more the total impression Im feeling. But you are probably right. It shouldnt matter how things are worded. Im sure any programmer would be willing to go back and look at something no matter how its referred to them. I dont think I would and I havent put nearly as much work in the stuff I program. But Im probably just a cranky "old guy"

---

I've been a programmer for a really long time. And sorry, but imo being told something is "broken" is pretty polite, cordial, and reasonable. Being told that something is "****ed" isn't uncommon, in my experience, and even there, I personally didn't take offense. It was ****ed - but, for instance, in one instance the fault lay in Sun's libraries, but try convincing a user of that when their program crashes.

What phrasing do you think people should use? "Excuse me, I don't think the VQ is as wonderful and perfect and cuddly as it could be?" (Or, "The only way this program could be any more supercalifragilistic would be if it didn't crash and lose half an hour or an hours work when I mouse clicked a seeminly stuck menu 10 times in 5 seconds."?)

[ May 07, 2004, 05:58: Message edited by: Zen ]