home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: aadt.sdt.com!usenet
- From: david_hooker@sdt.com
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.programming
- Subject: Overnight Programmers (was 'Young programmers read me')
- Date: 22 Mar 1996 20:15:02 GMT
- Organization: SABRE Decision Technologies
- Message-ID: <4iv1o6$22j@aadt.sdt.com>
- References: <4icpp9$7hr@barad-dur.nas.com> <4imqe4$cj3@ping1.ping.be> <4isq0a$5gr@scoop.eco.twg.com>
- Reply-To: david_hooker@sdt.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lw_hooker.sdt.com
- X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.02
-
- In <4isq0a$5gr@scoop.eco.twg.com>, mike@vishnu.eco.twg.com (This space intentionally left blank) writes:
- >In article <4iq5rv$aph@aadt>, david_hooker@sdt.com writes:
- >>In <4ippuq$4pk@scoop.eco.twg.com>, mike@vishnu.eco.twg.com (This space intentionally left blank) writes:
- >>
- >>>Sure, it's less flamboyant and "macho" to just engineer good software, code
- >>>it and have it work and be simple to maintain, but the old days of "it was
- >>>hard to write, it should be hard to modify" and 18-24 hour "crunch" days at
- >>>the end of the project when you have "just one more bug...or maybe two..."
- >>>need to be over. Customers don't like having to use support lines to get
- >>>problems fixed any more than companies like to pay to provide them.
- >>
- >>Actually, around here the "macho" programmers are those that do it right the
- >>_first_ time!! Our "falmboyant" programmers get complex pieces of code
- >>done _right_, and get it done _on_time_ or even (drumroll...) early!!
- >
- >Good for you. This does not appear to be the norm in the industry. Why not?
- >
-
- I dunno. I once read that the programming profession is just like any other
- in that there is a bell-curve of talent: a few really good programmers, a _bunch_
- of average programmers, and a few really bad programmers. I think, however, that
- due to the ability for almost anyone to become an "overnight programmer" via
- products like VB, VC++, Powerbuilder, Delphi, etc... has shifted this
- curve to become more heavily weighted towards more of the less-talented
- in our field. Our group (and I think most of the industrial-strength
- software shops) hire from the "really good" pool.
-
- >>Someone who needs a buttload of time to write something is either a beginner,
- >>an amateur, or a below-average performer --- definately not "macho". And we
- >>use C++ (our system has 700,000 - 1,000,000 LOC).
- >
- >Or is working on a less-than well-defined problem, or is trying to hit a
- >moving target, or was lied to about the environment, or was given a target
- >date half as far in the future as the best estimate of the time required, or
- >didn't get the resources the estimate was based on, or a host of other
- >things I've seen repeatedly at a number of different companies.
-
- You are absolutely right of course. However, good project/product management
- helps alieviate these to a large degree. In _industry_, you need both good
- programmers and good management. The bonus is when you can roll both into
- one person!
-
- >This sounds a lot like the "macho" attitude I mentioned. "*We* can put out
- >buku piles of code with anything! Who needs tools that help?!? Sissies!!"
- >
-
- Oh, I'm all for tools... if the programmer knows how to use them properly, and
- doesn't actually become a "tool of the tool" instead.
-
- >>>If you don't agree, check out any of the Corel newsgroups and see how thier
- >>>...
- >>Sound's like a either bad programmers, or just a bad attitude.
- >
- >Or an unreasonable/shortsighted management, or a flakey environment (MS Windows
- >3.1) combined with a language that makes it easy to code errors, and even
- >encourages poor practices.
-
- I'll agree on the management point. The environment point... sometimes. I
- firmly believe that a talented programmer can make a computer do almost anything.
- However, the language point - I don't see how C++ encourages anything except
- diligence and dicipline from programmers using it.
-
- >>Writing well-engineered software in C++ (probably) does take more dicipline
- >>than several other languages. And I personally would prefer a well-
- >>diciplined programmer (in any language) over one that's not.
- >
- >I can't argue with this at all.
- >
- >>In my opinion,
- >>it's the programmer, not the language, that makes or breaks the code.
- >
- >Yes, but the ease with which a programer of any skill level can acomplish a
- >given task is dependent on the tools used. The better the tools the better
- >the result for a given programmer (better programmers will still beat poorer
- >programmers on speed, quality, maintainability, etc.). Michaelangelo did
- >wonderous things with a wooden mallet and some primitive steel chisels.
- >Just think what his output could have been with an air compressor, airhammer
- >and some modern steel tools! Less time and attention spent aiming and
- >swinging the mallet and more time spent thinking about where and what to cut...
- >
-
- Notice that there isn't a "Sculpture Wizard" tool for artists! 8-)
-
- I, of course, enjoy having the best tools for the job. I would not balk at
- using Delphi to put together certain applications, or Smalltalk, or even
- pure assembly! My gripe is those "programmers" that think just because they
- can write basic C++, use VC++ (or BC++, I'm not partisan) and throw together
- a simple application, that they are worthy of the title "Software Engineer" or
- "Programmer/Analyst" or whatever.
-
- Some memorable answers that an interviewee gave:
-
- Q: What is a template function?
- A: The shell code that Visual C++ generates for a method.
-
- Q: What is your favorite feature of C++?
- A: CFrameWindow
-
- Q: What part of C++ do you have trouble with?
- A: OLE.
-
- >8-(
-
- -dave-
-
-
-
-