Discussions of computer programming...

http://blog.slickedit.com/?p=223
http://blog.slickedit.com/?p=224

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://blog.slickedit.com/?p=224

  I somewhat disagree with this view. Sure, there are *some* people who
are envious of "noobs" getting the job "done" with their fancy high-level
languages without really understanding what's going on under the hood.
However, I don't think that's the most usual reason for the negative
feelings.

  I believe that the most usual reason for the negative attitude is
that the "noobs" are getting the job "done" faster, but at the cost
of software quality. The software made by a newbie usually lacks
robustness and efficiency. However, because bosses usually cannot
see past the GUI, they are fooled into thinking that the newbie is
actually a better programmer than the experienced one because he got
something visible done faster. Then they hire the newbie and kick out
the experienced programmer.

  And the result can be seen, for example, at thedailywtf.com.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I somewhat disagree with this view. Sure, there are *some* people who
> are envious of "noobs" getting the job "done" with their fancy high-level
> languages without really understanding what's going on under the hood.
> However, I don't think that's the most usual reason for the negative
> feelings.
> 
>   I believe that the most usual reason for the negative attitude is
> that the "noobs" are getting the job "done" faster, but at the cost
> of software quality. The software made by a newbie usually lacks
> robustness and efficiency. However, because bosses usually cannot
> see past the GUI, they are fooled into thinking that the newbie is
> actually a better programmer than the experienced one because he got
> something visible done faster. Then they hire the newbie and kick out
> the experienced programmer.
> 
>   And the result can be seen, for example, at thedailywtf.com.

I think sometimes people *are* just jelous of a higher level language 
making programming "too easy". Those people should get over it.

On the other hand, there certainly *are* some really awful programmers 
who outwardly appear to "get the job done faster" by writing really 
terrible code. Measuring programmer performance by how quickly they 
"deliver" a "solution" is almost as stupid as measuring it my LoC.

In short, I think both points of view are valid. As to which one 
predominates... well, I personally am in *no* position to make an 
authoritative statement about that! ;-) But judging by some of the guys 
I graduated with... hmm, I think incompetent is probably more prevalent. :-S

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On the other hand, there certainly *are* some really awful programmers 
> who outwardly appear to "get the job done faster" by writing really 
> terrible code. Measuring programmer performance by how quickly they 
> "deliver" a "solution" is almost as stupid as measuring it my LoC.

> In short, I think both points of view are valid. As to which one 
> predominates... well, I personally am in *no* position to make an 
> authoritative statement about that! ;-) But judging by some of the guys 
> I graduated with... hmm, I think incompetent is probably more prevalent. :-S

  Having heard second-hand accounts about real production-level commercial
software from very reliable sources, the common trend in the software and
web development industry is that code is usually an absolutely awful pile
of ugly hacks over older hacks, and that it's usually a miracle that it
works in the first place.
  In other words, clearly the work of people without proper programming
expertise.

  It's considered *normal* in many companies that implementing a feature
takes several months, and if a competent programmer implements it in a
week it causes a jaw-dropping effect. Bosses usually don't have the
slightest idea about how long a specific features should really take
to implement. (Often it goes both ways: Features which are small and
can be cleanly and efficiently implemented in a few days may be implemented
by incompetent programmers in several months, and no boss even wonders
about it. Yet some features which truely require many months to fully
implement even by a team of competent expert programmers might have
completely insane deadline requirements.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It's considered *normal* in many companies that implementing a feature
> takes several months, and if a competent programmer implements it in a
> week it causes a jaw-dropping effect. Bosses usually don't have the
> slightest idea about how long a specific features should really take
> to implement. (Often it goes both ways: Features which are small and
> can be cleanly and efficiently implemented in a few days may be implemented
> by incompetent programmers in several months, and no boss even wonders
> about it. Yet some features which truely require many months to fully
> implement even by a team of competent expert programmers might have
> completely insane deadline requirements.)

I wonder why this is the case.

I mean, if you want a bunch of construction engineers to design and 
build a bridge, the people doing the work usually have a pretty good 
idea how long it will take. What's different about software engineering?

[Other than the fact that a ridiculously badly designed bridge is 
usually at least moderately self-evident, while bad software isn't 
always...]

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [Other than the fact that a ridiculously badly designed bridge is 
> usually at least moderately self-evident, while bad software isn't 
> always...]

  Imagine that someone hires someone else to build a bridge. The bridge
is completed and looks pretty on the outside, and it seems to work ok.
However, one day there's a lot of traffic and the bridge collapses.
It results that the bridge engineers were completely incompetent and
built the bridge completely in the wrong way, which caused it to collapse
with heavy traffic.
  In real life those engineers go to jail.

  In programming they get a new contract to develop the project further.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Imagine that someone hires someone else to build a bridge. The bridge
> is completed and looks pretty on the outside, and it seems to work ok.
> However, one day there's a lot of traffic and the bridge collapses.
> It results that the bridge engineers were completely incompetent and
> built the bridge completely in the wrong way, which caused it to collapse
> with heavy traffic.
>   In real life those engineers go to jail.
> 
>   In programming they get a new contract to develop the project further.

...OK, so I'm officially pretty worried here...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Discussions of computer programming...
> 
> http://blog.slickedit.com/?p=223
If warp does 224, let me take 223 in stead.

I tend to agree in an manner. Of the university students I have had to 
fortune to supervise, when they visited our lab, over the last couple of 
years, an astonishing 100% was unable to write a decent report. They all 
had writing skills that I normally associate with 12-15 year olds. None 
of the reports conformed to a standard structure (intro (including 
problem description), methods, (results), conclusions and discussion). 
Some were almost day by day accounts of what happened '... and then we 
did... and then he said...', most did not even use the spellchecker, and 
don't get me started on grammar. Interestingly, I had nearly no say in 
the grading and they all past their exam before I had a chance to 
correct it. Apparently the society wants technicians and computer 
science experts that are unable to write. But I don't.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> I tend to agree in an manner. Of the university students I have had to 
> fortune to supervise, when they visited our lab, over the last couple of 
> years, an astonishing 100% was unable to write a decent report. They all 
> had writing skills that I normally associate with 12-15 year olds. None 
> of the reports conformed to a standard structure (intro (including 
> problem description), methods, (results), conclusions and discussion). 
> Some were almost day by day accounts of what happened '... and then we 
> did... and then he said...', most did not even use the spellchecker, and 
> don't get me started on grammar. Interestingly, I had nearly no say in 
> the grading and they all past their exam before I had a chance to 
> correct it. Apparently the society wants technicians and computer 
> science experts that are unable to write. But I don't.

OK, now you're just describing *me*. :-(

I have no idea how to write a report...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> I tend to agree in an manner. Of the university students I have had to 
>> fortune to supervise, when they visited our lab, over the last couple 
>> of years, an astonishing 100% was unable to write a decent report. 
>> They all had writing skills that I normally associate with 12-15 year 
>> olds. None of the reports conformed to a standard structure (intro 
>> (including problem description), methods, (results), conclusions and 
>> discussion). Some were almost day by day accounts of what happened 
>> '... and then we did... and then he said...', most did not even use 
>> the spellchecker, and don't get me started on grammar. Interestingly, 
>> I had nearly no say in the grading and they all past their exam before 
>> I had a chance to correct it. Apparently the society wants technicians 
>> and computer science experts that are unable to write. But I don't.
> 
> OK, now you're just describing *me*. :-(
I thought about including a disclaimer that 'any resemblance to a p.o-t 
regular or mascot is purely a coincidence' but decided against it.
> 
> I have no idea how to write a report...
So how did you manage to graduate from university then? Did you not do a 
small research project?

Post a reply to this message