Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Mon Apr 22 03:46:09 2002

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_conman.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)


> It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
> >
> > Dave McGuire said:
> > > Has Microsoft really steered us toward a future full of nontechnical
> > > computer programmers?
> >
> > That's my point, Dave!

This comment applies to the sentence before that, which was,

" Umm, a programmer that doesn't know what a regular expression is, is no
programmer at all."
>
> I'm not sure what your point is. Do you *want* a future full of
> nontechnical computer programmers? Are you bemoaning a future of
> nontechnical computer programmers? What? I can't quite pin down exactly
> what you are trying to get across here.
>
For sure, you've missed it. However, there are so many "technical types" who
graduate from school never having read any more than Cliff's Notes of the
classics, never having learned to form a logical argument, never having
learned the principles of critical thinking, never having learned to read,
write, or spell... ( not that they CAN'T read, but they just DON'T, and not
to suggest they can't draw letters on the paper, but they haven't learned how
to structure a premise because they've not read how others have done it.)

Programmers have to be rigorous in their logic and very structured in their
work discipline. With experience, they learn to plan a piece of work such
that they aren't always tearing things up and reworking them. They don't need
to be terribly technical, though that's a laugh, since nontechnical types
would have neither the inclination nor the discipline to get the job done.
>
> -spc (You are saying that Unix is too hard to use, and Windows is easier
> to use, but you rant against computers that can't be used at all,
> so you *want* nontechnical computer programmers? I'm confused ... )
>
Maybe that UNIX is too unfriendly, but I don't remember any mention of
computers that can't be used at all, and don't see how they fit into the
subject matter. As for what I'd *want* in a programmer, I'd want someone who
knows how to do a job from start to finish and how to ensure his work is
correct and complete, without fail. I'd want someone who shows up prepared to
work and stays long enough to do it. I'd want someone literate so I don't
have to read and explain things to him. I'd want someone who can write a
coherently structured work, not one that follows "stream of consciousness" as
many want to do, and I'd want someone who takes responsibility for his work,
defends his territory, and remains committed to his assigned task. If he
knows how to program, that's nice. It takes a lot less time to teach someone,
who knows how to work, to program than it does to teach someone, claiming to
know how to program, to work.

I don't understand this last question of yours. It's clear you are confused.
I'm just curious why.
Received on Mon Apr 22 2002 - 03:46:09 BST