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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: "Charles W. Hall" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/18 Message-ID: <34EAEEB2.78A17A52@platinum.brooks.af.mil>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 326237211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <34D22794.1DEE0535@platinum.brooks.af.mil> <34ea25fa.2254805@newsroom.tassie.net.au> <34EB515B.6491@cardiff.ac.uk> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: 648th CCSS/SC - Brooks AFB Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: mei wrote: > Mad Hamish wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:18:45 -0600, "Charles W. Hall" > > wrote: > > > > >Having worked with assembly code, operating systems internals, and > done > > >high level programming, I don't think it is relevant for > programmers to > > >know these sort of things anymore. There is no reason to program > in > > >assembler directly anymore except for highly specialized cases. > > > > For instance any massively repeated task where speed is critical. As I pointed out, there are specialized cases where assembler is appropriate. However, > > > > > The > > >internals of generated code have nothing to do with designing a > > >correctly running program in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, or anyother high > level > > >language. > > > > True for most cases, of course if you need to access hardware > directly and there > > isn't a library to do it you may be forced to use something similar > to > > assembler. Yes, but if you need to access hardware directly these days, you are no longer considered to be a high level language programmer. My comments were intended to point out the growing differences and specializations that have developed in the computer industry. > > > > > The operating system software is designed by experts to > > >properly handle the compiled code and to perform tasks as paging, > > >swapping, and scheduling. > > > > Seen windows recently . I said designed by experts-- the implementation can leave a lot to be desired. I had systems such as IBM's MVS and Digital's OpenVMS in mind--where teams of trained professionals have been working years to optimize the operating system. Microsoft Windows in nowhere near as good nor as clean an implementation, but it still provides these functions. > > > > > These are not the domain of the programmer. > > > > who shaved the barber? > I shave myself and that doesn't make me a barber. What's been happenning is a redefinition of terms as the industry grows more specialized. I would no longer class anyone who works on O.S. internals as a "programmer" as that term has become so generic as to be almost meaningless. Software engineer would seem to be appropriate, although the mechanical engineers I know have some definite opinions on us software types appropriating the word engineer. > > > > >Criticizing a programmer for not knowing the internals of the > operating > > >system is like criticizing an automobile owner for not > understanding the > > >internals of the car's motor. It is not necessary for successful > > >operation of the car or computer system. > > > > > Wrong, criticising a _programmer_ for not knowing the > internals is like > > criticising a racing team for not knowing the internals. Nope. Your reference to a racing team completely misses the point I was trying to make. The usual programmer today does not care how an operating system does its work, as long as it is reliable. Just as the typical auto owner doesn't understand the inside of the engine or transmission. He doesn't need to know--but he does need to know that if he steps on the gas or brake they will perform as expected--and who to contact when they don't. > I agree with mad Hamish. Besides how could anyone not want to know hoe > the internals > work. That's half the fun! What's fun to you is boring drudgery to others. I long ago stopped assuming that all people in the computer industry think alike--and started having more fun!! Charles