Re: VB or C?

"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23wkv29weHHA.2388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But Tom, my friend, please see inline and remember that I'm not in a
condition that I need to relax from. I'm simply making a point (to which
you seem more receptive of than earlier.

I think you must have me confused with somebody else :-) The reason I hang
around the VB.Net group answering VB.Net questions isn't because I don't use
it...

Yes, I do "know" that Coke/Pepsi are the largest non-alcoholic carbinated
beverages. But I know this because of the consitent results of the
reliable market research in "Nation's Restaurant News" (in another life I
was a full-service restaurant manager and then a restaurant consultant).
As a consultant, we would do local market research and look at the market
research of other reputable sources.

Which other reputable sources? What makes them reputable? Just because you
post the words "reputable" doesn't make the reputable. See how easy it is?

I have two problems with your link:
1. It takes me to a page which states that no result could be found
for your search.
2. Wikipedia is hardly the definitive word on anything since no one is
paid to check accuracy unless something is challeged.
You show me ANY entry at Wiki and 10 minutes later, I'll show you
some new *facts* at the same URL. So, I would hardly use anything from
Wiki as definitive proof of anything.

I cut and pasted the link, perhaps the conversion to ASCII introduced a
problem. Here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29 .

Your opinion on the accuracy of Wikipedia seems to be an unsubstantiated
opinion as formal studies have concluded the opposite. Follow the links
(these should work) and you'll notice that studies using reputable samplings
have demonstrated it is nearly as accurate as the Encylopedia Britannica.
You don't accept a search of 3, 4 or 5 large job sites about job statistics
but guessing is acceptable when it comes to Wikipedia. Note who claims the
test is flawed in the BBC report, the Encylopedia Britannica, who would have
guessed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

If 99% of the development jobs are going to VB.Net developers but they
aren't visible in the public landscape they are by definition
"invisible". It might be that Eiffel.Net or COBOL.Net has twice as many
jobs as VB.Net in that case right? Lack of public access to the data is
a problem but what are you hoping that people will do in that case, fund
studies?

Uh, yes? And, I would *guess* that you could ask several professionals
who are paid (by a neutral party), say Human Resource (national
head-hunters) personnel and aggregate their results to get a national
statistic on the matter. But that is hardly what we have been given for
this 3:1 statistic.

Do you seriously think anybody posting here is going to fund a study? Would
you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm going to
guess not. Can you post a link to Human Resource? I found HR.com but that
doesn't look like the one you're talking about. Perhaps somebody near one
of their offices will phone and post the facts. Something tells me you'll
dismiss the numbers with "sure one phone call but what about the other
offices" if things don't go your way.

Great, but that's not what what people have said (AFAICS). They've listed
a few online job sites and actually then said that 3 sites polled is
enough to make a definitive statement about a national/international
trend. They haven't said "I only checked 3 out of thousands of sites, but
here's what I've found."

Yes it is. The messages started up much like your opinion about Wikipedia.
When challenged it evolved to various ad-hoc queries which brought us to the
present "as far as I can tell" status. Unlike your Wikipedia opinion which
remains in the "I just made this up" category.

If you are trying to suggest that the 1000 job sites all have unique
listings it won't sell. If you are suggesting that a job board with 35 jobs
on it (the newest one posted 90 days ago) should be considered the equal of
Monster or Dice the CEO's of those companies would like to chat with you.
And it wouldn't be hard to imagine that "VBJobs.com" might have more VB jobs
posted.

The posting as I recall consisted of the results of a search on a few large
sites. It wasn't suggested that there were no VB jobs, we know that isn't
true. You're in essence trying to imply that posting "Coke sells 1.3
billion beverages a day" is akin to writing "nobody likes ginger ale."

It would be incumbent upon the VB.Net developers to point out _not_ that
the "flawed study" has flaws (so does any VB.Net job study) but rather to
point to results which suggest otherwise when using any other accepted
criteria.

Why? I'm not the one making broad claims that are not believeable. I'm
not presenting any statisics or findings at all. I'm simply questioning
what has been presented here. That doesn't shif any burden of proof back
to me, because I've made no statements to have to prove.

You do if you care. You may as well chat about the the faked moon landing,
Bigfoot and the Bermuda triangle. The contention that none of these things
is true should easily be countered by your challenge that we have no proof
they are fake. We can site 12 scientists and you can post "what about the
10,000 other BigFoot sites"? Another successful challenge. If you "care"
then you should offer some counter fact, if you're just debating what are
you hoping to accomplish?

Again let me point out that nobody is stating that "you ought to learn C#
because there are no VB.Net jobs" because "when 3 large job sites were
searched here are the results". Let me ask you a question? If it is easy,
like a phone call to Human Resources or a search of one of the many other
job sites why haven't you simply posted your results? You have to admit you
could have done that in the time it took to write your response.

So why? Perhaps in part because it looks like you're just playing the
devil's advocate. People who aren't tend to post "well I checked the
following 2 sites and they are 3 to 1 in favor of VB.Net jobs." Which would
lead credence to the theory that the original numbers are flawed... what we
have now is your guess that the trend won't hold.

I think it is incumbant upon *anyone*, regardless of what language they
use or like to provide credible proofs when presenting a supposed fact.

You're in the minority :-)

Again, this is not the point. Let me clarify (again) what I take issue
with: It's not the source, per se, it's the way the "results" are
presented. If all you had time to do was an un-scientific Google search,
fine, no problem. But don't tell me that it was a comprehensive search
and represents a true, relaible statistic. As I said before, you may be
right, but don't claim you are right and prove it with flimsy
observations. Say "I only had time to do an un-scientific Google search,
but here's what it showed.", then let the reader make any conclusions they
want.

That's what happened.

But that is not what I'm debating. I'm talking about the way the
conclusion is "packaged".

Packaging is what it is about. Take for instance your remark about
Wikipedia. Seriously were you trying to dismiss it as a source of
information or were you trying to enlighten readers about potential
distortions? Had the quote come from the Encyclopedia Britannica would you
have dismissed it as readily without having read any of the studies?

You were packaging your answer for maximum impact. I said "Wikipedia" you
countered with "unbelievable source" despite what experts have said.
Incredibly the article was about what constitutes a statistically relevant
sample hardly a controversial subject. Perhaps I can point you to their
definition of PI and you could suggest it's all bogus and made up by people
with an ax to grind :-)

Yep, but I would not make the mistake of characterizing such a small pool
of information as a good source to determine a trend. Arne has pretty
much done exactly that.

The trend is "3 sites checked 3 sites confirming". If 2 more large sites
are checked and the results are the same then it would be 5 for 5. The
trend would be for every large site checked the numbers remained the same.
That of course doesn't mean there isn't a large site with all the VB.Net
jobs but that could remain undiscovered even if 2 dozen large sites were
checked.

As people have more time perhaps they will check some sites and post the
results here as well.

Tom



.

Loading