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: 103376,267eec8ad557a7d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: ARIANE-5 Failure (DC-X works)
Date: 1996/06/18
Message-ID: <dewar.835121320@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161541342
references: <dewar.834410609@schonberg> <4plpqn$ko5@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
 <dewar.834643137@schonberg> <4q4tbv$b6b@panix3.panix.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


David said:

"But it still leaves me wondering what a 'Programmer' is.  Obviously
those mathematicians using Matrix-X are not, as anyone can see (formal
distinctions being a bit of a joke when they cannot distinguish things
people can easily distinguish)."


Sorry, the mathematicians using Matrix-X are definitely programmers, just
as scientists who use Fortran to encode their equations are programmers.
I cannot distinguish any fundamental difference. You seem to think that
programming must mean writing low level code in a procedural language.
I do not consider this to be a useful distinction.