OT: Making a Game System (part 2)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

I would say its writing, not talking, that is important for computer programming. And in reality every computer programmer is going to be an above average writer, mathmetician, and... computer programmer. Take the following examples:

Your assumption that you are trying to illustrate, seems to be that communicating with human beings and communicating with machines are inextricably interconnected. You may be correct to a certain degree, at a certain level of proficiency, however there is no clear absolute here. Most of the people whom I have known in my real life dealings, who were talented programmers, all happened to have trouble with people. But here is where your problem starts, you are trying to forge an immutable link between "writing", and "programming". I would argue that in this context, that there must then be an immutable link between "speaking", and "writing". Thus if the only way to have the best rating in programming, is to be an excellent writer, but the only way to excel in writing is to be a talented speaker, then speech becomes a necessity for programming skill.

The problem is that you are drawing a causal relationship from a circumstantial relationship. Perhaps what you are overlooking, is that while the most well known programmers happen to be good writers - it is because it is through that writing skill, that they become well known, more so than through their programming skill. There are droves of incredibly talented programmers out there, that you have no knowledge of (and who do not rise as high in power in a corporate world, usually), who are indeed very poor at dealing with people in any capacity.

[Lokean]

Omni, allow me to retort...

Hello, I'm John Warner Backus, arguably the most important figure in digital computer programming, ever. You have never heard of me, because I did my job and never made a fuss of myself.

Seriously though, from the method you are using to model calculations (largely in terms of reciprocals and products) the 'correct' mean to use would be the geometric. The harmonic mean is more properly used for data which represent ratios and rates of change of processes relative to some fixed, common unit.

'Reverse salience' is misleading. Reverse salient is a noun, referring to a particular weakness which holds back some process (specifically, holds back an armored column advance; the term is military in origin). If you wish to use a harmonic mean you are essentially telling players that their character is *weakened* by having even a single relevant attribute at a value less than any other.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Lokean

Omni, allow me to retort...

Presumably one of the two people involved in the development of the Backus-Naur-Form? I would expect that everybody involved in computer science in academics must have learned about the BNF, and not only if your area of expertise is theoretical computer science or compiler construction. It's the same like everybody should know about Von Neumann. There are obviously a lot of people that did important little things who you might never have heard about, though.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Lokean

Omni, allow me to retort...

Seriously though, from the method you are using to model calculations (largely in terms of reciprocals and products) the 'correct' mean to use would be the geometric. The harmonic mean is more properly used for data which represent ratios and rates of change of processes relative to some fixed, common unit.

'Reverse salience' is misleading. Reverse salient is a noun, referring to a particular weakness which holds back some process (specifically, holds back an armored column advance; the term is military in origin). If you wish to use a harmonic mean you are essentially telling players that their character is *weakened* by having even a single relevant attribute at a value less than any other.

Ok I see your point. I will consider the geometric mean then.