Fact Poll
I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.
But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.
I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.
What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is the
apparent emerging language today.
I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b
Apr 7 '07
111  4710 
Scott M. wrote:
>> 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.
All tests shows that Wikipedia is about as reliable as other
lexica.
Ooh, another *fact*! Dare I ask what your source is for that statment?
Since you apparently either are not capable of or to lazy to Google: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty.../2005/12/69844
Did
you know that 2 weeks ago, Wikipedia's entry for the American comedian
"Sinbad" indicated he recently died (not kidding, was on the news with an
interview with the "dead" comedian). I don't remember seeing /hearing
anything in the real media, incicating his death. Why, because anyone can
change Wiki, but reputable news sources have to stake their reputation on
their reporting. Wiki's reputation relies on its accuracy, which is less
than stellar. That's not to say the main stream media always gets it right
(election night 2000), but they certainly do make more of an effort to
*fact-check* what they report.
Oh, by the way, here's some more Wiki-Facts:
Stephen Colbert (American comedian) challenged his viewers recently to go to
Wiki and change the definition of "truth" within 5 minutes of his challenge
to a particular phrase. I can't remember the exact phrase but guess what? 5
minutes later, the definition of "truth" had been changed.
There are such cases.
That does not necessarily make Wikipedia less reliable than many
other sources.
A few find it funny to put in incorrect fact, but the millions
of reviewers usually get it fixes rather quickly.
Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter Wiki
posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I think you may be referring to the OOXML-ODF thing and not .NET-Java.
Hello? You haven't gotten what I'm saying at all. Because it is a
newsgroup, don't present data as if it were from a white-paper when it's
just your own, non-scientific research.
It should be rather obvious from the post that it was my research.
And it should be rather obvious too that it was based on samples.
Simply say "Here's what I found at
a few sites.", don't pass 3 sites (with all the deficiencies I've previously
pointed out) as the basis for a "credible trend".
I choose my way to post.
If you do not like it, then use a killfile.
>I told what my experience was.
You asked where I had it from.
I told you.
You did not believe it.
I picked a few samples.
They matched almost perfectly with what I said.
You still did not believe it.
Someone else picked another sample. That also matched.
You still did not believe it.
I do not want to check every job site in the world to satisfy
some moron that either does not understand statistics or think
that I fixed the selection of samples.
Hey, thanks for the continued insults. I never asked you to check every
site or look in any place. Nor, did I suggest you fixed any result.
Unless the sample selection was fixed, then the samples are more
than statistically significant.
>>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.
How many people do they interview to make a political poll ?
How many jobs did my samples include ?
You accused my earlier of not understanding statistics. I am not a
statistician, but I do know a few things, like: It depends on what is being
polled geographically and demographically.
If you are trying to find out which candidate is in the lead for a state
senate seat, you need a sample of as little as 5% of registered voters in
specific areas that are chosen to get a accurate idea of realistic results.
You also would look at previous voter turn out in these areas as well as
median income for these areas, demographics on mean level of education,
gender, etc.
If you poll too many (an amount over 25%) believe it or not, the accuracy of
the poll decreases. But the key here is to know what to look at, you can't
just poll *any* 5% - 25% of any of the people. It must be 5% - 25% of the
geographically and demographically chosen pool.
By asking your question, in such a simple way (as to make it seem that it is
only the number of people polled), it tells me that I know a lot more about
statistics than you. Perhaps, that is why you don't/can't/won't understand
my point.
Hm.
Who was it that about 20 lines above criticized the poll due to its
size ?
You like the scientific approach: how do you score scientifically
if you first claim that a sample is too small and when pointed
out that it is very big compared to most sample then change
argument and now claim that it is skewed ?
Arne
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were saying,
just not why you said it).
Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than once.
Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once and trying
to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.
Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C#
jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of
the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is
*not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look at
a lot more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical sampling.
What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis used by
professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove me is: "You
are being absurd"?
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that you
need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many thousands of
cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to hear you
rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then please
do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your answer came
from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the *facts* you have
presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a *fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
I just go for what is likely.
>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
actually out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
>I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.
Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.
>If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed by
numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
I just choose the one most negative to me.
If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a made
up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>got my point.
Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid?
You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my
point, you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual
proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.
Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
I think that is a lie.
I gave you numbers.
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
As
you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts. But you
are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any credible facts
to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to present more
unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support your first
unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Arne
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?
You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts
or definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All
the other people are irrelevant.
Bogus analogy.
The right analogy is that you ask 9379 people in a town in US
and 6867 of them liked Ginger Ale and 34986 people in UK
and 26956 liked Ginger Ale and 602 people in a town in German any 511
liked Ginger Ale - and then conclude that people like Ginger Ale.
Fair enough. Obvously I'm exaggerating a bit here. But, I do agree with
you that you could conclude that "people like Ginger Ale". But, I don't
think you can take such a small sampling (again 3 samples) and extrapolate
that into "all people prefer Ginger Ale by a 3:1 margin". A pollster could,
because they conduct scientifc polls targeting specific demographics that do
allow them to extrapolate out to accurate results for the given area they
are polling (with a small margin of error). AFAIK, you aren't a pollster or
statistician, so I don't believe you (or I for that matter), could take such
a small sampling and extrapolate anything reliable as a result.
I did target specific demographics. Did you forget ?
>I would conclude that people like Ginger Ale.
But, exactly (or reliably) how many?
3:1
Arne
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
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
>Ooh, another *fact*! Dare I ask what your source is for that statment?
>
Since you apparently either are not capable of or to lazy to Google:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty.../2005/12/69844
Ok, nice substantiation. That point conceeded. And thanks for the nice
insults right off the bat. I had thought that I repeatedly indicated that I
wasn't going to dig up proof for your statements, since I have made no
claims. But, you seem to be incapable of getting that. You are really good
at slinging mud though.
>
> Did you know
that 2 weeks ago, Wikipedia's entry for the American comedian "Sinbad"
indicated he recently died (not kidding, was on the news with an
interview with the "dead" comedian). I don't remember seeing /hearing
anything in the real media, incicating his death. Why, because anyone
can change Wiki, but reputable news sources have to stake their
reputation on their reporting. Wiki's reputation relies on its accuracy,
which is less than stellar. That's not to say the main stream media
always gets it right (election night 2000), but they certainly do make
more of an effort to *fact-check* what they report.
Oh, by the way, here's some more Wiki-Facts:
Stephen Colbert (American comedian) challenged his viewers recently to go
to Wiki and change the definition of "truth" within 5 minutes of his
challenge to a particular phrase. I can't remember the exact phrase but
guess what? 5 minutes later, the definition of "truth" had been changed.
There are such cases.
That does not necessarily make Wikipedia less reliable than many
other sources.
A few find it funny to put in incorrect fact, but the millions
of reviewers usually get it fixes rather quickly.
>Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the
overall benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I think you may be referring to the OOXML-ODF thing and not .NET-Java.
>Hello? You haven't gotten what I'm saying at all. Because it is a
newsgroup, don't present data as if it were from a white-paper when it's
just your own, non-scientific research.
It should be rather obvious from the post that it was my research.
How so? Your words exactly were that 3 site, do a trend make. You never
said, "this is what I found, take it for what it is".
>
And it should be rather obvious too that it was based on samples.
As stated and run into the ground by now, bad samples that do not prove
anything statically.
>
> Simply say "Here's what I found at
a few sites.", don't pass 3 sites (with all the deficiencies I've
previously pointed out) as the basis for a "credible trend".
I choose my way to post.
You sure do.
>
If you do not like it, then use a killfile.
No need. I will always post a rebuttle when more info. is needed. If you
don't like it, don't reply.
>
>>I told what my experience was.
You asked where I had it from.
I told you.
You did not believe it.
I picked a few samples.
They matched almost perfectly with what I said.
You still did not believe it.
Someone else picked another sample. That also matched.
You still did not believe it.
I do not want to check every job site in the world to satisfy
some moron that either does not understand statistics or think
that I fixed the selection of samples.
Hey, thanks for the continued insults. I never asked you to check every
site or look in any place. Nor, did I suggest you fixed any result.
Unless the sample selection was fixed, then the samples are more
than statistically significant.
You aren't even reading my replies anymore. That statement is completely
false. Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast with
butter causes colds.
>
>>>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.
How many people do they interview to make a political poll ?
How many jobs did my samples include ?
You accused my earlier of not understanding statistics. I am not a
statistician, but I do know a few things, like: It depends on what is
being polled geographically and demographically.
If you are trying to find out which candidate is in the lead for a state
senate seat, you need a sample of as little as 5% of registered voters in
specific areas that are chosen to get a accurate idea of realistic
results. You also would look at previous voter turn out in these areas as
well as median income for these areas, demographics on mean level of
education, gender, etc.
If you poll too many (an amount over 25%) believe it or not, the accuracy
of the poll decreases. But the key here is to know what to look at, you
can't just poll *any* 5% - 25% of any of the people. It must be 5% - 25%
of the geographically and demographically chosen pool.
By asking your question, in such a simple way (as to make it seem that it
is only the number of people polled), it tells me that I know a lot more
about statistics than you. Perhaps, that is why you don't/can't/won't
understand my point.
Hm.
Who was it that about 20 lines above criticized the poll due to its
size ?
That is but one component of a poll. The above 3 paragraphs try to indicate
to you that there is much more to consider, but you just don't want to
accept anyting outside of your tunnel vision. I told you that your 40000
number was not really 40000 because of the multi posting of jobs and that
just looking at 3 sites out of a targeted demographic that could include
thousands of sites, makes your 40000 not an accurate number and that you'll
need a much larger and divers pool of data to work with. What exactly is
there in that you don't get?
>
You like the scientific approach: how do you score scientifically
if you first claim that a sample is too small and when pointed
out that it is very big compared to most sample then change
argument and now claim that it is skewed ?
Well, first off, I guess I'd respond by saying that I never said anything of
the sort, so the rest of your comments are irrelevant?
Where, exactly, did I say it was very big compared to most samples? I said
no such thing. And, when you attempted to I corrected you. I'm saying it's
skewed BECAUSE it's too small.
>
Arne
Scott,
Do you think that this is the right newsgroup for this discussion?
Cor
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamschreef in bericht
news:Op**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Can you be more specific about how VB.NET makes casting decisions for you?
With Option Strict On, I don't think it does, due to "widening conversion"
and "narrowing conversion".
"Sir C4" <Va*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com...
>>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.
By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like
that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just
pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't (as
long as Option Strict is on).
True, but Basic also makes a lot of assumptions for you, like with
casting. Basic will guess what it thinks you mean, yet c# you have to
tell it. I first noticed this with trying to calculate a percent. In
basic is was simple integer division. In c#, integer division gave
different results. It wasn't until I cast them as doubles did I get
the result I was looking for. That's more what I meant by forcing you
to be explicit with your coding.
Arne,
I did not follow the whole thread :-), are you proofing that VB.Net is
easier to learn than C# or that more people are doing it, and therefore jobs
can easier be fulfilled?
Cor
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschreef in bericht
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk. ..
>>Scott M. wrote:
No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were
saying, just not why you said it).
Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than
once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once
and trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
>>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
>>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.
Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C#
jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of
the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is
*not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look
at a lot more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis used
by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove me
is: "You are being absurd"?
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that
you need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many thousands
of cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to hear you
rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
>>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then please
do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your answer
came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the *facts* you
have presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
>>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a *fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
I just go for what is likely.
>>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
>actually out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
>>I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
>>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.
Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.
>>If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed
by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
I just choose the one most negative to me.
>If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a
made up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
>>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>>got my point.
>Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
>stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
>statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
>statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.
Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
I think that is a lie.
I gave you numbers.
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
>>
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts.
But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any
credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to
present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support your
first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Arne
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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...
Not sure what you are referring to here.
>
>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?
Here are some of the common sources:
Local and US Chambers of Commerce.
Local and US restaurant & hospitality associations
Trade publications (ie. Nation's Restaurant News).
Hire a market research company to perform statistical analysis.
What makes them reputable?
They are recognized (industry-wide) as reputable and reliable and they are
usually the only ones that do the kind of research required.
Just because you post the words "reputable" doesn't make the reputable.
See how easy it is?
Well, I've answered your questions, so I would say that if you have the
facts to back up a statement, it is pretty easy. All I've gotten from Arne
is opinion stated as fact with no simple and clear answers to the questions
I've provided.
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
This is the only thing Aren has provided as proof. I accept it and I
conceed that point.
>
>>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?
No, but (for the last time as apparently no one wants to read my simple
point), don't presents facts as definitive, it they aren't. I never said
someone should fund a study for a newsgroup post, that was not the question,
nor was that my reply. Many studies are funded every day, by people that
want to know a reliable statistcial result.
Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm going
to guess not.
You guessed wrong.
Can you post a link to Human Resource? I found HR.com but that doesn't
look like the one you're talking about.
I wasn't talking about any web site. I was talking about HR firms, such as
head-hunters. My point was they are not considered in any of the "research"
provided by anyone, which make the research incomplete and its data suspect
at best.
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.
Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of data.
>
>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.
Not really. Directly after Arne posted his ill-gotten statistic, I
challenge it and his response was that looking at 3 sites out of thousands
and not at any other non-web site data was enough to justify his statistic
as correct. That's what I've been debating ever since.
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.
When did I suggest anything of the sort? If anything, I've said the exact
opposite of that.
>
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."
Again, that's not what I said in any way, shape or form.
>
>>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?
Because I'm not debating the statements being made and I've made no
statement of fact on the whole language question. I'm questioning the
methods of the data gathering. If you say something, the burden of proof is
on you to be able to back it up. I felt I backed up my Wiki statement, but
you have proved my wrong and I accept that. No one, though, challenged by
on the Wiki statement to go and prove it. If they did, I would/should be
the one to do the research, not you.
>
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.
Well, first it's not as easy as you imply I said (which I didn't). If
anything I've said that it is much harder that a quick phone call and a
quick Google search. But again, I'm not making the claims here, so the
burden of proof isn't mine.
>
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.
No, again you are mis-reading (or not reading) what I've said. What we have
is my doubtfullness of the supposition based on the limited data sources
used and in the non-scientific (and incorrect) statistical analysis made.
>
>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 :-)
Huh? You're saying that depending on what side of the issue someone falls,
only one group is responsible for providing credible proofs to back up their
statements? You can't be saying that, that's ridiculous.
>
>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?
I've already conceeded I was wrong about the particular Wiki topics that
study looked at. And your continued suggestion that I will only believe the
*facts* I like is unwarrented. Arne has provided no facts to support his
3:1. That's all I'm looking for. I've said over and over that he may be
right, just show me how you support your conclusion and do it with an
accepted method for coming up with a valid statistic in this matter. He
never considered other sites (so he does not have enough web site data to
form a reliable sample and he has not used any other source of data (which
leaves out huge data pools).
>
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 :-)
Ok, so you've got me on Wiki. I think we can let that one go and address
the many other points I've made. But, again, you are making suggestions
about how I would react to hypothetical situations and, quite frankly, I've
given you no reason to think I'm biased about what a proper study would
find.
By the way, does the article on Wiki say that determining a statistically
relevant sample "hardly a controversial subject"? I don't think it does. In
fact, it has quite a bit to say about going about getting a good sample
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_method). I'm afraid Arne hasn't come
close to following this methodology.
>
>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.
No, it would be 5 for 5 sites, not including all the other sources in the
"sample frame". And, as pointed out on your Wiki, if you don't have a
relevant sample frame, your analysis is not relevant.
>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.
You are making this way more compicated than it needs to be. A 3:1
statistic was offered as a valid value for C# to VB.NET jobs currently
available. An insufficient sample was used to get this and the presenter of
this information will not conceed this point nor will he change the way in
which his result was presented. That's the bottom line.
Show me a result from a good sample or change the way you package your
result. Until you do that, your stats. are meaningless. That's all I'm
saying.
>
As people have more time perhaps they will check some sites and post the
results here as well.
Yes. And maybe they'll look not just at sites, since if that's all they
did, we'd still not have a good sample.
>
Tom
I did target specific demographics. Did you forget ?
How could I remember something that didn't happen? You looked at a limited
sample from 3 locations (that's geographic, not demographic). What were the
demographics you looked at?
>
>>I would conclude that people like Ginger Ale.
But, exactly (or reliably) how many?
3:1
I wouldn't have expected you to say anyting else!
>
Arne
>I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
>seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than
once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once
and trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Check your math Arne, it does the exact opposite of that. If we have
multiple listings for the same job, then we have an even smaller pool of
distinct jobs, meaning we now need to look in other (more) places to get the
pool size up since we don't want to count the same job twice.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
Perhaps, but even still, they do not represent all the places where jobs can
be found: not nearly all the sites and none of the non-online places.
Either way, your sample is too small.
>>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
Correct! Meaning we don't have a large enough sample.
>>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.
Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C#
jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of
the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is
*not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look
at a lot more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis used
by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove me
is: "You are being absurd"?
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that
you need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many thousands
of cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to hear you
rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
That's what I've been saying all along. We do need a much larger sample
that includes more than just one source for the data. Good thing you
finally agree with me (now, I can go to bed!)
>
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
No, I never said that. I've consistently said your count is low AND your
sources limited to online data only.
>
>>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
So, which is it? Are there lots of duplicates (which you just agreed there
were, here in this post) or are their not a lot of duplicates? Either way,
for the reasons I've been repeating over and over, you still don't have a
good sample.
>>
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then please
do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your answer
came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the *facts* you
have presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
Do you get that it's irrelvant. You can stop dwelling on duplicates or not
(since you can't seem to make up your mind on it). Either way, for the
reasons I've been repeating over and over, you still don't have a good
sample.
>
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
>>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a *fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
But, I don't walk around stating these things as *facts*.
>
I just go for what is likely.
THANK YOU, you admit your 3:1 is not a fact (and I say it's unrealistic to
expect that it is accurate given the flaws in your sample data).
>
>>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
>actually out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
>>I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
But you don't *know* that there is or isn't, do you? As we've discussed in
newsgroups plenty of times, there are those that feel that you should look
for experience C# pros. differently and in different places than VB pros.
I've heard people say VB pros. are a dime a dozen. If that is actually the
case, you may not have to look very far or hard or the same way you look for
C# pros. This is my *impression* of one of the differences in recruiting
for one language over another. So, yes, it is possible that you might find
differences in the media type being looked at.
>
>>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.
Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.
>>If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed
by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
Sure, but you are manufacturing an equation to suit your supposition. I
gave you my dice supposition, but it hardly makes it reliable.
>
I just choose the one most negative to me.
>If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a
made up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
About the same as your manufactured probabilty in your manufactured
if...then.
>
>>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>>got my point.
>Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
>stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
>statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
>statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.
Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
I think that is a lie.
But you won't be clear as to why.
>
I gave you numbers.
Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
sample group), yes.
>
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
Well, that about sums it up. I can't ague with a brick wall.
>
>>
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts.
But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any
credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to
present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support your
first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Or, it was an irrellevant side topic that has no relationship to how you got
your sample data and every supposition you made after based upon it.
Ever heard: "Garbage In...Garbage Out"?
I'm done with this Arne, it's clear I'm wasting keystrokes here.
>
Arne
Not quite Cor,
The first point of the thread was if there were more employers looking for
C# than for VB.NET. The rest of this mess was a dispute over so-called
factual statistics.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Arne,
I did not follow the whole thread :-), are you proofing that VB.Net is
easier to learn than C# or that more people are doing it, and therefore
jobs can easier be fulfilled?
Cor
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschreef in bericht
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk.. .
Scott M. wrote:
No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were
saying, just not why you said it).
Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it
really seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more
than once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than
once and trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
>>>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
>>>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
>overlap.
Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the
C# jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only
30,000 of the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the
job list is *not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll
have to look at a lot more sites to thin out this margin for
overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis
used by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove
me is: "You are being absurd"?
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that
you need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many
thousands of cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to
hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
>>>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then
please do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your
answer came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the
*facts* you have presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
>>>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a
*fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
I just go for what is likely.
>>>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
>>actually out there?
>Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
>>>I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
>>>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
>than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
>non existing.
Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.
If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If*
followed by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
I just choose the one most negative to me.
>>If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a
made up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
>>>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>>>got my point.
>>Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
>>stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
>>statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
>>statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
>Well - I have provided lots of facts.
Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
I think that is a lie.
I gave you numbers.
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
>>>
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts.
But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any
credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to
present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support
your first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Arne
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the following day, I developed a
cold. So, I think it is clear that toast with butter causes colds.
Scott something is up with you and this subject matter perhaps. First it
was the ginger ale example and now the old toast/butter and colds
connection. Nobody suggested anything remotely like either of those two
"examples" and I can barely justify giving them that designation.
But remember the posting below? Take a wild guess as to how your replies
have influenced his decision, or take a poll :-) How different it might be
if positive answers were given in both camps... like when Arne replied: "But
there are still a lot of VB.NET code out there now and will be too in the
future. I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project long
term."
Doesn't that seem reasonable?
<begin quote>
Fact Poll
I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.
But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.
I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.
What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is the
apparent emerging language today.
I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b
<begin quote>
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote...
>Which other reputable sources?
Here are some of the common sources:
Local and US Chambers of Commerce.
Local and US restaurant & hospitality associations
Trade publications (ie. Nation's Restaurant News).
Hire a market research company to perform statistical analysis.
So local and US Chambers of Commerce agree on the 3:1 ratio of C# to VB.Net
jobs? Don't you see you've just listed some names along with "take a poll"
so that's all that is required to claim anything.
>Do you seriously think anybody posting here is going to fund a study?
No, but (for the last time as apparently no one wants to read my simple
point), don't presents facts as definitive, it they aren't. I never said
someone should fund a study for a newsgroup post, that was not the
question, nor was that my reply. Many studies are funded every day, by
people that want to know a reliable statistcial result.
Actually the fact is that many studies are funded every day which are found
to conclude the opposite of studies funded weeks or months earlier or
studies based upon a slightly different wording of the questions or intended
to make a very slightly different point.
The most "used" vs. the most "popular" vs. the most "powerful" vs. the
"easiest".
>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
going to guess not.
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer is no.
I wasn't talking about any web site. I was talking about HR firms, such
as head-hunters. My point was they are not considered in any of the
"research" provided by anyone, which make the research incomplete and its
data suspect at best.
Of course they are included in the "research" by virtue of the fact most of
the job postings at major job sites are posted by head-hunters. There are
postings every day on behalf of huge corporations by small companies that
place people at those huge corporations.
Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level work
at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for senior level
programmers in the newspaper.
>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."
Again, that's not what I said in any way, shape or form.
And again nobody said anything about ginger ale, getting a cold from toast,
using the newspaper help wanted ads as an indication of anything except you.
I felt I backed up my Wiki statement, but you have proved my wrong and I
accept that. No one, though, challenged by on the Wiki statement to go
and prove it. If they did, I would/should be the one to do the research,
not you.
Don't you see both Arne and I looked it up rather than "challenge you"
because it was in everybody's best interest to put a stop to the matter. We
wanted to help rather than be challenging. Given your quest for proof I
think it's fair to say we were both surprised by how easily it was to find
evidence.
>>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 :-)
Huh? You're saying that depending on what side of the issue someone
falls, only one group is responsible for providing credible proofs to back
up their statements? You can't be saying that, that's ridiculous.
Why would I say something like that? Clearly I'm saying that your belief on
the incumbancy of posters to provide credible proofs is the minority
opinion. Not a single other person has suggested (in any recent thread)
that "credible proofs" are missing. Most just say "thanks" and go on their
way.
The next time you answer a VB.Net question I'll be sure to ask you for
credible proofs and the results of a study.
Arne has provided no facts to support his 3:1. That's all I'm looking
for. I've said over and over that he may be right, just show me how you
support your conclusion and do it with an accepted method for coming up
with a valid statistic in this matter.
A major point isn't getting through... he is under no obligation to provide
any facts. He doesn't really care if you believe that he isn't right or
that you can point out the statistical flaw in his research. What would he
get out of it, your appreciation?
Ok, so you've got me on Wiki. I think we can let that one go and address
the many other points I've made. But, again, you are making suggestions
about how I would react to hypothetical situations and, quite frankly,
I've given you no reason to think I'm biased about what a proper study
would find.
What about your toast/butter and cold example? Let me see if I can post
your statement to Arne verbatim:
"Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast with
butter causes colds."
Did he give you a reason to suggest that would be reasonable? If on the
other hand he checked 3 very large job sites and of the people who reported
being sick 3 out of 4 had eaten a particular brand of butter I'd say it
might be a good idea to avoid it. Statistically valid or not the number is
too great to ignore and the odds of it being coincidence is very low. It
wouldn't warrant a product recall but it would behoove those purchasing
butter to reconsider despite a lack of information.
No, it would be 5 for 5 sites, not including all the other sources in the
"sample frame". And, as pointed out on your Wiki, if you don't have a
relevant sample frame, your analysis is not relevant.
It's not my Wiki but thanks for trying. :-) We're on to your debate methods
but I'm giving you a little more rope. Of course it is relevant. "All the
other sites" include many totally irrelevant sources and few care if a small
job board in No. Carolina has a Java position at a local high school.
People are interested in trends not absolute numbers.
One doesn't learn a computer language or choose a career path based upon a
sample that includes small towns in Iowa unless one lives in a small town in
Iowa. They aren't the leading edge they are the trailing edge. Failure to
realize the direction software development is moving leaves one in a support
position as technology passes you by.
You are making this way more compicated than it needs to be. A 3:1
statistic was offered as a valid value for C# to VB.NET jobs currently
available. An insufficient sample was used to get this and the presenter
of this information will not conceed this point nor will he change the way
in which his result was presented. That's the bottom line.
What you posted were these words exactly... that is the bottom line in point
of fact.
Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go.
Like perhaps he ought get busy and get those number to you. Here is a clue,
he isn't going to.
Yes. And maybe they'll look not just at sites, since if that's all they
did, we'd still not have a good sample.
Right those newspaper ads for Senior Software Developers in Duluth, try
here: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/classifieds/
On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?
I dunno, maybe the number of job postings on said sites? Are you
really that obtuse that yo don't believe the biggest online job
posting sites are really the biggest online job posting sites?
You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts or
definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All the
other people are irrelevant.
But if instead you ask the three major soda manufacturers, you'll get
a good idea. The smaller ones are irrelevant.
What about all the people that don't drink cola at all (ie. the people that
don't post all their jobs online or on these particular sites)?
Um, that's the point. Most people DO post their jobs on one of those
three sites. Especially in the technology field.
Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying give me some credible proof of
your statment(s).
My statements are not extraordinary, your contention however is, so
perhaps you should prove your point of view. Its kinda like asking me
to prove that McDonalds is the largest fast food company. You're the
one saying its not, so the burden of proof is on you.
On Apr 10, 1:37 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
The first point of the thread was if there were more employers looking for
C# than for VB.NET. The rest of this mess was a dispute over so-called
factual statistics.
And a quick survey on the three largest online job sites seems to back
that up.
Scott,
Maybe I am not writting forever clear, therefore I have to read it better.
I am sure that the OP is not asking about jobs, he is asking if there are
childness people who tell that C# is better than VB.Net just because of the
sound. It is remarkable that not one C# MVP is involved in this thread and I
agree with them.
Cor
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamschreef in bericht
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Not quite Cor,
The first point of the thread was if there were more employers looking for
C# than for VB.NET. The rest of this mess was a dispute over so-called
factual statistics.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>Arne,
I did not follow the whole thread :-), are you proofing that VB.Net is
easier to learn than C# or that more people are doing it, and therefore
jobs can easier be fulfilled?
Cor
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschreef in bericht
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk. ..
>>Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk. ..
Scott M. wrote:
>No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
>reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were
>saying, just not why you said it).
Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it
really seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more
than once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than
once and trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
>
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy
of your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
>>overlap.
>Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the
>C# jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only
>30,000 of the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the
>job list is *not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll
>have to look at a lot more sites to thin out this margin for
>overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis
used by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to
disprove me is: "You are being absurd"?
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that
you need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many
thousands of cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like
to hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then
please do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your
answer came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the
*facts* you have presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a
*fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
I just go for what is likely.
>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
>>>actually out there?
>>Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
>So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
>posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
>>than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
>>non existing.
>Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.
If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If*
followed by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
I just choose the one most negative to me.
If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability
of rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on
a made up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>>>>got my point.
>>>Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
>>>stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
>>>statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
>>>statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
>>Well - I have provided lots of facts.
>Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm
>too stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only
opinions.
I think that is a lie.
I gave you numbers.
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts.
But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any
credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun
to present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support
your first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Arne
"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
On Apr 10, 1:37 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>The first point of the thread was if there were more employers looking
for
C# than for VB.NET. The rest of this mess was a dispute over so-called
factual statistics.
And a quick survey on the three largest online job sites seems to back
that up.
I agree with the results of those searches, at least in the SF Bay Area. It
doesn't necessarily indicate that there are fewer VB.Net jobs than there
are C# jobs, but that maybe there are more C# jobs available.
I have spoken to 5 recruiters in the last two months. All of them say there
are more C# jobs than VB.Net jobs. The ratio is between 2:1 and 3:1,
depending on which area you're talking about.
One of them said they had more difficulty finding VB.Net programmers to
fill the jobs they had, though, probably because so many of them have moved
to C#.
I found this interesting, because of this article, published in the UK, but
written by a guy in San Francisco:
=============
Visual Basic is one of the World's - and certainly one of Microsoft's -
most widely used programming languages. Sixty two per cent of developers
use Visual Basic, while 37 per cent of big businesses specifically use
Visual Basic.NET - launched for Microsoft's .NET architecture. Visual Basic
has a solid following that, over the years, has forced Microsoft to
re-think aspects of the .NET roadmap. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ic_mono_linux/
=============
I accepted a C# job, not because of the language, but because it was the
most interesting and challenging of the opportunities I was offered.
Robin S.
Bummer for you. It wasn't my intention. Asking you to search the newsgroup
for past history instead of reposting the same question is hardly an
attack. If you want to see an attack, search this group or the VB.Net one
for "aaron.kempf". Now *there's* a guy who attacks people. You haven't been
attacked until someone mentions Hitler or Nazi Germany in response to one
of your posts. ;-)
For what it's worth, I work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I have seen
that attitude you talk about in regards to VB.Net. Some people act like
it's a toy language or something. C# is generally regarded as more serious,
but it's not true. It really boils down to the developer using the
language. Some shops let their developers use either language, and some are
particular.
Part of this impression is reinforced by Microsoft itself. There are a more
examples available in C# than VB. Some examples are *only* available in C#.
It has been this way for a while. And with the new .Net 3.0 extensions
(WPF, WCF, and WF), just *try* to find a book about them that is in VB.
What was disconcerting to me is I found a bug in the VB compiler (really;
MSFT confirmed it) when doing some pretty basic WPF stuff. I figured out a
workaround for it. But then I found another one, and couldn't figure out a
workaround, and that's when I gave up and learned C#. It seems to kind of
indicate a lack of interest on MSFT's part, or not enough interest.
And frankly, it greatly increased my employment opportunities.
The whole thread cracks me up, because IIRC, the last time someone asked
about this, some people in this group went on about how stupid it would be
to use VB.Net instead of C#. You get the opposite opinion if you post over
in the VB group. (As you would see if you searched the archives ;-)
The bottom line is that Microsoft is not going to get rid of VB.Net any
time soon. In fact, I have heard rumors that they are going to do a better
job supporting it, and add more examples on MSDN where they are missing. If
you see my other post to this thread, there are a lot of companies out
there using VB.Net.
If you write your application in VB.Net, and you write it well, I doubt
anybody will care if it's in VB instead of C#.
Just my two cents' worth. Good luck, whichever direction you choose.
Robin S.
--------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.com...
OK, I am not going to say that your opinion is not valid. I had an
opinion
also and it was that the most reliable place to find relevant, up-to-date
information on this topic was in this group. Part of the mission of these
discussions is to exchange expertise about Microsoft products. There was
considerable response to my question from a host of helpful people who
have
evidently given considerable thought to the issue. They also felt I
deserved
an answer.
I believe in general that group questions should be more technical but,
the
argument can be made that technical issues dictate the decision tree in
choosing C or VB. Just one look at the answers to my question should
validate
that fact. I think I was alright here - this time anyway.
I'm sorry but, "Please avoid personal attacks, slurs, and profanity in
your
interactions". is part of our rules of conduct. Perhaps my skin is too
thin,
but I feel like I've been attacked here Robin.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
>Sorry, but it gets asked about once every couple of months, and is
hashed
to death repeatedly. It just seems to me that this is what Google is
for.
:-)
Robin S.
--------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:CD**********************************@microso ft.com...
Yes Robin, this forum is for the interchange of ideas and knowledge. I
need
the current trend in thought here and that is why I asked today.
It may not be important to you and if it isn't then selectively ignore
it
and lighten up a bit.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
This has been asked a gazillion times. Try searching this group and
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Do we have to rehash this over
and
over again?
Robin S.
------------------------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microso ft.com...
Fact Poll
I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I
have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and
less
on
being "tidy" with VB.
But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you
say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.
I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.
What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of
stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend?
What
is
the
apparent emerging language today.
I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I
ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using
the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b
RobinS <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
<snip>
I found this interesting, because of this article, published in the UK, but
written by a guy in San Francisco:
=============
Visual Basic is one of the World's - and certainly one of Microsoft's -
most widely used programming languages. Sixty two per cent of developers
use Visual Basic, while 37 per cent of big businesses specifically use
Visual Basic.NET - launched for Microsoft's .NET architecture. Visual Basic
has a solid following that, over the years, has forced Microsoft to
re-think aspects of the .NET roadmap.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ic_mono_linux/
=============
I'd love to know more about how these figures break down. I suspect
there are plenty of people who develop software as *part* of their jobs
who use VB, but I suspect that if you restricted the survey to those
who are full-time developers, the story would be significantly
different. I suspect there are many people like my father, who put
together VB programs as part of a job which would never normally be
called a development role, but who would count himself as a VB
developer. I suspect things would also change if you looked at people
developing "shrink-wrap" applications vs those developing "in-house"
business applications.
Now, my paragraph above was mostly thinking of VB6, rather than VB.NET.
My guess (and all of these suggestions are just guesses and suspicions)
is that VB.NET has made more of an impact on the full-time developer
than VB6 did - although it would be interesting to see how many people
went from, say, Java to VB.NET compared with those going from VB6 to
C#. (I've heard of various people doing the latter, but none doing the
former. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't heard about them.)
None of this prevents VB.NET from being a perfectly viable language, of
course. I happen to prefer C# in various ways, but that's a different
matter.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Sure, why not?
The question is about the popularity and demand for C#. This ng isn't
limited to just programming questions. It't for C# topics.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:uW**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Scott,
Do you think that this is the right newsgroup for this discussion?
Cor
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamschreef in bericht
news:Op**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>Can you be more specific about how VB.NET makes casting decisions for
you? With Option Strict On, I don't think it does, due to "widening
conversion" and "narrowing conversion".
"Sir C4" <Va*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type
safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.
By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like
that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just
pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't
(as
long as Option Strict is on).
True, but Basic also makes a lot of assumptions for you, like with
casting. Basic will guess what it thinks you mean, yet c# you have to
tell it. I first noticed this with trying to calculate a percent. In
basic is was simple integer division. In c#, integer division gave
different results. It wasn't until I cast them as doubles did I get
the result I was looking for. That's more what I meant by forcing you
to be explicit with your coding.
Scott something is up with you and this subject matter perhaps. First it
was the ginger ale example and now the old toast/butter and colds
connection. Nobody suggested anything remotely like either of those two
"examples" and I can barely justify giving them that designation.
The ridiculous examples I provided (and there were MEANT to be ridiculous)
were intended to give Arne, my impression of how ridiculous his *probabilty
problem* was and how ridiculous is 3:1 *fact* was. Sorry, my sarcasm was
lost on you.
>
But remember the posting below? Take a wild guess as to how your replies
have influenced his decision, or take a poll :-) How different it might
be if positive answers were given in both camps... like when Arne replied:
"But there are still a lot of VB.NET code out there now and will be too in
the future. I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project long
term."
Well, I will just say that I have not called Arne anything overtly insulting
or said anything rudely that wasn't unprovoked. If you want to talk about
the *tone*, I'm quite sure the scales tip in Arne's favor on the rudeness,
insulting and unprovoked verbal assault issues.
As to his statement about VB.NET being around for a while... Great he
thinks there is a futre for VB. So, what? None of what I have been
debating has been about that. Are you really going to make me say (for
what's got to be the 10th time by now), what my problem has been with his
comments?
Doesn't that seem reasonable?
How so, when it has nothing to do with what I've been discussing?
<begin quote>
Fact Poll
I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.
But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.
I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards
C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.
What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is
the
apparent emerging language today.
I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
I definately applaud you (being very sincere) for ending this obviously
unending debate and bringing the thead back to the OP.
If you are willing to listen to my *opinions* only.....
I started out as a teen learning BASIC by reverse engineering early DOS
based computer games. It started for me by looking at the code for any "3"
I could find. The point being that I was trying to figure out how to change
the amount of lives or turnes I could have before the game would end. Damn,
if there weren't a lot of "3"'s in the programming!!! But, through trial
and error, I not only found the right "3", but in the process began to
understand what the rest of the code was doing.
As, I'm sure you know, we are far from BASIC today. Just as VB .NET is
nowhere near the BASIC of old, I see VB.NET nowhere near the VB 6.0 of old.
It is true that the stigma many employers and Java and C and C++ developers
had against VB 6.0 has carried over to VB .NET (unjustifiably, I might
add). However, as we know VB.NET is now fully OOP and is capable of roughly
the same performance and power that C# has. I really do believe that as
more and more employers and non VB developers realized this, VB .NET will
only gain more market share.
I'm not sure if it was this thread that I mentioned it, but I own/operate an
IT training company, and am fortunate to work with several clients who see
this and have chosen VB .NET over C# as well as Java. Now, I know this is
not the norm, but the ease of VB.NET, or rather the shorter learning curve
when it comes to the language's syntax, make VB.NET appealing to companies
that use legacy VB versions. It's very hard to justify higher training
costs and lost productivity (going to C#) if your staff already has legacy
VB skills. Of course, not all companies had used a version of VB in the
past, so they may find that learning C# is more desireable because their
in-house skill set is more Java of C based.
My 2 cents (ok, it's got to be $2.53 by now).
Good luck!
>
mark b
<begin quote>
>>Which other reputable sources?
>>
Here are some of the common sources:
Local and US Chambers of Commerce.
Local and US restaurant & hospitality associations
Trade publications (ie. Nation's Restaurant News).
Hire a market research company to perform statistical analysis.
So local and US Chambers of Commerce agree on the 3:1 ratio of C# to
VB.Net jobs? Don't you see you've just listed some names along with "take
a poll" so that's all that is required to claim anything.
You had asked what reputable sources I have used in restaurant marketing
studies I've worked on. I gave you my answer. I don't understand why you
are now asking what this has to do with computer languages. Are you saying
that anything I list is just a list, so it can't be substantiated?
My list is made up of hospitality recognized and respected sources that
cover many aspects of the hospitality industry (not just one segment and not
just a limited part of just one segment).
>>Do you seriously think anybody posting here is going to fund a study?
No, but (for the last time as apparently no one wants to read my simple
point), don't presents facts as definitive, it they aren't. I never said
someone should fund a study for a newsgroup post, that was not the
question, nor was that my reply. Many studies are funded every day, by
people that want to know a reliable statistcial result.
Actually the fact is that many studies are funded every day which are
found to conclude the opposite of studies funded weeks or months earlier
or studies based upon a slightly different wording of the questions or
intended to make a very slightly different point.
The most "used" vs. the most "popular" vs. the most "powerful" vs. the
"easiest".
I'm not sure what your point is here. A scientific study is better than no
study at all. Arne has not provided any meaningfull study. It doesn't
follow the prescribed steps for creating a reliable sample.
>
>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
going to guess not.
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer is
no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think anybody
posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You didn't ask if
I would fund a study.
>I wasn't talking about any web site. I was talking about HR firms, such
as head-hunters. My point was they are not considered in any of the
"research" provided by anyone, which make the research incomplete and its
data suspect at best.
Of course they are included in the "research" by virtue of the fact most
of the job postings at major job sites are posted by head-hunters. There
are postings every day on behalf of huge corporations by small companies
that place people at those huge corporations.
What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something from
Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is really
just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know with any
certanty what the ratio is.
>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for senior
level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are making
yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job will be
found where).
>
>>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."
Again, that's not what I said in any way, shape or form.
And again nobody said anything about ginger ale, getting a cold from
toast, using the newspaper help wanted ads as an indication of anything
except you.
I've used my ginger ale and cold/toast alaogies as a farcical way to show
that Arne's *probability problem* was nonsence. As for no one else talking
about newspapers, head hunters and in-house listings, that's exacly my
point. That's what's wrong with the supposed tren (first offered and then
stated as fact). Don't you see that as kind of walking around with blinders
on?
>
>I felt I backed up my Wiki statement, but you have proved my wrong and I
accept that. No one, though, challenged by on the Wiki statement to go
and prove it. If they did, I would/should be the one to do the research,
not you.
Don't you see both Arne and I looked it up rather than "challenge you"
because it was in everybody's best interest to put a stop to the matter.
We wanted to help rather than be challenging. Given your quest for proof
I think it's fair to say we were both surprised by how easily it was to
find evidence.
But don't you see that you and Arne were presenting the information, not me?
The burden of disproof is not on me. If you make the statement, you need to
be prepared to back it up. The fact that you went and provided proof of
your statement is exacly what you should do to prove your point. You did
and I was wrong.
>
>>>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 :-)
Huh? You're saying that depending on what side of the issue someone
falls, only one group is responsible for providing credible proofs to
back up their statements? You can't be saying that, that's ridiculous.
Why would I say something like that? Clearly I'm saying that your belief
on the incumbancy of posters to provide credible proofs is the minority
opinion. Not a single other person has suggested (in any recent thread)
that "credible proofs" are missing. Most just say "thanks" and go on
their way.
But how many of those posts is a mistaken *fact* disputed. And since we are
not talking about which side of the VB.NET vs. C# fence (in this branch of
the thread) why would it matter? We're talking about someone providing
disputed facts. The dispute is not about the language, the dispute is about
the statistic. I've said all along that the C# backers may very well be
right.
The next time you answer a VB.Net question I'll be sure to ask you for
credible proofs and the results of a study.
If I present it as a definitive, undisputable fact, I'll be happy to provide
you with an MSDN link (can't get more authoritative the to hear it from the
horse's mouth). If I don't, I wouldn't expect you to accept it as anything
more than my opinion.
>Arne has provided no facts to support his 3:1. That's all I'm looking
for. I've said over and over that he may be right, just show me how you
support your conclusion and do it with an accepted method for coming up
with a valid statistic in this matter.
A major point isn't getting through... he is under no obligation to
provide any facts. He doesn't really care if you believe that he isn't
right or that you can point out the statistical flaw in his research.
What would he get out of it, your appreciation?
No, the point that's not getting through is that I don't care what Arne
thinks of me. The real fact here is that he is presenting an observation as
a fact and not providing anything to back it up. That's his right to do.
But something tells me that he does care, othewise why would he persist in
responding back and forth so much. I continue to respond, not for Arne's
sake, but to dispute his statement for others to read.
>Ok, so you've got me on Wiki. I think we can let that one go and address
the many other points I've made. But, again, you are making suggestions
about how I would react to hypothetical situations and, quite frankly,
I've given you no reason to think I'm biased about what a proper study
would find.
What about your toast/butter and cold example? Let me see if I can post
your statement to Arne verbatim:
"Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast
with
butter causes colds."
Did he give you a reason to suggest that would be reasonable? If on the
other hand he checked 3 very large job sites and of the people who
reported being sick 3 out of 4 had eaten a particular brand of butter I'd
say it might be a good idea to avoid it. Statistically valid or not the
number is too great to ignore and the odds of it being coincidence is very
low. It wouldn't warrant a product recall but it would behoove those
purchasing butter to reconsider despite a lack of information.
Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on the
matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and toast
scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed one) as a
fact.
>
>No, it would be 5 for 5 sites, not including all the other sources in the
"sample frame". And, as pointed out on your Wiki, if you don't have a
relevant sample frame, your analysis is not relevant.
It's not my Wiki but thanks for trying. :-)
Well, it was *your* Wiki post, not mine.
We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope. Of
course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not talking
about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not? By posting the
link, you indicate your feeling is "yes". As the article clearly states,
you need a reliable "sample frame" to get a reliable result. If you then
look at the definition of what a "sample frame" includes, it becomes
abundantly clear that Arne did not include enough on-line data and did not
look in any other potential areas where relevant data exists. It's NOT a
credible sample frame.
>"All the other sites" include many totally irrelevant sources and few care
if a small job board in No. Carolina has a Java position at a local high
school. People are interested in trends not absolute numbers.
You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a whole
segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right? :)
One doesn't learn a computer language or choose a career path based upon a
sample that includes small towns in Iowa unless one lives in a small town
in Iowa. They aren't the leading edge they are the trailing edge.
Failure to realize the direction software development is moving leaves one
in a support position as technology passes you by.
What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did small-towns
come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are making another
assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
So, now we have, at least two, assumptions that have affeted your sample
frame. Garbage in ... garbage out.
>You are making this way more compicated than it needs to be. A 3:1
statistic was offered as a valid value for C# to VB.NET jobs currently
available. An insufficient sample was used to get this and the presenter
of this information will not conceed this point nor will he change the
way in which his result was presented. That's the bottom line.
What you posted were these words exactly... that is the bottom line in
point of fact.
>Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go.
Like perhaps he ought get busy and get those number to you. Here is a
clue, he isn't going to.
If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does. But, no, he
won't. What he could have done is simple acknowledge his 3:1 is simply a
quick observation he made on some limited research he did? Would that have
been so hard to do, rather than persist that he has done a statistically
responsible poll and his stat. is a fact? That is the bottom line for me.
>
>Yes. And maybe they'll look not just at sites, since if that's all they
did, we'd still not have a good sample.
Right those newspaper ads for Senior Software Developers in Duluth, try
here: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/classifieds/
Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't know
unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are the only
person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software Developers. No one
(even Arne) said that this is what the stat. represents. Husan's original
message does not ask about Senior Software Developers.
So, again you are making another assumption, now that's, at least, three
that I count. Going back to the cited Wiki link as well as the first rule of
good polling, you must develop a specific question that you would like the
answer to before you can develop a reasonable sample frame. If you change
the objective of the poll AFTER the sample frame has been developed, you are
almost certain to get meaningless results. This is why professional
pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge amount of money, because the
know exactly how to phrase the question being asked of the respondant and
they know exactly how to build a reliable sample frame so they don't get
skewed data. They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this
affects the margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the
more specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although we
disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Please read, with your eyes open, what you are commenting on and I'd offer
some friendly advice that it's not really a good way to start a conversation
with an insult to someone you have never communicated with, who has never
said anythiing insulting about you.
Have a nice day!
"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@b75g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?
I dunno, maybe the number of job postings on said sites? Are you
really that obtuse that yo don't believe the biggest online job
posting sites are really the biggest online job posting sites?
>You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts
or
definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All
the
other people are irrelevant.
But if instead you ask the three major soda manufacturers, you'll get
a good idea. The smaller ones are irrelevant.
>What about all the people that don't drink cola at all (ie. the people
that
don't post all their jobs online or on these particular sites)?
Um, that's the point. Most people DO post their jobs on one of those
three sites. Especially in the technology field.
>Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying give me some credible proof
of
your statment(s).
My statements are not extraordinary, your contention however is, so
perhaps you should prove your point of view. Its kinda like asking me
to prove that McDonalds is the largest fast food company. You're the
one saying its not, so the burden of proof is on you.
I got you Cor. I indicated that the thread started as you say, but then
changed to something else (as happens).
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:O7**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Scott,
Maybe I am not writting forever clear, therefore I have to read it better.
I am sure that the OP is not asking about jobs, he is asking if there are
childness people who tell that C# is better than VB.Net just because of
the sound. It is remarkable that not one C# MVP is involved in this thread
and I agree with them.
Cor
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamschreef in bericht
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>Not quite Cor,
The first point of the thread was if there were more employers looking
for C# than for VB.NET. The rest of this mess was a dispute over
so-called factual statistics.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>Arne,
I did not follow the whole thread :-), are you proofing that VB.Net is
easier to learn than C# or that more people are doing it, and therefore
jobs can easier be fulfilled?
Cor
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschreef in bericht
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk.. .
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk ...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain
>>your reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you
>>were saying, just not why you said it).
>Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
>
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it
really seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs
more than once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more
than once and trying to get an accurate count of how many people
voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
>job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
>>
>
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy
of your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
>>>overlap.
>>Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the
>>C# jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only
>>30,000 of the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself
>>the job list is *not* distinctive. This only helps my point that
>>you'll have to look at a lot more sites to thin out this margin for
>>overlapped listings.
>You are being absurd.
>
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis
used by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to
disprove me is: "You are being absurd"?
>
Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that
you need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many
thousands of cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like
to hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
Not much point.
In another post you changed your mind and stated that it was not the
count but the sampling.
>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
>do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
>tell you !
>
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then
please do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where
your answer came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all
the *facts* you have presented.
You are welcome to believe that it is a common case that jobs are
posted in both US, UK and Germany.
But it should be obvious that it is not the case.
>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
>duplication depends on the language.
>
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a
*fact*.
Almost anything is possible.
I just go for what is likely.
>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
>>>>actually out there?
>>>Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
>>So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the
>>non-online posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did
>>you do that?
>Again.
>
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
I wrote about things being independent and again below.
>I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
>distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
>
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
It does not make any sense that there should be a correlation
between media and and language.
>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
>>>than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
>>>non existing.
>>Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
>Do the math yourself.
>
>If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
>getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
>
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If*
followed by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
I just choose the one most negative to me.
If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability
of rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based
on a made up scenario.
Yes. But not much relevance.
>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>>>>>got my point.
>>>>Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
>>>>stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
>>>>statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
>>>>statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
>>>Well - I have provided lots of facts.
>>Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm
>>too stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people
>>use?
>No.
>
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only
opinions.
I think that is a lie.
I gave you numbers.
You just don't think the numbers are representative, but that does
not change that they are fact.
>
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and
facts. But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel
without any credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you
have begun to present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts*
that support your first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario
above).
You apparently did not understand the probability challenge.
Or did not want to, because it makes many of your previous
posts look rather silly.
Arne
Scott M. wrote:
>>Ooh, another *fact*! Dare I ask what your source is for that statment?
Since you apparently either are not capable of or to lazy to Google:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty.../2005/12/69844
Ok, nice substantiation. That point conceeded. And thanks for the nice
insults right off the bat. I had thought that I repeatedly indicated that I
wasn't going to dig up proof for your statements, since I have made no
claims.
That is where you do not understand usenet.
You are not supposed to get everything delivered gift wrapped - you
will get hints and supposed to do your own research.
>>Hello? You haven't gotten what I'm saying at all. Because it is a
newsgroup, don't present data as if it were from a white-paper when it's
just your own, non-scientific research.
It should be rather obvious from the post that it was my research.
How so? Your words exactly were that 3 site, do a trend make. You never
said, "this is what I found, take it for what it is".
No - and ?
I do not see much point in writing that numbers in a post
of mine is found my me - obvious they are.
And I can not really see any point in write a "take it for what
it is worth clause". That would apply to all usenet posts.
>Unless the sample selection was fixed, then the samples are more
than statistically significant.
You aren't even reading my replies anymore. That statement is completely
false.
No it is obvious true.
If the sample selection is good then the sample size makes it
very significant.
Try calculate a t-statistics on it.
Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast with
butter causes colds.
Ridiculous example again.
But I will try again: if 3/4 out of a sample of 40000 people eat
toast with peanut butter and get a cold the next day, then I would
conclude that there were a causality.
Where, exactly, did I say it was very big compared to most samples? I said
no such thing. And, when you attempted to I corrected you. I'm saying it's
skewed BECAUSE it's too small.
1) 40000 is a big sample.
2) A small sample is not skewed, but may be insignificant. Big
difference.
Arne
Scott M. wrote:
>The next time you answer a VB.Net question I'll be sure to ask you for
credible proofs and the results of a study.
If I present it as a definitive, undisputable fact, I'll be happy to provide
you with an MSDN link (can't get more authoritative the to hear it from the
horse's mouth). If I don't, I wouldn't expect you to accept it as anything
more than my opinion.
You could start by substantiating these snippets from your various
posts:
1)
#Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go
I really think we need to see the list of 435000 job sites.
2)
#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I would also really like to see a source for that.
>>Arne has provided no facts to support his 3:1. That's all I'm looking
for. I've said over and over that he may be right, just show me how you
support your conclusion and do it with an accepted method for coming up
with a valid statistic in this matter.
A major point isn't getting through... he is under no obligation to
provide any facts. He doesn't really care if you believe that he isn't
right or that you can point out the statistical flaw in his research.
What would he get out of it, your appreciation?
No, the point that's not getting through is that I don't care what Arne
thinks of me. The real fact here is that he is presenting an observation as
a fact and not providing anything to back it up. That's his right to do.
But something tells me that he does care, othewise why would he persist in
responding back and forth so much. I continue to respond, not for Arne's
sake, but to dispute his statement for others to read.
First of all : I did provide something. That you do not believe in it
does not make it nothing.
"not providing anything to back it up" is a plain simple lie.
>What about your toast/butter and cold example? Let me see if I can post
your statement to Arne verbatim:
"Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast
with
butter causes colds."
Did he give you a reason to suggest that would be reasonable? If on the
other hand he checked 3 very large job sites and of the people who
reported being sick 3 out of 4 had eaten a particular brand of butter I'd
say it might be a good idea to avoid it. Statistically valid or not the
number is too great to ignore and the odds of it being coincidence is very
low. It wouldn't warrant a product recall but it would behoove those
purchasing butter to reconsider despite a lack of information.
Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*.
No it is not an opinion.
It is extremely strong statistical evidence.
Arne
Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
I did not follow the whole thread :-), are you proofing that VB.Net is
easier to learn than C# or that more people are doing it, and therefore jobs
can easier be fulfilled?
Someone asked the classic C# versus VB.NET question.
As part of a relative neutral answer I mentioned that
job adds are distributed about 3:1 between C# and VB.NET.
I was asked whether I had checked all jobs.
I explained that I had used the search function and
gave numbers from 3 major job sites in US, UK and Germany.
And Scott has then tried in a lot of posts
to convince me that that does not prove anything.
And let us just say that I do not buy his arguments.
Arne
Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
I am sure that the OP is not asking about jobs, he is asking if there are
childness people who tell that C# is better than VB.Net just because of the
sound.
He was asking about whether people were turning away from VB.NET.
Quote:
#I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
#- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.
I replied that VB.NET would be around for many years.
But I also noted the job market stats, which started this
long thread.
I considered it relevant for the question. Well - I still do.
I will not recommend people choosing language from job
statistics, but that is the posters decision, and wanted
to provide the info.
Arne
Scott M. wrote:
>>I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than
once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once
and trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted.
It indicates that the 3 sites has a much higher share than you
indicate when you talk about 3 out of thousands.
Check your math Arne, it does the exact opposite of that. If we have
multiple listings for the same job, then we have an even smaller pool of
distinct jobs, meaning we now need to look in other (more) places to get the
pool size up since we don't want to count the same job twice.
You have missed the point.
There are little overlap between my samples because they
are in different countries.
There are huge overlaps between job sites within
same country.
And that means that number of jobs in my sample / number of
total jobs is bigger than number of sites in my sample / number
of total sites.
>Because my samples was chosen to have minimal overlap due to being
in different countries.
Perhaps, but even still, they do not represent all the places where jobs can
be found: not nearly all the sites and none of the non-online places.
Either way, your sample is too small.
40000 is not too small.
>>>The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
It reduces the total number of jobs the samples should be compared to.
Correct! Meaning we don't have a large enough sample.
Nonsense.
Reducing the total makes the sample relative bigger.
>>>I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
So, which is it? Are there lots of duplicates (which you just agreed there
were, here in this post) or are their not a lot of duplicates? Either way,
for the reasons I've been repeating over and over, you still don't have a
good sample.
Try read my posts again. Or read above for a quick summary.
>I just go for what is likely.
THANK YOU, you admit your 3:1 is not a fact
It is statistics.
Try testing the probability of X:1 from the data and reject
all less likely that 0.0001% and tell me what X you end up with ?
It will be very close to 3.
>>>Do the math yourself.
If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed
by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.
You can try it with any probability distribution where P(C#)>P(VB.NET).
Sure, but you are manufacturing an equation to suit your supposition.
The numbers are the facts.
The math is standard statistics.
Nothing manufactured.
I
gave you my dice supposition, but it hardly makes it reliable.
It was very reliable. But it was not relevant. Different thing.
>>Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
I think that is a lie.
But you won't be clear as to why.
I gave you the reason in the next line you quoted.
>I gave you numbers.
Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
sample group), yes.
I find it hard to take someone not capable of distinguishing between
no facts and insufficient facts serious.
Arne
Oh m'gosh Scott I thought this was over and here you go again.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
going to guess not.
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer is
no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think
anybody posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You
didn't ask if I would fund a study.
Alright but I would have thought the part you quoted (included here as well)
where I ask "Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was
unfounded?" right after I asked the question you just confirmed would be
sufficient proof.
What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something
from Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is
really just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know
with any certanty what the ratio is.
Most if you'll accept the Free Online Dictionary's definition
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most) means the greatest in number. I've
searched the sites on a regular basis and if "respond to" is any indication
(and who knows perhaps companies are making it up) they are most often
directed to recruiting firms intent on filling a position (for a commission)
and not directly to the company offering the position. It is intended to
help filter out the totally unqualified respondents but again I have no
direct proof of this (merely my conversations with recruiters) so perhaps it
is because people have nothing better to do or their friends do it or
because they are mentally ill. It calls for another survey and when I can
raise the money (from an unbiased source) I'll get back to you with the
results.
Dice BTW had 95,786 jobs posted as of 3/1/07 with 37,781 contract positions
and 65,075 permanent. 18,290 mentioned C/C++ as necessary skills. As of
4/2/07 the skills most in demand included J2EE/Java followed by C/C++.
>>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for
senior level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are
making yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job
will be found where).
Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal has weighed in: http://wsj.consumersearch.com/intern...es/review.html
Perhaps you are concluding there are no studies because you personally
haven't read them but I'll go out on a limb and say yes, the CEO position
for the top 100 U.S. Corporations will not be posted in the help wanted
section of the local newspaper or posted on the cork board outside Hank's
market.
Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on the
matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and toast
scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed one) as
a fact.
They are not the same thing. Citing 3 friends who like a flavor of soda is
no where near the same as 3 out of 4 total strangers on randomly chosen job
sites reporting being sick after eating the same brand of some food. You
seem to be claiming the results should be considered "as relevant" and they
surely should not. When reports of tainted dog food came out recently did
you rush out and buy more of the suspected food to give to your pets citing
the lack of conclusive evidence? Would you have done so if 3 of your
friends said that their pets didn't die? The value of the information is
not the same.
>We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope.
Of course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not
talking about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not?
So this is all part of a scientific poll? I think you've mistakenly
connected to the Internet when you thought you were in a statistics course
at MIT.
You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a whole
segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right? :)
Read the reports at DICE and tell them they don't understand how the job
count in New York City (along with the other 9 cities they list as the top
tech job markets) is uninformed. Explain they didn't take Heart Butte,
Montana into consideration. With a population of 692 they might all be
VB.Net developers for gosh sake, you have to phone them to know for certain.
What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did
small-towns come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are
making another assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
Jobs at the Los Angeles Times are listed here on CareerBuilder.Com: http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...229563708-WP-2
If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does.
Uhh. no he doesn't.
Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't
know unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are
the only person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software Developers.
No one (even Arne) said that this is what the stat. represents. Husan's
original message does not ask about Senior Software Developers.
Right, you got me the Duluth paper was filled with job openings for VB
developers. There was the "garage mechanic needed" and then 35 positions
around town for VB and VB.Net not a one for C#. Are you crediting Husan
with starting the thread now?
This is why professional pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge
amount of money, because the know exactly how to phrase the question being
asked of the respondant and they know exactly how to build a reliable
sample frame so they don't get skewed data.
On the accuracy of polls and surveys (as published in Science magazine): http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/A...nd_Surveys.pdf
Columbia News reports "markets show greater accuracy than polls" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/10/markets.html
They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this affects the
margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the more
specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although we
disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Fair enough.
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
RobinS <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
<snip>
>I found this interesting, because of this article, published in the UK,
but
written by a guy in San Francisco:
=============
Visual Basic is one of the World's - and certainly one of Microsoft's -
most widely used programming languages. Sixty two per cent of developers
use Visual Basic, while 37 per cent of big businesses specifically use
Visual Basic.NET - launched for Microsoft's .NET architecture. Visual
Basic
has a solid following that, over the years, has forced Microsoft to
re-think aspects of the .NET roadmap.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ic_mono_linux/
=============
I'd love to know more about how these figures break down. I suspect
there are plenty of people who develop software as *part* of their jobs
who use VB, but I suspect that if you restricted the survey to those
who are full-time developers, the story would be significantly
different.
Do you mean you think the numbers would be much lower?
I'd like to know where they *got* those figures, because I certainly
haven't seen it reflected in the job market in the SF Bay Area.
I suspect there are many people like my father, who put
together VB programs as part of a job which would never normally be
called a development role, but who would count himself as a VB
developer. I suspect things would also change if you looked at people
developing "shrink-wrap" applications vs those developing "in-house"
business applications.
Do you suspect "shink-wrap" are done in C#, and in-house are in VB? That
would be my expectation.
Now, my paragraph above was mostly thinking of VB6, rather than VB.NET.
My guess (and all of these suggestions are just guesses and suspicions)
is that VB.NET has made more of an impact on the full-time developer
than VB6 did - although it would be interesting to see how many people
went from, say, Java to VB.NET compared with those going from VB6 to
C#. (I've heard of various people doing the latter, but none doing the
former. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't heard about them.)
I think there was a lot of VB6 usage by people writing in-house business
apps for small divisions. That's what my last two jobs were. The apps are
still running, and there is no interest in converting them to .Net because
they run just fine. It was easier for people to take up VB6 than VB.Net, so
I think there are a lot more "fly by the seat of your pants" applications
written in VB6 than anybody knows of.
None of this prevents VB.NET from being a perfectly viable language, of
course. I happen to prefer C# in various ways, but that's a different
matter.
I use whichever one has the most interesting job, and there seem to be more
interesting jobs with C#, so that's the way I'm going these days. But I
like VB, too. :-)
Robin S.
RobinS <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
I'd love to know more about how these figures break down. I suspect
there are plenty of people who develop software as *part* of their jobs
who use VB, but I suspect that if you restricted the survey to those
who are full-time developers, the story would be significantly
different.
Do you mean you think the numbers would be much lower?
Yes.
I'd like to know where they *got* those figures, because I certainly
haven't seen it reflected in the job market in the SF Bay Area.
Well, total number of employed people isn't necessarily reflected by
number of open jobs, of course - but I guess a lot of these jobs
wouldn't be advertised as VB jobs in themselves.
I suspect there are many people like my father, who put
together VB programs as part of a job which would never normally be
called a development role, but who would count himself as a VB
developer. I suspect things would also change if you looked at people
developing "shrink-wrap" applications vs those developing "in-house"
business applications.
Do you suspect "shink-wrap" are done in C#, and in-house are in VB? That
would be my expectation.
Yes - although I suspect that actually native code is still just about
ahead of both. Complete guess though.
Now, my paragraph above was mostly thinking of VB6, rather than VB.NET.
My guess (and all of these suggestions are just guesses and suspicions)
is that VB.NET has made more of an impact on the full-time developer
than VB6 did - although it would be interesting to see how many people
went from, say, Java to VB.NET compared with those going from VB6 to
C#. (I've heard of various people doing the latter, but none doing the
former. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't heard about them.)
I think there was a lot of VB6 usage by people writing in-house business
apps for small divisions. That's what my last two jobs were. The apps are
still running, and there is no interest in converting them to .Net because
they run just fine. It was easier for people to take up VB6 than VB.Net, so
I think there are a lot more "fly by the seat of your pants" applications
written in VB6 than anybody knows of.
That's certainly the impression that's around in the industry - and the
one that serious VB developers have always been trying to get rid of,
understandably.
None of this prevents VB.NET from being a perfectly viable language, of
course. I happen to prefer C# in various ways, but that's a different
matter.
I use whichever one has the most interesting job, and there seem to be more
interesting jobs with C#, so that's the way I'm going these days. But I
like VB, too. :-)
I don't like the fact that there's so much library within the language,
as it were. I like a reasonably small language which is then used with
a large library.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
dim A
dim B
A = "5"
B = 1
What is A + B? What is B + A? With Option Strict Off, A+B and B+A may or
may not return the same value. Sometimes you'll get the number 6,
othertimes you'll throw an exception. With Option Strict On, the compiler
won't allow the addition, or, even the initial variable declarations since
they don't specify the data type. I have actually had programs fail in VB 6
because of this particular coding error. Option Strict On simply won't
allow it, which is why I feel this should have been the out of the box
default.
Mike Ober.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:Op**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Can you be more specific about how VB.NET makes casting decisions for you?
With Option Strict On, I don't think it does, due to "widening conversion"
and "narrowing conversion".
"Sir C4" <Va*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com...
>>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.
By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like
that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just
pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't (as
long as Option Strict is on).
True, but Basic also makes a lot of assumptions for you, like with
casting. Basic will guess what it thinks you mean, yet c# you have to
tell it. I first noticed this with trying to calculate a percent. In
basic is was simple integer division. In c#, integer division gave
different results. It wasn't until I cast them as doubles did I get
the result I was looking for. That's more what I meant by forcing you
to be explicit with your coding.
With Option Strict On, the compiler won't allow the addition, or, even the
initial variable declarations since they don't specify the data type.
Actually, I think this particular issue is not allowed with Option Explicit
being Off. It's default value is On, however. MS finially figured out that
it was better to enforce Option Explicit from the start (after many years of
it being Off by default in VB <= 6. I just wish they used the same logic
with Option Strict.
You don't want answers to your questions? Then why ask them?
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:uF****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Oh m'gosh Scott I thought this was over and here you go again.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
going to guess not.
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer is
no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think
anybody posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You
didn't ask if I would fund a study.
Alright but I would have thought the part you quoted (included here as
well) where I ask "Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was
unfounded?" right after I asked the question you just confirmed would be
sufficient proof.
>What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something
from Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is
really just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know
with any certanty what the ratio is.
Most if you'll accept the Free Online Dictionary's definition
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most) means the greatest in number.
I've searched the sites on a regular basis and if "respond to" is any
indication (and who knows perhaps companies are making it up) they are
most often directed to recruiting firms intent on filling a position (for
a commission) and not directly to the company offering the position. It
is intended to help filter out the totally unqualified respondents but
again I have no direct proof of this (merely my conversations with
recruiters) so perhaps it is because people have nothing better to do or
their friends do it or because they are mentally ill. It calls for
another survey and when I can raise the money (from an unbiased source)
I'll get back to you with the results.
Dice BTW had 95,786 jobs posted as of 3/1/07 with 37,781 contract
positions and 65,075 permanent. 18,290 mentioned C/C++ as necessary
skills. As of 4/2/07 the skills most in demand included J2EE/Java
followed by C/C++.
>>>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of
data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for
senior level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are
making yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job
will be found where).
Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal has weighed in:
http://wsj.consumersearch.com/intern...es/review.html
Perhaps you are concluding there are no studies because you personally
haven't read them but I'll go out on a limb and say yes, the CEO position
for the top 100 U.S. Corporations will not be posted in the help wanted
section of the local newspaper or posted on the cork board outside Hank's
market.
>Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on
the matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and
toast scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed
one) as a fact.
They are not the same thing. Citing 3 friends who like a flavor of soda
is no where near the same as 3 out of 4 total strangers on randomly chosen
job sites reporting being sick after eating the same brand of some food.
You seem to be claiming the results should be considered "as relevant" and
they surely should not. When reports of tainted dog food came out
recently did you rush out and buy more of the suspected food to give to
your pets citing the lack of conclusive evidence? Would you have done so
if 3 of your friends said that their pets didn't die? The value of the
information is not the same.
>>We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope.
Of course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not
talking about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not?
So this is all part of a scientific poll? I think you've mistakenly
connected to the Internet when you thought you were in a statistics course
at MIT.
>You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a
whole segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right?
:)
Read the reports at DICE and tell them they don't understand how the job
count in New York City (along with the other 9 cities they list as the top
tech job markets) is uninformed. Explain they didn't take Heart Butte,
Montana into consideration. With a population of 692 they might all be
VB.Net developers for gosh sake, you have to phone them to know for
certain.
>What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did
small-towns come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are
making another assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
Jobs at the Los Angeles Times are listed here on CareerBuilder.Com:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...229563708-WP-2
>If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does.
Uhh. no he doesn't.
>Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't
know unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are
the only person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software Developers.
No one (even Arne) said that this is what the stat. represents. Husan's
original message does not ask about Senior Software Developers.
Right, you got me the Duluth paper was filled with job openings for VB
developers. There was the "garage mechanic needed" and then 35 positions
around town for VB and VB.Net not a one for C#. Are you crediting Husan
with starting the thread now?
>This is why professional pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge
amount of money, because the know exactly how to phrase the question
being asked of the respondant and they know exactly how to build a
reliable sample frame so they don't get skewed data.
On the accuracy of polls and surveys (as published in Science magazine):
http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/A...nd_Surveys.pdf
Columbia News reports "markets show greater accuracy than polls"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/10/markets.html
>They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this affects the
margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the more
specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although we
disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Fair enough.
1)
>
#Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go
I really think we need to see the list of 435000 job sites.
I was being facesous, since 3 is clearly an insignificant number compared to
the many many job search sites out there, but here's enough to prove my
piont: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jo...e=utf8&oe=utf8
(Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800,000 for "job search". (0.14 seconds) )
2)
#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I would also really like to see a source for that.
Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...e=utf8&oe=utf8 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/25...ipedia-round-2
>Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*.
No it is not an opinion.
It is extremely strong statistical evidence.
No, it's anecdotal evidence.
Ancecdotal Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Statistical Evidence: http://www.stat.brown.edu/~jblume/sl...ides_ucinn.pdf
Now (for the last time for me), I will repeat that you your sample data is
limited (because of the redundancy in the data) and your sample frame is
skewed because it does not contain enough of the job search sources.
And, if you don't believe that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_method
>Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
>sample group), yes.
I find it hard to take someone not capable of distinguishing between
no facts and insufficient facts serious.
The numbers are the facts.
The math is standard statistics.
Nothing manufactured.
Well, that's very interesting, since the link I posted earlier
( http://www.stat.brown.edu/~jblume/sl...des_ucinn.pdf), written by
those uninformed folks at the little known Brown University seem to agree
with me and not with you about how to look at a sample and determine its
reliability.
Bye
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
I was being facesous, since 3 is clearly an insignificant number compared
to the many many job search sites out there, but here's enough to prove my
piont:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jo...e=utf8&oe=utf8
(Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800,000 for "job search". (0.14 seconds) )
You're doing yourself a huge disservice (I believe) when you post such
things. You have done a keyword search (look it up) and are trying to claim
the number returned is more than how many times it found that key word. It
is returning sites such as the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers,
bloggers and even newsgroup postings where people have used the words "job
search". They aren't job placement agencies.
>#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...e=utf8&oe=utf8
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/25...ipedia-round-2
A quick check of the story reveals you have distorted (and I'll guess
purposefully) what occurred. There are claims being made and being
investigated which label a fact. The data in question was being challenged
and apparently nobody was addressing valid points about a bias in certain
articles favoring open source.
You wrote "here's enough to prove my piont (sic)" a point afterall that
suggests facts should be backed up with evidence and proceed to use the
keyword search result (of a single search engine) to prove it. How ironic.
I think we all want answers... do you think Dice can't produce accurate
reports on job opportunities? You seem to think that somebody else started
the thread. Do you think Science magazine didn't do their research on the
accuracy of polls and surveys?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
You don't want answers to your questions? Then why ask them?
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:uF****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>Oh m'gosh Scott I thought this was over and here you go again.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
>going to guess not.
>
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer
is no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think
anybody posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You
didn't ask if I would fund a study.
Alright but I would have thought the part you quoted (included here as
well) where I ask "Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was
unfounded?" right after I asked the question you just confirmed would be
sufficient proof.
>>What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something
from Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is
really just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know
with any certanty what the ratio is.
Most if you'll accept the Free Online Dictionary's definition
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most) means the greatest in number.
I've searched the sites on a regular basis and if "respond to" is any
indication (and who knows perhaps companies are making it up) they are
most often directed to recruiting firms intent on filling a position (for
a commission) and not directly to the company offering the position. It
is intended to help filter out the totally unqualified respondents but
again I have no direct proof of this (merely my conversations with
recruiters) so perhaps it is because people have nothing better to do or
their friends do it or because they are mentally ill. It calls for
another survey and when I can raise the money (from an unbiased source)
I'll get back to you with the results.
Dice BTW had 95,786 jobs posted as of 3/1/07 with 37,781 contract
positions and 65,075 permanent. 18,290 mentioned C/C++ as necessary
skills. As of 4/2/07 the skills most in demand included J2EE/Java
followed by C/C++.
>>>>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of
data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for
senior level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are
making yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job
will be found where).
Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal has weighed in:
http://wsj.consumersearch.com/intern...es/review.html
Perhaps you are concluding there are no studies because you personally
haven't read them but I'll go out on a limb and say yes, the CEO position
for the top 100 U.S. Corporations will not be posted in the help wanted
section of the local newspaper or posted on the cork board outside Hank's
market.
>>Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it
is not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on
the matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and
toast scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed
one) as a fact.
They are not the same thing. Citing 3 friends who like a flavor of soda
is no where near the same as 3 out of 4 total strangers on randomly
chosen job sites reporting being sick after eating the same brand of some
food. You seem to be claiming the results should be considered "as
relevant" and they surely should not. When reports of tainted dog food
came out recently did you rush out and buy more of the suspected food to
give to your pets citing the lack of conclusive evidence? Would you have
done so if 3 of your friends said that their pets didn't die? The value
of the information is not the same.
>>>We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope.
Of course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not
talking about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not?
So this is all part of a scientific poll? I think you've mistakenly
connected to the Internet when you thought you were in a statistics
course at MIT.
>>You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a
whole segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right?
:)
Read the reports at DICE and tell them they don't understand how the job
count in New York City (along with the other 9 cities they list as the
top tech job markets) is uninformed. Explain they didn't take Heart
Butte, Montana into consideration. With a population of 692 they might
all be VB.Net developers for gosh sake, you have to phone them to know
for certain.
>>What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did
small-towns come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are
making another assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
Jobs at the Los Angeles Times are listed here on CareerBuilder.Com:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...229563708-WP-2
>>If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does.
Uhh. no he doesn't.
>>Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't
know unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are
the only person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software
Developers. No one (even Arne) said that this is what the stat.
represents. Husan's original message does not ask about Senior Software
Developers.
Right, you got me the Duluth paper was filled with job openings for VB
developers. There was the "garage mechanic needed" and then 35 positions
around town for VB and VB.Net not a one for C#. Are you crediting Husan
with starting the thread now?
>>This is why professional pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge
amount of money, because the know exactly how to phrase the question
being asked of the respondant and they know exactly how to build a
reliable sample frame so they don't get skewed data.
On the accuracy of polls and surveys (as published in Science magazine):
http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/A...nd_Surveys.pdf
Columbia News reports "markets show greater accuracy than polls"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/10/markets.html
>>They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this affects the
margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the more
specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although
we disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Fair enough.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
>>Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
sample group), yes.
I find it hard to take someone not capable of distinguishing between
no facts and insufficient facts serious.
>The numbers are the facts.
>The math is standard statistics.
>Nothing manufactured.
Well, that's very interesting, since the link I posted earlier
(http://www.stat.brown.edu/~jblume/sl...des_ucinn.pdf), written by
those uninformed folks at the little known Brown University seem to agree
with me and not with you about how to look at a sample and determine its
reliability.
As with so many of your tongue-in-cheek responses we can't tell when you are
being serious. The butter one, the attack on Wikipedia, change your mind
cite it but then site it as a source, etc. The paper you have referenced
was not written by "those uniformed folks... Brown University". Again
rather than stick to simple facts you distort them in some lame attempt to
seem more right. You are doing the equivalent of what you claim some
consultant did on Wikipedia, altering the facts to suit you.
The slides are the output of an Assistant Professor at Brown (he is also
co-founder of Analytical Edge) but not by "Brown University". It is
significant in it's own right but no more accurate to say "Harvard doesn't
believe in the Holocaust" if one of it's professors writes a paper disputing
it. Try to stick to facts when trying to persuade people to stick to facts.
When all is said and done you haven't answered one question. If the reports
of poisoned dog food have no statistical evidence of being factual are you
still buying those brands of dogfood? Or (because you will avoid the
questions and simply state you don't have a dog) would you buy the dogfood
if you did have a dog?
Would you have any hesitation to visit a city in foreign country where 120
tourists were killed in the last 12 months? In lieu of a study would you
say there is no evidence to prove you are in any danger? Yes of course you
would say that... now would you actually visit the place? How about 240
tourists killed in 6 months?
Wouldn't the available facts suggest you should personally eat the possibly
tainted dogfood while visiting that town?
Scott M. wrote:
>1)
#Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go
I really think we need to see the list of 435000 job sites.
I was being facesous, since 3 is clearly an insignificant number compared to
the many many job search sites out there, but here's enough to prove my
piont:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jo...e=utf8&oe=utf8
(Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800,000 for "job search". (0.14 seconds) )
And you mean that google search say that there are 435000 job sites ?
That does not seem obvious to me.
The number 435000 does not appear when I search.
And I can not see any way of getting from 21800000 (actually
I get 23900000 but ...) to 435000.
Not in any way substantiating facts of what you said.
>2)
#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I would also really like to see a source for that.
Here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...e=utf8&oe=utf8
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/25...ipedia-round-2
If you bother reading the article then you would have read
that it was about office file format not about Java versus .NET !
Not in any way substantiating facts of what you said.
Arne
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:OP**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
>I was being facesous, since 3 is clearly an insignificant number compared
to the many many job search sites out there, but here's enough to prove
my piont:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jo...e=utf8&oe=utf8
(Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800,000 for "job search". (0.14 seconds) )
You're doing yourself a huge disservice (I believe) when you post such
things. You have done a keyword search (look it up) and are trying to
claim the number returned is more than how many times it found that key
word. It is returning sites such as the Wall Street Journal and other
newspapers, bloggers and even newsgroup postings where people have used
the words "job search". They aren't job placement agencies.
>>#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
>http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...e=utf8&oe=utf8
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/25...ipedia-round-2
A quick check of the story reveals you have distorted (and I'll guess
purposefully) what occurred. There are claims being made and being
investigated which label a fact. The data in question was being
challenged and apparently nobody was addressing valid points about a bias
in certain articles favoring open source.
You wrote "here's enough to prove my piont (sic)" a point afterall that
suggests facts should be backed up with evidence and proceed to use the
keyword search result (of a single search engine) to prove it. How
ironic.
So, you'd say my sample frame was flawed then? How ironic. Not too mention
that I never presented this as undisputable fact, did I? And, based on your
reply, I guess you just proved my point! :)
>
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>>1)
#Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go
I really think we need to see the list of 435000 job sites.
I was being facesous, since 3 is clearly an insignificant number compared
to the many many job search sites out there, but here's enough to prove
my piont:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jo...e=utf8&oe=utf8
(Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800,000 for "job search". (0.14 seconds) )
And you mean that google search say that there are 435000 job sites ?
That does not seem obvious to me.
The number 435000 does not appear when I search.
And I can not see any way of getting from 21800000 (actually
I get 23900000 but ...) to 435000.
Not in any way substantiating facts of what you said.
See my reply to Tom on this.
>
>>2)
#Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter
Wiki
#posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
#benefits of .NET vs. Java?
I would also really like to see a source for that.
Here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...e=utf8&oe=utf8
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/25...ipedia-round-2
If you bother reading the article then you would have read
that it was about office file format not about Java versus .NET !
Not in any way substantiating facts of what you said.
And this relates to the point that Wiki can be changed by anyone and
therefore I don't like it? You have now changed your tactics away from the
point at hand, did MS pay (or attempt to pay) to have Wiki altered?
And how does my being incorrect about the topic of what was changed (but not
my main point in bringing Wiki up) relate to your *statistics*?
I've noticed that those who change the subject in mid-thread away from thier
assertions to something that is not the topic being discussed and dwell on
insignificant things that do not advance their case have done so because
they don't have anything credible to offer on their original point.
>
Arne
I also noticed that you didn't comment on my other reply to you about what
statistical evidence actually is. As I just pointed out, it's probably
because you haven't found a way to dispute it, so you change the topic.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
You don't want answers to your questions? Then why ask them?
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:uF****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>Oh m'gosh Scott I thought this was over and here you go again.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
>going to guess not.
>
You guessed wrong.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer
is no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think
anybody posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You
didn't ask if I would fund a study.
Alright but I would have thought the part you quoted (included here as
well) where I ask "Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was
unfounded?" right after I asked the question you just confirmed would be
sufficient proof.
>>What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something
from Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is
really just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know
with any certanty what the ratio is.
Most if you'll accept the Free Online Dictionary's definition
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most) means the greatest in number.
I've searched the sites on a regular basis and if "respond to" is any
indication (and who knows perhaps companies are making it up) they are
most often directed to recruiting firms intent on filling a position (for
a commission) and not directly to the company offering the position. It
is intended to help filter out the totally unqualified respondents but
again I have no direct proof of this (merely my conversations with
recruiters) so perhaps it is because people have nothing better to do or
their friends do it or because they are mentally ill. It calls for
another survey and when I can raise the money (from an unbiased source)
I'll get back to you with the results.
Dice BTW had 95,786 jobs posted as of 3/1/07 with 37,781 contract
positions and 65,075 permanent. 18,290 mentioned C/C++ as necessary
skills. As of 4/2/07 the skills most in demand included J2EE/Java
followed by C/C++.
>>>>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of
data.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for
senior level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are
making yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job
will be found where).
Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal has weighed in:
http://wsj.consumersearch.com/intern...es/review.html
Perhaps you are concluding there are no studies because you personally
haven't read them but I'll go out on a limb and say yes, the CEO position
for the top 100 U.S. Corporations will not be posted in the help wanted
section of the local newspaper or posted on the cork board outside Hank's
market.
>>Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it
is not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on
the matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and
toast scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed
one) as a fact.
They are not the same thing. Citing 3 friends who like a flavor of soda
is no where near the same as 3 out of 4 total strangers on randomly
chosen job sites reporting being sick after eating the same brand of some
food. You seem to be claiming the results should be considered "as
relevant" and they surely should not. When reports of tainted dog food
came out recently did you rush out and buy more of the suspected food to
give to your pets citing the lack of conclusive evidence? Would you have
done so if 3 of your friends said that their pets didn't die? The value
of the information is not the same.
>>>We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope.
Of course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not
talking about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not?
So this is all part of a scientific poll? I think you've mistakenly
connected to the Internet when you thought you were in a statistics
course at MIT.
>>You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a
whole segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right?
:)
Read the reports at DICE and tell them they don't understand how the job
count in New York City (along with the other 9 cities they list as the
top tech job markets) is uninformed. Explain they didn't take Heart
Butte, Montana into consideration. With a population of 692 they might
all be VB.Net developers for gosh sake, you have to phone them to know
for certain.
>>What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did
small-towns come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are
making another assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
Jobs at the Los Angeles Times are listed here on CareerBuilder.Com:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...229563708-WP-2
>>If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does.
Uhh. no he doesn't.
>>Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't
know unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are
the only person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software
Developers. No one (even Arne) said that this is what the stat.
represents. Husan's original message does not ask about Senior Software
Developers.
Right, you got me the Duluth paper was filled with job openings for VB
developers. There was the "garage mechanic needed" and then 35 positions
around town for VB and VB.Net not a one for C#. Are you crediting Husan
with starting the thread now?
>>This is why professional pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge
amount of money, because the know exactly how to phrase the question
being asked of the respondant and they know exactly how to build a
reliable sample frame so they don't get skewed data.
On the accuracy of polls and surveys (as published in Science magazine):
http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/A...nd_Surveys.pdf
Columbia News reports "markets show greater accuracy than polls"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/10/markets.html
>>They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this affects the
margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the more
specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although
we disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Fair enough.
I also noticed that you didn't comment on my other reply to you about what
statistical evidence actually is. As I just pointed out, it's probably
because you haven't found a way to dispute it, so you change the topic.
What does this have to do with you chastising me for giving you an answer to
a question you asked?
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:Oy**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I think we all want answers... do you think Dice can't produce accurate
reports on job opportunities?
No, I don't.
You seem to think that somebody else started the thread.
Yes, Arne did.
Do you think Science magazine didn't do their research on the accuracy of
polls and surveys?
Did I say that?
Since you and Arne continue to respond with everything you can think of
EXCEPT for addressing what I have stated about Arne's post; it's clear to me
that the reason is because you have no credible way to prove that Arne's
sample frame is not a basis to conduct and come to any kind of accurate
statistical analysis. Forget the toast and Ginger Ale analogies, they were
just attempts to try to make you see how flawed Arne's assumptions were.
Bottom line (and if you are going to reply, it would be nice if you replied
about the whole point of this, rather than something that does not go to the
point), The sample frame provided and the outcome decried as a statistical
analysis and therefore credible are just not correct. I think the link YOU
posted proves that quite nicely when coupled with the Brown University .pdf
link I provided. I really would like to hear you try to dispute this,
simple (and relevant) set of facts.
>
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
>You don't want answers to your questions? Then why ask them?
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:uF****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>Oh m'gosh Scott I thought this was over and here you go again.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm
>>going to guess not.
>>
>You guessed wrong.
>
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer
is no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think
anybody posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You
didn't ask if I would fund a study.
Alright but I would have thought the part you quoted (included here as
well) where I ask "Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was
unfounded?" right after I asked the question you just confirmed would be
sufficient proof.
What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something
from Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This
is really just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't
know with any certanty what the ratio is.
Most if you'll accept the Free Online Dictionary's definition
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most) means the greatest in number.
I've searched the sites on a regular basis and if "respond to" is any
indication (and who knows perhaps companies are making it up) they are
most often directed to recruiting firms intent on filling a position
(for a commission) and not directly to the company offering the
position. It is intended to help filter out the totally unqualified
respondents but again I have no direct proof of this (merely my
conversations with recruiters) so perhaps it is because people have
nothing better to do or their friends do it or because they are mentally
ill. It calls for another survey and when I can raise the money (from
an unbiased source) I'll get back to you with the results.
Dice BTW had 95,786 jobs posted as of 3/1/07 with 37,781 contract
positions and 65,075 permanent. 18,290 mentioned C/C++ as necessary
skills. As of 4/2/07 the skills most in demand included J2EE/Java
followed by C/C++.
>Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
>(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of
>data.
>
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry
level work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings
for senior level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are
making yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job
will be found where).
Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal has weighed in:
http://wsj.consumersearch.com/intern...es/review.html
Perhaps you are concluding there are no studies because you personally
haven't read them but I'll go out on a limb and say yes, the CEO
position for the top 100 U.S. Corporations will not be posted in the
help wanted section of the local newspaper or posted on the cork board
outside Hank's market.
Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it
is not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on
the matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and
toast scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an
informed one) as a fact.
They are not the same thing. Citing 3 friends who like a flavor of soda
is no where near the same as 3 out of 4 total strangers on randomly
chosen job sites reporting being sick after eating the same brand of
some food. You seem to be claiming the results should be considered "as
relevant" and they surely should not. When reports of tainted dog food
came out recently did you rush out and buy more of the suspected food to
give to your pets citing the lack of conclusive evidence? Would you
have done so if 3 of your friends said that their pets didn't die? The
value of the information is not the same.
We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope.
Of course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not
talking about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not?
So this is all part of a scientific poll? I think you've mistakenly
connected to the Internet when you thought you were in a statistics
course at MIT.
You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a
whole segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions,
right? :)
Read the reports at DICE and tell them they don't understand how the job
count in New York City (along with the other 9 cities they list as the
top tech job markets) is uninformed. Explain they didn't take Heart
Butte, Montana into consideration. With a population of 692 they might
all be VB.Net developers for gosh sake, you have to phone them to know
for certain.
What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did
small-towns come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are
making another assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
Jobs at the Los Angeles Times are listed here on CareerBuilder.Com:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...229563708-WP-2
If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does.
Uhh. no he doesn't.
Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't
know unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you
are the only person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software
Developers. No one (even Arne) said that this is what the stat.
represents. Husan's original message does not ask about Senior Software
Developers.
Right, you got me the Duluth paper was filled with job openings for VB
developers. There was the "garage mechanic needed" and then 35
positions around town for VB and VB.Net not a one for C#. Are you
crediting Husan with starting the thread now?
This is why professional pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge
amount of money, because the know exactly how to phrase the question
being asked of the respondant and they know exactly how to build a
reliable sample frame so they don't get skewed data.
On the accuracy of polls and surveys (as published in Science magazine):
http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/A...nd_Surveys.pdf
Columbia News reports "markets show greater accuracy than polls"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/10/markets.html
They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this affects the
margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the more
specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although
we disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and
I appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
Fair enough.
On Apr 10, 7:17 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
Please read, with your eyes open, what you are commenting on and I'd offer
some friendly advice that it's not really a good way to start a conversation
with an insult to someone you have never communicated with, who has never
said anythiing insulting about you.
I have been reading, thanks, but apperently you have not been. We've
posted back and forth a few times before my last reply.
With regards to being rude or insulting, it seems you started that
thrend in this thread (which I was following before I ever posted into
it).
At any rate, the problem you are having is with the 3:1 C# to vb.net
job availabity ratio. A quick survey of the three largest online job
posting sites IS a good sample, but for some reason you refuse to
acknowledge that.
Then when I point that out very clearly in my last post, you do
nothing to refute it, instead acting as if I have been rude in some
way. I do not feel anything in my previous post was rude, yet your
other replies to other people I do think have been. I guess if you
can't make your case, you say that the people who disagree with you
are 'bad people.'
LOL Tom! When a study or paper is presented by an employee of a company or
institution, and that study was done "on the clock", the study or paper
becomes a study "of" the company or institution. Your whole rant otherwise
gave me a good chuckle though.
The paper was written by an expert in the field from a pretty prestigous
university. If you can't tell when I'm being sarcastic and when I'm not
with such a simple thing like how qualified a professor at Brown is, you
have my sympathy about how hard it must be for you in daily conversations
you have with others.
BUT, more importantly, what in the paper agrees with my assertion that the
sample Arne used is flawed and his *probability problem* is just that a
problem for his case and what supports Arne's supposition that his case is,
in fact, based on a good sample frame and his math is viable?
You also want to critize me for citing a source YOU provided to help make my
point? Did I or did I not already acknowlege I was wrong about Wiki? Have
you ever been wrong about something and change your mind about it? If not,
you don't get a chance to learn and grow.
You and Arne are now just attacking anything you can (my sense of
sarcasm/facetiousness, my analogies). Anything OTHER than my simple point:
Arne's sample frame is not complete and the 1 (ONE) basis for his sample
frame (online sources) is too small. His math produces results that are
easily misinterpreted and therefore what he has claimed to be a correct
*statistical analysis* is anything but.
The Brown paper proves what Arne did what NOT a "statistical analysis" and
your Wiki link proves he started with a flawed sample frame.
"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
>>>Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
sample group), yes.
I find it hard to take someone not capable of distinguishing between
no facts and insufficient facts serious.
>>The numbers are the facts.
>>The math is standard statistics.
>>Nothing manufactured.
Well, that's very interesting, since the link I posted earlier
(http://www.stat.brown.edu/~jblume/sl...des_ucinn.pdf), written by
those uninformed folks at the little known Brown University seem to agree
with me and not with you about how to look at a sample and determine its
reliability.
As with so many of your tongue-in-cheek responses we can't tell when you
are being serious. The butter one, the attack on Wikipedia, change your
mind cite it but then site it as a source, etc. The paper you have
referenced was not written by "those uniformed folks... Brown University".
Again rather than stick to simple facts you distort them in some lame
attempt to seem more right. You are doing the equivalent of what you
claim some consultant did on Wikipedia, altering the facts to suit you.
The slides are the output of an Assistant Professor at Brown (he is also
co-founder of Analytical Edge) but not by "Brown University". It is
significant in it's own right but no more accurate to say "Harvard doesn't
believe in the Holocaust" if one of it's professors writes a paper
disputing it. Try to stick to facts when trying to persuade people to
stick to facts.
When all is said and done you haven't answered one question. If the
reports of poisoned dog food have no statistical evidence of being factual
are you still buying those brands of dogfood? Or (because you will avoid
the questions and simply state you don't have a dog) would you buy the
dogfood if you did have a dog?
Would you have any hesitation to visit a city in foreign country where 120
tourists were killed in the last 12 months? In lieu of a study would you
say there is no evidence to prove you are in any danger? Yes of course
you would say that... now would you actually visit the place? How about
240 tourists killed in 6 months?
Wouldn't the available facts suggest you should personally eat the
possibly tainted dogfood while visiting that town?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
So, you'd say my sample frame was flawed then? How ironic. Not too
mention that I never presented this as undisputable fact, did I? And,
based on your reply, I guess you just proved my point! :)
Not actually. I'd say you chose a word commonly found in a web page and
claimed the number of times that word occurred is close to the number of job
agencies. Why not just claim it is one-quarter of the total job agencies in
the US?
The numbers you have a problem with was the result of a query for jobs on a
job site. The statement (and I didn't make it) was that there is a 3 to 1
ratio and a couple of queries returned those numbers. Poor sample or not
they held up your number didn't.
Frankly if you believe that nobody here can understand the results of an ad
hoc query you have larger issues to deal with. There is no "point" to
prove.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
And how does my being incorrect about the topic of what was changed (but
not my main point in bringing Wiki up) relate to your *statistics*?
We can conclude that you didn't read it. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: William C. White |
last post by:
Does anyone know of a way to use PHP /w Authorize.net AIM without using
cURL? Our website is hosted on a shared drive and the webhost company
doesn't installed additional software (such as cURL)...
|
by: Albert Ahtenberg |
last post by:
Hello,
I don't know if it is only me but I was sure that header("Location:url")
redirects the browser instantly to URL, or at least stops the execution of
the code. But appearantely it continues...
|
by: James |
last post by:
Hi,
I have a form with 2 fields.
'A'
'B'
The user completes one of the fields and the form is submitted.
On the results page I want to run a query, but this will change
subject to which...
|
by: Ollivier Robert |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm trying to link PHP with Oracle 9.2.0/OCI8 with gcc 3.2.3 on a Solaris9
system. The link succeeds but everytime I try to run php, I get a SEGV from
inside the libcnltsh.so library.
...
|
by: Richard Galli |
last post by:
I want viewers to compare state laws on a single subject.
Imagine a three-column table with a drop-down box on the top. A viewer
selects a state from the list, and that state's text fills the...
|
by: Albert Ahtenberg |
last post by:
Hello,
I have two questions.
1. When the user presses the back button and returns to a form he filled
the form is reseted. How do I leave there the values he inserted?
2. When the...
|
by: inderjit S Gabrie |
last post by:
Hi all
Here is the scenerio ...is it possibly to do this...
i am getting valid course dates output on to a web which i have designed
....all is okay so far , look at the following web url
...
|
by: Jack |
last post by:
Hi All,
What is the PHP equivilent of Oracle bind variables in a SQL statement, e.g.
select x from y where z=:parameter
Which in asp/jsp would be followed by some statements to bind a value...
|
by: Sandwick |
last post by:
I am trying to change the size of a drawing so they are all 3x3.
the script below is what i was trying to use to cut it in half ... I
get errors.
I can display the normal picture but not the...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
