>> Arguably one might blame Microsoft for the whole "hey, computers are
>> easy now, you don't need to bother learning how to use them properly"
>> mentallity.
> 
> Sorry, that's a cop-out. Blame someone else so you don't have to take
> responsibility yourself.

Why does one specific developer suck? Well, because they aren't doing 
their job properly. Why are there *so many* of these people? Well, 
that's another question.

> To make matters worse, find me another profession where people are willing
> to take the cheaper option?
> If you had to, say, go for eye surgery, and your options were a surgeon with
> 10 years experience who want to charge you a thousand pounds and an intern,
> just out of med school who would do it for 200, which would you choose?
> So, why in IT do people go for the cheapest option possible?

Yeah, that does seem to pretty much be the root cause. Too many people 
seem to think that all computer experts are of equal quality, and only 
the price tag is important. [Mumbles something about monkeys and peanuts.]

> And if we're talking about computers are easy, no knowledge required,
> shouldn't we also be blaming Apple?

Yes, because Apple exert a significant influence on the global compu... 
oh, wait... :-.

[In seriousness though... Apple claim their software is easy to use. 
They don't claim that buying there software will magically turn you into 
a developer. M$ claim exactly that.]

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:41:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>Yeah, well, how many car manufacturers actually *claim* that driving a 
>car is so easy that a child could do it? There's your difference. ;-)

That's because it is against the law to allow a child to drive a car.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4816455a$1@news.povray.org...
>
> [In seriousness though... Apple claim their software is easy to use.
> They don't claim that buying there software will magically turn you into
> a developer. M$ claim exactly that.]
>

Wanna give a reference for that?

I know VB is "easy to learn", but easy to learn != no learning necessary.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> That's because it is against the law to allow a child to drive a car.
> Otherwise ? :(

  IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Very interesting but what do you expect when it is safety related and
> not commercial? 

I think that was sort of the point, except mayhaps a slight confusion on 
the conclusion. Not "we do this because it's safety-critical", but "it 
won't be safe until you start doing it this way."  A slightly different 
way of thinking, perhaps.

> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
> software was seldom updated. 

Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it 
right.

-- 
   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 wrote:
>> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
>> software was seldom updated. 
> 
> Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it 
> right.

That was a bit disjointed. It doesn't get updated because it's hard to 
get the updates right if you don't follow the right process to make sure 
it happens.

-- 
   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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48164d08@news.povray.org...
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > That's because it is against the law to allow a child to drive a car.
> > Otherwise ? :(
>
>   IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
> proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P

Agreed. If we want to call it Software Engineering, then it should be
treated like any of the other engineering disciplines

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:51:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>>> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
>>> software was seldom updated. 
>> 
>> Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it 
>> right.
>
>That was a bit disjointed. It doesn't get updated because it's hard to 
>get the updates right if you don't follow the right process to make sure 
>it happens.

I meant that they don't often get updated because the programmers got
it right first time. Maybe I should mention that I'm not thinking
about pc based systems.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I meant that they don't often get updated because the programmers got
> it right first time. Maybe I should mention that I'm not thinking
> about pc based systems.

That too. Of course, when what you want changes, you have to balance the 
cost of making that change and being assured of getting it right against 
the value you get from making the change. Which is what I was saying. :-)

I don't think the shuttle programs are such that this month's flight 
being successful means they don't have to change the software for next 
month's flight, for example.

-- 
   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

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:35:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>
>That too. Of course, when what you want changes, you have to balance the 
>cost of making that change and being assured of getting it right against 
>the value you get from making the change. Which is what I was saying. :-)
>

OK, so we weren't arguing. Good.

>I don't think the shuttle programs are such that this month's flight 
>being successful means they don't have to change the software for next 
>month's flight, for example.

I suppose that moving a small town's worth of pipe-work involves a few
changes, now and again. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message