[continued from previous message]   
      
   >competence and professionalism, with clear paths for learning   
   >and action since the beginner stages.   
      
   Those programmers also understand the value of defense in depth,   
   and of chosing tools that optimize their ability to deliver   
   value in the form of performant and correct programs, produced   
   in a reasonable amount of time.  Such programmers devote   
   considerable time to professional development, learning and   
   adopting new practices and tools when that makes sense, and   
   shedding older practices and tools when that makes sense.   
      
   A mark of professionalism is understanding the tradeoffs   
   involved and making wise choices.  The field is not stagnant,   
   and while it may suck generally, that does not mean that that   
   chosing to use a safer tool is an admission of incompetence.   
      
   There was a generation of programmers who produced application   
   software in macro assembler langauges on machines from the IBM   
   System/360 to the DEC VAX to the Data General Nova.  Hands down,   
   the _best_ programmer I've ever met in my life's favorite   
   language was PDP-10 assembly.  But there's a reason we don't   
   write new systems in assembler anymore, and it's not a skill or   
   competence issue: it's because we get better software from   
   higher-level tools.   
      
   >Because software engineering is the most complex engineering   
   >that there is: it takes some 10 years to those who are really   
   >committed to start understanding what it is actually about,   
   >and some another 10 years of at least as much commitment to   
   >become real pros.   
      
   I'd say that's more a reflection on the overall immaturity of   
   the field.  Human beings have been building bridges over rivers   
   for thousands of years; it wasn't until the 19th century that   
   we started to actually get good at it.  We've been programming   
   computers for less than 100, and we're still at the "chop down a   
   tree so it falls over the narrow part" stage.  We also hold   
   ourselves back because, when someone comes up and says, "hey,   
   have you heard about this reinforced concrete thing?  It's more   
   durable and can support a lot more weight..." our response is   
   too often, "what's wong with wood?  If you were more efficient   
   you wouldn't _need_ to support all that weight."   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)