Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[walth@netcom.com (Walt Howard)]

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:13:50 -0500, Eric Buckley
<Eric.NoSpam.Buckley@edwardjones.com> wrote:

>Walt Howard wrote:
>
>>         I think most people should, even though it's looked down
>> upon, the people who go to trade school aren't working in
>> McDonalds like the programmers who learned skills the job market
>> didn't want.
>
>What skills would those be? Graduates with a solid grounding in theory,
>not to mention those who bother to beef up their non-technical skills
>are in very high demand. I know because I hire these folks. Getting a VB
>programmer is no problem. Getting a VB programmer who understands the
>development process, data modelling, design, testing, how to work in a
>group, and how to work with users is going to cost me plenty - IF I can
>even find such a person.

	Right, so you end up hiring the Common Garden Variety VB
programmer anyway which is better than no one. I see companies
with all these requirements. I had a boss like that, and I used
to say when he asked me how an interview went, "Well, he didn't
have an S on his cape so I don't think you'll like him". Sure
companies want everything, but they aren't willing to pay for it.
If a guy is a good coder AND a good manager, he should get a
salary equal to coder+manager, but of course, that doesn't
happen, so the more you know, the less profitable that knowledge
is. A grunt programmer makes 1/3 what a guy who can code 100
times better makes. Tell me I'm wrong.

	That's why I'm saying to get that initial foot in the door by
being useful to someone. You don't have to know much to make a
living in this industry, but you do have to talk the talk and
know enough to pass the interview. I'm not saying it's right.
Don't you think it's ridiculous that people write their own
resumes? If the U.S. corporate system of hiring people is bogus,
then I say abuse it all you can, it's the only way it'll get
fixed.

	We must be from totally different environments or your
definition of theory is different from mine. I've been in the
room at almost every company when hirees were interviewed and
never once were any of them asked about anything theoretical that
wasn't immediately related to some practical experience. If we
asked them about networking "theory" it was always "how do you
initiate an SNA connection?" or "how did you handle disconnected
IP sessions" or "Here is some C code, can you find the bug?". It
was never "explain euclids theory of prime numbers and how it
relates to encryption". The only theory we were interested in
was, "Can the guy understand enough of his application domain to
get the job done".

	I'm stressing that people need to get into the job market as
a first priority. They can learn whatever they need to later once
they are able to support themselves.

	Some of the "Fortune 500" companies I've worked for were fat
and lazy (and headed for oblivion). They had no competition and
there were no deadlines. We sat around suckling from the pig
until we got so bored that a new job became mandatory. In these
kinds of companies you have time for theoretical discussions.
Decisions that took a week at a small game company  (ferocious
competition) took 2 years at the big, fat lazy company. I
couldn't believe it. Most of the people were working there with
no inspiration. They just wanted their paychecks and to go home.
Taking a nap was the exciting part of my day.

><benefits of a programming job agreed to and snipped>
>
>>         Just do what it takes to get that first programming job.
>
>You may find that there comes a time when you want to be more than just
>a programmer. Perhaps you'll want to go into management (we're not all
>clueless idiots, and if more technical people pursued this path we could
>boot a few of the pointy hairs.) You may want to become an analyst and
>work with users. Or you may want to do something completely different.
>At any rate, a 4-year degree will much better prepare you for such
>changes than a trade school.

	That is, if you ever get that first foot in the door.

>>         My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to
>> make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the
>> humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to
>> work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely
>> oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical
>> skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or
>> "Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic.
>
>I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you suggesting that Cal Tech
>grads can't find jobs? Or are you saying that Cal Tech teaches too much
>liberal arts? I find either of these statements ludicrous, but maybe you
>meant something else. As far as H-Bomb projects go, you'll need at least
>an M.S. and probably a PhD to get a job at Los Alamos.

	Sorry, I was a bit scattered there. I'm suggesting that
American kids don't respect the technical fields as much as the
foreign kids, preferring to strike out for the more risky but
glamorous occupations like sports, music, art. Occupations like
engineer and programmer and architect can be very rewarding. It's
just hard to demonstrate that to someone in their teens. You
don't have to be filthy rich or famous to be extremely happy.
Anyway, I'm rambling here...

>Finally, don't confuse the class composition at the top schools with a
>sign of American decline. It is because the best US Universities are
>recognized throughout the world that we have so many foreign students.

	Maybe. But there are other reasons like:

	The number of schools we have gives them a large choice.

	English is a second language for a lot of people and a
natural choice to get a foreign education.

	What else are they going to come here for? They can't get in
for jobs unless they are educated. If they didn't need that
formal education, a lot of them might go right into the work
force. And if they want to get into the U.S., a student Visa is
the only way for many of them.	

>The fact that Americans (who represent a mere 5% of the population) make
>up 1/3 to half the class at these schools is a credit to our education
>system. When I was in Cornell's grad program, about 30% of the CS
>students were from the US. The profs were all impressed that they could
>get so many good students from the US considering the intense
>competition from Asia and Europe. We had some bright folks from Canada,
>too. In the undergrad program the ratio was about 70% US. California
>schools get more Asians for the simple reason that California has a much
>larger Asian population than the East Coast. If I was going abroad to
>school I know I'd want a few Americans around. 

>Leaving ones country is a big deal for most people.
	
	Except if you live in a totalitarian regime which makes it a
lot easier. The Chinese programmers I know say that China has
spies over here, pretending to be students, or they have the
students spy on each other and report back. They don't want
people getting their educations and not returning to China.

	Or to live in India where it takes you a 6 months to get a
phone and 1 in 100 get to go to school there.

	Or Russia where it takes you a year to get a phone, if you
know someone,  and god knows what other miseries.

	(Here's a funny anectdote. We were entertaining some Ukranian
programmers (fresh off the plane) and took them to Fry's (a large
computer store). I thought I'd impress them by showing them our
CPU prices. They hemmed and hawed and told me that they could get
them cheaper in the Ukraine).

>> >Or just pick up a programming book at the
>> >corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!
>> 
>>         At a rough guess, 95% of the American programmers I know
>> (microcomputer environment) did just that. They did NOT major or
>> minor in any field related to computers in college. They were
>> self taught. Virtually ALL of the foreign (Russian, Chinese and
>> Indian) programmers were formally educated in computers (probably
>> immigration only lets in people with formal educations). However
>> I've seen no real qualitative difference between them. Both
>> classes (foreign and domestic) programmers were roughly equal in
>> skill. That's because, a month on a REAL programming job is worth
>> a year in school so that is where the REAL learning takes place.
>
>Uh, oh. I don't think I want to open this one up agian. I'll just say
>that your 95% number is off. Again, I know this because I hire these
>folks and review their credentials. Granted, as I work for a consulting
>firm, I have to place more value on credentials for marketability
>reasons. One of the reasons that businesses are having trouble hiring
>degreed programmers is that consulting firms are snapping them up at an
>incredible rate (and incredible rates!). However, even at client sites
>(Fortune 500 companies running mission-critical systems) I'd say the
>ratio is more like 50-50 in applications, and in systems programming
>over 75% have CS/IS degrees. I'll certainly concede that at small
>companies running PC's the situation is quite different.
>
><The remainder devoted to the degreed vs. non degreed thread which is a
>somewhat different debate (and a well worn one at that)>
>
>Let me finish by bringing this back to the original thread: does it make
>sense to learn a language that you're not likely to use professionally?
>If, in learning that language, you learn the principals of programming
>then I would say yes. Can you learn the principals using VB, C++, or
>Java? Sure, but that's not the point. As you said yourself, learning a
>language is not that big of a deal. I assert that learning programming
>is a very bid deal indeed. If it wasn't, my job of finding these folks
>would be a whole lot easier.
>________________________

	Ok, well, at least each of our arguments is out there to be
examined by the people to whom it matters. Thanks for the
response.

	Walt Howard