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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-22 20:54:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:23:59 -0500 Organization: Atid/2 Message-ID: <3e5830bf$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net> <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1045839419.823502@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3E568EF3.A244212A@adaworks.com> <3E569E8C.4050709@cox.net> Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-Cise: tanbanso@iinet.net.au X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes X-Coriate: admin@interspeed.co.nz X-Ecrate: tanandtanlawyers.com X-Punge: Micro$oft X-Sanguinate: themvsguy@email.com X-Terminate: SPA(GIS) X-Tinguish: Mark Griffith X-Treme: C&C,DWS X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.31a/31 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4433 comp.lang.ada:34457 Date: 2003-02-22T21:23:59-05:00 List-Id: In <3E569E8C.4050709@cox.net>, on 02/21/2003 at 09:46 PM, "Donald L. Dobbs" said: >When I first got into the computing business (circa 1962 -- oh my, >that probably makes me older than David Frank) we had systems >analysts and programmers. The latter were actually "coders". The >systems analysts were subject matter experts for the application >being contemplated. If it was an accounting or payroll package the >S.A. was either a CPA or someone who had a strong background in >accounting/bookkeeping, etc. If it was a guidance program for a >missile the S.A. was probably a Ph.D. in math or celestial >mechanics. The programmer (coder) only had to know his Cobol, >Fortran, PL/I or assembly language. He didn't have to know the >subject matter of the application to any great degree because the >S.A. wrote an air-tight spec that the coder was to rigorously >implement. His was not to reason why. We developed pretty good >software in those days. Every time someone says "I don't believe in theories.", another theory dies. What you describe was the conventional wisdom, but in practice the SA would make mistakes that the coder was not permitted to correct. It turned out to be more reliable to forget the coder-as-automaton and go back to the idea of programmers who understood what they were doing. The good software in the 1960s was *not* the stuff designed on the hermetic wall methodology. >Somewhere along the way, it all fell apart when we (as an economy >measure in smaller shops, I suppose) invented the >Programmer-Analyst. This, IMHO, is the worst single act that has >occurred in this industry While I see it as a return to sanity. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org