Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks vroom
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re: (OT?) Usefulness of CS (discussion)

by deprecated (Priest)
on Dec 26, 2001 at 19:59 UTC ( #134405=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to (OT?) Usefulness of CS

Wow. Talk about a troll.

This is the precise reason there are so many shitty programmers out there. Yeah, I said shitty. Too many people feel that programming is simply stringing syntax together to produce output.

Let me tell you, this is wrong. You arent a good programmer until you feel the code and get a sense for how it is written and how it works. There are quite a few posts around that explain the methods programmers use from being monkeys-on-typewriters-trying-to-come-up-with-shakespear to actual code-slinging-hackers.

There are people who code with the notion that its not a science, and often these people get employed as programmers. They are not. They are the people who think:

open MAIL, "$foo |";
is okay to leave in a CGI.

I think you seriously need to evaluate whether you should be programming at all, let alone attempting to describe the profession (caste, religion, whatever). I very much hope youre not planning to write a paper or publish anything with this nonsense.

sizzle,
brother dep.

--
Laziness, Impatience, Hubris, and Generosity.


Comment on Re: (OT?) Usefulness of CS (discussion)
Download Code
(ichimunki) re x 2: Usefulness of CS (discussion)
by ichimunki (Priest) on Dec 26, 2001 at 20:50 UTC
    whoa dep! The assertion as it stands makes no pejorative comment on the usefulness of the degree relative to the crafts! It merely seeks to compare the two. :)

    I think it's obvious to anyone who reads that literary criticism or equivalent work experience is very necessary to good literature of all sorts. Sure, this can often take the form of working in a team with an editor who does have a degree in the field, but that an author can produce good books without it is a funny assertion.

    Ditto the lowly coder. Sure, some rank amateurs have gotten lucky. But in general the analogy stands, software will be vastly improved when a CSci type is attached to the project. Now editors and computer scientists may not be able to come up with great plots and characters or architect applications; their own prose may be stilted and clumsy, their own programming may be similarly awful; but this is not their role in the work at hand.

    They are there to look at some of the problem areas, algorithms that go haywire, sentences that lack verbs. That sort of thing. If I had to get a code review, I'd prefer a CSci major over Joe Hacker who doesn't know a bubble sort from a linked list. Similarly, if I were authoring a textbook, novel, or self help book, I would want someone with solid lit skills to be involved pre-press.

    So I'd say it's a perfect analogy, even if it is a troll which meant to cast aspersion on CSci majors and Lit Crit types.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://134405]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-04-21 06:07 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (491 votes), past polls