NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part2/13637

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.8 KB

Path: news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!usenet
From: [e-mail]
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 19:49:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4j9hol$[e-mail]>
References: <4itd85$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4j96mq$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip129-37-158-70.on.ca.ibm.net
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.2

In <4j96mq$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (This space intentionally left blank) writes:
>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.

I was looking for a systems programmer job a few years back and NONE of the
jobs required ANY programming knowledge specifically. All they required were
someone who were familiar with the system services and utilities and who could
help out other programmers, and make the system work smoothly.

>>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
[snip]
>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.

This is exactly what I what I was trying to say. "understanding the overall plan",
not just a part of it.

>>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.

By this definition, EVERYONE who has ever written a half-decent application
for PC DOS is a systems programmer. Writing a "BEEP" routine fully qualifies
since it requires 'talking' to the hardware. Similarly, anyone who have ever
written a single line with IN or OUT in any program will do the job, and you
can put it on your resume 'I'm a systems programmer'.

>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.

[see above]

>>>>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.

I can live with it too (especially since this month's internet bill is going to
put me in the red :)).

Tom