"Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:62o250F2486ofU2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <7Nyxj.82266$vt2.74613@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> "Michael Mattias" <mmattias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It has always puzzled me why so many (particularly COBOL) people
>>>> hesitate to make the leap to a different language, when
>>>> "programming ability" is an underlying skill, that really shouldn't
be
>>>> language dependent...
>>>
>>> You are assuming the presence of fundamental programming skills.
>>>
>>> However, many of the modern development tools/environments allow
>>> "developers" to create applications without ever learning those
>>> fundamentals. A few clicks, a few drags, a few drops and presto! you
can
>>> call yourself a programmer.
>>>
>>> With no such tools available, people of our generation HAD to learn
the
>>> fundamentals, so for us changing languages or development
>>> environments is pretty straightforward... except when we find
ourselves
>>> in one of these newfangled IDEs where fundamentals don't
>>> matter.
>>
>> You're right. And when these new "programmers" face a situation that
>> requires actual programming skills, they're lost. I think a demarcation
>> between the two different skills would be useful. Perhaps something
>> like "application assembler" rather than "programmer" would be a
>> better description for such people. It always gets me when people
>> who can only write HTML (for example) claim to be "programmers."
>> It's like a typist claiming to be an "author."
>>
>> I've mentioned this here before, but a cousin of mine who is the same
>> age as me, and has a MS in CS, and has taught CS at university level,
>> has a daughter who just finished her BS in CS. He made sure she did
>> learn good programming skills, but said he was dismayed that the
>> university CS department put so little emphasis on it.
>
> If you are disappointed now, take a look at "Angel" the "new" way
> to teach programming at the University level. Things do not bode
> well for our industry in the not too distant future.
>
> bill
On the contrary, I think the future is bright. (Mind you, I'm an optimist
and I ALWAYS think the future is bright :-))
The "programming" you are bewailing is no longer relevant. As I may have
mentioned here before, it was a phenomenon of the latter half of the 20th
century.
Judson's cousin is simply dismayed by change. The University have it
right.
If you did a Masters in English, would you expect to learn Sanskrit?
Do you need more than a passing knowledge of Greek, German, and Latin to
study English Literature?
There was a time when you did. But it passed. Shakespeare, Shelley, Byron,
Keats, Kipling, Poe, Longfellow, and all the other "greats" are in no way
diminished by your lack of this knowledge.
The same thing is happening with programming.
The youngsters emerging into the new school are just as bright and capable
as we were, they are not intimidated by change and new technology (in
fact,
they embrace it eagerly...) and they are being given the skills they will
need, not the ones we used, or what we think they ought to have...
As I mentioned in another thread, the tools of today are far away from the
things we had. Why would you use a typewriter when you have word
processing
software? Why would you use a quill pen when you have a ball point? Why
carve on clay when you have paper and ink?
In a world where what would have taken several weeks a few years back, can
now be done in two hours with new tools, I see no reason to fear for the
future of the industry.
I'm sorry I can't have another 43 years in it... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three
wolves
> billg999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
|
