"Dave Glasser" wrote...

On the other hand, this group is called "c.l.j.programmer".

Can you reaally call a "newbie" a "programmer"?

Isn't a newbie learning to *be* a programmer...

;-)

// Bjorn A

well, if advanced answerers get fed up with wading through the
millionth asking of simple questions (that are answered in the faq
anyway), then they might stop participating here. But that would only
seemingly apply if the number of daily posts gets too large - and is
much more of a problem on a mail list than a newsgroup anyway.

So, as usual, there's no ideal solution to much of anything... and I
*still* can see people on many groups insisting that top posting is
somehow evil ;)

You have told us it does not matter to you. You read everything
anyway.  Your concern is  hazing newbies is going to drive them away.

Keeping a distinction  matters most to those who DON'T read
comp.lang.java.help

I read both.  My reason for wanting a distinction is I strongly don't
like getting my head bitten off when I presume someone is a newbie and
explain stuff they already know in "baby talk", or freak out some
newbie with a cryptic answer that somehow he figures he is supposed to
understand.

In my ideal universe, if people post in help they are implying,
"Please treat me as a newbie. Presume little.  Tell me other stuff
vaguely related to my problem.  Point out all the problems in my code
you see, not just the ones relevant to my particular question."

If they post in programmer they are implying, "I have already read the
Javadoc and googled and it came up dry.  You don't have to hold my
hand, just give me a hint as to what you think my problem might be.
I am asking about this very specific problem. I am not seeking
training in Java."

How to maintain the distinction, without being rude or intimidating?
One way to do that is to post the answer in the "proper" group with a
short note in the "wrong" group explaining where the answer is and why
you put it there. That may be more work than browbeating the newbie.
It is more a carrot than a stick.

One good reason is the distinction between easy answers and not easy answers.

For instance, someone posts a question about Unicode, do I post a reply
discussing all the relevant facets of Unicode, most of which are not evident to
the casual programmer ?  If they are an experienced programmer, then the extra
detail will help them and they will be pleased to see it (or they damn well
should be ;-), and perhaps a discussion will ensue of the more esoteric aspects
of the subject (which will -- inevitably -- drift OT).  If they are not, then
the post will scare them off, and they'll probably ignore it.

Another example, if someone posts a question which reveals that their problem
is actually that they unwittingly lack basic knowledge of some apparently (to
them) unrelated topic: <whatever>, is the /appropriate/ response to point out
(in a civilised manner) that they should review <whatever>, or to provide a
short introduction to the subject which (as a newbie) they probably have not
yet been introduced to ?

Some newbies, or newbies to a given topic, are only looking for a
straightforward answer to a straightforward question.  Others, perhaps just as
inexperienced, want to discuss matters at a high (or do I mean deep ?) level.
The issue is not really about experience, but about what /kind/ of
discussion you want to participate in.

/My/ position is that /here/, if I want to discuss something at all, then I do
it at /my/ level.  If I were reading on .help then I would try to pitch my
answers at the poster's level.  (I don't, BTW, often read .help)

One thing that you may not have considered is that other peoples' judgement
about what is "too" annoying is determined by them, not by you.  I would like
to know how many people there are who /I/ would have found it interesting or
rewarding to read and/or discuss matters with, but who have left, or never
participated in, this group because /for their tastes/ there was too much
noise.  If that number is zero or near zero then you have a valid point, but I
doubt it.

   -- chris

Let's assume you had the power to  change the names of the groups.

What would you call them?  What would their mandates be?

My version of nirvana looks like this:

serverside: for EJB, servlets, JSP, STRUTS etc.

programmer: for the mixed bag it is now.

beginner: for student projects, assignments, learning, programming
fundamentals.