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: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: troxler.nospam@i1.net (Tim Oxler) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/01/29 Message-ID: <34d0bd09.5552628@news1.i1.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 320290995 References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <883319809snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <68bt2p$d48@lotho.delphi.com> <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com> <68dm0i$brv1@news.fiberlink.net> <01bd198f$4050d960$68c8b5cc@dhite.unicomp.net> <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com> <34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org> <01bd1ebd$8580b9a0$b2684bc2@xzSys> <34BA520B.534F@mail.state.wi.us> <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net> <01bd2c2a$69b107a0$9f684bc2@xzSys> <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q> Organization: TEO Computer Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "dogmat" wrote: >> > > It's really very simple. Anyone smart enough and focused enough to >> earn a >> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and >> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. >> > >> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy >> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the >> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs. > >Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special >subject and >a PhD doth not a programmer make. > Agreed. >> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he >> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his >progs >> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? >> >> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having >3 >> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he >has >> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for >> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit >> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always >> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done. > >Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have >a PhD): > >In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great >and be absolutely useless. >If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both >internally and externally, but it will actually be useful. > Well, my schooling and training is on the business side. I think that similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer. >Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but >get more than 3 engineers >in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering >software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a >programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but >that's the nature of the domain beast. >Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the >programmer to be an engineer than it >is to write out the specifications "in full". > [Business spectrum perspective]. I've seen other programmers that are extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese" into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese". Without good conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product not being what was intended. >Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be >willing to go back and spend 4+ years >learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a >clue about numerical methods). >This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering >background can learn to program >(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them >think they're good at it. > Agreed. [Business spectrum perspective]. Training, and re-training. Some veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work tasks in a certain way. Then 10yrs go by, better programming techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be applied, but many of these people are still working and programming like they did 10yrs ago. >Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an >engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers. >(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these >newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of >dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast. > Probably for the most part true. But then again, I should be writing code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :) Tim Oxler TEO Computer Technologies Inc. http://www.i1.net/~troxler http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp