From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 4 Jul 91 22:30:33 GMT
From: kazoo!root@ford-wdl1.arpa  (Operator)
Subject: Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H
Message-ID: <1991Jul4.153033@kazoo.wdl.fac.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Jun26.221811.5950@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
|> In article <1991Jun21.222536.18888@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim
Showalter) writes:
|> 
|>    If someone can provide me with an explanation for why junior
programmers
|>    should be making architectural decisions affecting the entire
project,
|>    I'm all ears.
|> 
1: Junior programmers are less experienced, not (necessarily) less
intelligent, less innovative,
less educated, or less resourceful.
1.1: Age has a fairly direct impact on beauty, but on brainpower no
strong correlation has been deomonstrated.

2: Junior programmers are (usually) closer to "fresh out of school" than
we, which means (in general)
2.1: their Profs taught them the solutions to the mistakes that our
Profs made teaching us
2.2: Their education is based on less obsolete hardware, software, and
engineering paradigms than ours
2.3: they are less resistant to learning a new method to solving the
problem at hand than the relativly more
crusted, wizened, and lofty senior.

3: Further embarrassments available upon request, but please keep in
mind that the "half life" of experience in
the computer engineering field is about 5 years. I.e. what you learned 5
years ago is loosing the last parts of its'
relavence now.

Brian (the Senior and student of the Juniors) Brunner