NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/16673

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 1.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.lang.c:16673 comp.software-eng:4344
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu!books
From: [e-mail] (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: Will we keep ignoring this productivity issue?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News File Owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nrb209a.physics.fsu.edu
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:16:57 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>IMHO, there is probably no better background for SE than physics.  Why?
>Problem solving.  Experimental techniques.  Basic understanding of the
>strangeness of the universe.  All useful.

I don't know about that last one.  The Physicists are some of the most
intelligent people I know.  They can solve almost any problem you throw
at them, but, their programming is kludgey and atrocious to maintain.
From what I've seen they seem to be trained to get it done now.  If it
involves dropping a kludge in to make it work they do and then forget
about it.  This may be different with theorists but the experimentalists
I work for don't write maintainable code.

>
>We are all  experiments in software engineering right now, because the field
>doesn't have the stability in training or definition that it needs.
>
>George Kambic
>sd
>

Roger
[e-mail]