From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jahfre@aol.com (Jahfre) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/01/30 Message-ID: <19980130210901.QAA18470@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 320665754 References: <6atbro$jnd$1@brie.direct.ca> X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I can hardly quit chuckling about this one . . . good thing no one expects programmers or engineers to know how to use metaphors. Anyway, to the point, there is a big difference between understanding the architecture of the system on which a software application is going to be running and the general statement that programmers are ignorant of the assembly code and internals of the operating system. The difference between traditional engineers and a software engineer is that the software engineer has to actually produce something that works and can be tested. Not every programmer is a software engineer. Some are simply programmers. I apologize to you engineers out there who may have actually taken a system you have designed and produced the final product from you engineering output. I'm sure some have. I'm also sure that those who have know exactly what I'm talking about.