NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part2/13624

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 5.9 KB

Path: scoop.eco.twg.com!usenet
From: [e-mail] (This space intentionally left blank)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,comp.edu,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.pascal.borland,comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.misc,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.os2.programmer.misc,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Info on being a Systems Programmer/Analyst?
Date: 26 Mar 1996 16:40:58 GMT
Organization: The Wollongong Group
Message-ID: <4j96mq$[e-mail]>
References: <4itd85$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <4j72mr$[e-mail]> <4j7min$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jake.eco.twg.com

In article <4j7min$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>In <4j72mr$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (This space intentionally left blank) writes:
>>Ummmm....excuse me, but who do you think writes the stuff that gets shipped
>>with the device, or provided by the OS provider or makes the packages you
>>talk of?  System Programmers.
>
>Well, those who write the device drivers, need not necessarily know the whole
>OS, only a part of it.

The question was whether there was still a need for "system programmers",
not how much of an OS you needed to understand to be a "system programmer".

If you want to make your own definition for what a "system programmer" is,
that's fine, but don't expect the industry to follow you on it.

>The same applies for the developers of the OS as well.
>Writing the console interface part of an OS does not make you an expert in
>Disk I/O operations, and you are not expected to be. System Programmers,
>on the other hand must have an overall knowledge of the OS, so that they
>can 'make system alterations' in case they are needed, but more importantly,
>they can provide solutions which are related to the actual implementation
>of the OS.

I've been a system programmer before, and made changes to the OS (TOPS-10)
without understanding every part of the OS.  I understood the parts I needed
to understand for what I needed to do, and had a vague understanding of most
of the rest, but I didn't "know" the entire OS at all.  I never met anyone
who did either, though I met many system programmers for that OS (some of
them working for Digital, the owner of the OS, and maker of the machines
that ran it).  There was just too much code involved for anyone to know all
of it (it was in assembler too).  If you understood the overall plan, and
could read the code, you could learn whatever you needed for any given
change and that was enough.

>For example, many years ago, at least, you created your own
>supervisor and other system components based on your needs [IBM360/370].
>The systems programmer had to know whether an option was implemented or
>which of the alternative options were elected. The only person you could ask
>about it was the systems programmer. Just to install the OS, you were required
>to know it along with your company's needs.

Yep, I think I mentioned that in the old mainframe days you tended to have
at least one system programmer for each system.  That's not true for modern
machines where a system manager can install the OS without any trouble and
few folks modify it at all (the days of source code distribution are pretty
much over in most cases).  This doesn't mean there's no need for system
programmers though, just that there's not much need at the average site.
Development companies still need them in a big way.

>>You are right that most companies have no need for system programers these
>>days, but the ones who do, need them to stay in business becausr their
>>business is providing system software.  The place I work still writes device
>>drivers because that is part of the product we sell to customers.
>
>As I hinted above, I consider these people system developers and not system
>programmers. System developers, in my opinion are programmers, specializing
>in system components, as opposed to let's say financial applications.

Sorry, if you write parts of the OS, you are a "system programmer".  That's
the accepted definition in the industry.  You are free to have your own
personal definition, but that doesn't change anything.  If you look for a
job as a "system programmer" you will find places that want device driver
writers, system service writers and other "close to the OS and the hardware"
kinds of programming jobs.  In some cases you might even end up working on
things like libraries for compilers and application programs to use.  Sure,
there are still places running old-style OSs that require a system
programmer to customize them or even install them, but these are rare and
getting rarer all the time.

>>>There must be ACTIVE systems programmers who read some of these
>>>newsgroups and can tell us how much 'administrative' work they do and
>>>how much 'system alterations'. If you are out there, please speak up and
>>>make me stand corrected.
>>
>>The ones we have here spend 80% of their time on coding, debugging and
>>researching requirements for new code.
>
>Yes, but (at least in my book) they are not systems programmers...

Sounds like a limited press run to me.... ;^)  I'm sticking with the
definitions used by the folks willing to write regular paychecks...you find
more work that way.

>You wrote good stuff and I enjoyed it, but not convinced...

Thanks.  I can live with that.

     -- Mike "it seems to be a definitional problem anyway" Bartman --

==============================================================================
| I didn't really say all the things that I said.  You probably didn't read  |
| what you thought you read.  Statistics show that this whole thing is more  |
| than likely just a hideous misunderstanding.                     |
==============================================================================

==============================================================================
Push the limit, and the limit will move away!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------