On 14/04/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally
>> gives up
>> trying to understand and asks me about something else.]
>
> That's not stupid. That's just not thinking like a computer scientist.

> It's only simple if you think his job should be to understand the
> scripts. I'd say his failure was asking you for the details in the first
> place.

Arguably yes.

Still, if "script X creates script Y and then runs it" is too complex 
for this guy to understand, how the hell is he going to cope when we 
have to decide between two competing products, both of which have a 
complex chain of dependencies and pose a different complex mix of 
certification requirements? Given that this is the exact thing we pay 
this guy to decide... slightly worrying.

Similarly, we have a guy who we employ for the sole purpose of writing 
our procedure documents. All day, every day, all this guy does is write 
documents. That's his only purpose. And yet, every document he's written 
has been a complex, twisted mess of poor grammer, ambiguous phrases and 
confusing sentence structure. WTF, people?

>> Perhaps
>> this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P
>
> Go read Dilbert. ;-)

First you laugh...

...and then you weep.

> Plus, you're interacting with them in a very restricted way about a very
> restricted topic. If you went out to the pub with them and asked them
> the meaning of life, they might be tremendously insightful. (Or not, mind.)

I don't know, whenever I've watched these guys at work, whether 
installing software or just casually chatting while they go through 
their email, they always seemed very dim to me. Not that I have any 
/highly/ objective way to measure that...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message