From: wagnes@example.com
Theo writes:
> Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>> Same here. I view the situation as a major sign of failure. It seems
>> the whole world is on the same boat, though. I don't know of any
>> company that has not bought into all this nonsense---they may exist (and
>> I hope they do), but surely I don't know the routine of every company
>> out there. ``Software engineering'' in the universities are also going
>> in the same direction. In fact, one thing I observe in the universities
>> is that the academics in ``software engineering'' are actually the
>> manager-types who are not (at the same time) programmers, which is a
>> terrible sign. I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it's really how I
>> think.
>
> Academics (as in the people called 'Professor') are actually doing day to
> day management of X number of students/postdocs/etc, as well as writing
> grants, writing papers, teaching, admin, etc. Which doesn't leave a lot of
> time for programming. It's the students/postdocs/etc who are actually doing
> the programming, so the professor is at best at one remove. They may have
> been programmers in the recent/distant past, but eventually all that extra
> stuff crowds out the programming.
They don't really like to do the programming. If they did, they
wouldn't leave it all up to students.
[T]he impact of this new approach on my own style has been
profound, and my excitement has continued unabated for more than two
years. I enjoy the new methodology so much that it is hard for me
to refrain from going back to every program that I've ever written
and recasting it in `literate' form. I find myself unable to resist
working on programming tasks that I would ordinarily have assigned
to student research assistants; and why? Because it seems to me
that at last I'm able to write programs as they should be written.
My programs are not only explained better than ever before; they
also are better programs, because the new methodology encourages me
to do a better job.
--- Donald Knuth, ``Literate programming.''
The Computer Journal 27.2, 1984: páginas 97--111.
>> We also live a certain overconfidence in science. There are very few
>> scientists doing relevant work, but there's a widespread belief that
>> science (and technology) will always solve everything---it's always just
>> a matter of time; someone will figure it out. Ask people and you will
>> see---almost nobody understands anything about quantum computing or
>> artificial intelligence, but nearly everyone thinks that it's a matter
>> of a short time and all the quantum computing will be here for the next
>> revolution. And I need say nothing about artificial intelligence
>> because everyone is well-aware about the all the hype.
>
> I think that's 'tech', not 'science'. 'Science' is the study of the world -
> I don't think we're overconfident about gravity, but techbros may be
> overconfident about quantum computing. They certainly are about AI.
Precisely.
>> On the other hand, though, I totally understand the fears: academics are
>> fearful of not having anything to say and managers either invent
>> something whatever or they have a nervous breakdown out of fear of
>> losing their jobs. And some really do. They have a deep sense of
>> incapacity: it seems they never find a way to put their lives to good
>> use. It's a very sorry situation.
>
> I think it's the problem a lot of organisations have that once you get
> into the higher tiers you get further away from actually doing stuff, and
> perhaps lose touch with how it is done.
That's one way to look at it. What I really see is that people get
tired. They lose health---feel tired---, blame it on the age---``we're
getting old''---and so on. Programming is a heavy activity. If we
don't stay healthy, we'll lose the energy necessary to tackle it.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
