Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

[Shaun Rowland <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu>]

hshubs@mindspring.com (Howard S Shubs) writes:

> In article <xlxu2q9x13g.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>, Matt Curtin
> <cmcurtin@interhack.net> wrote:
> 
> >"Geek programmers" who customize their environments, in my experience, 
> >tend to maximize the tools that they have available, and as a result
> >are more productive than those who don't.  It's rare that someone who
> >can't figure out how to navigate his way around an environment can
> >make skillful use of it.
> 
> A person who knows how to "navigate", as you call it, doesn't need to
> modify the environment.

The need and the result do not match however.  Most of the
environments that I have had to work in I have heavily modified for my
own needs.  All the people who I work with and otherwise know who
possess clues make modifications to their environments normally
because the default environment is setup in a "most common" form.

A person who knows how to "navigate" their environment as stated above
will almost certainly make modifications to it.  This is especially
true for the environments I am familiar with and actually administer.
I have never found an instance where this didn't point to someone who
knew what they were doing.  Most of the time it indicates someone who
is a step above those who are continually complaining about their
environment and refuse to use some common sense (one point in
particular is reading manual pages in Unix or just plain help in
general).

The point Matt has made is a very valid one indeed.

> 
> 
> >Those who in it for the hack tend to be the best and most focused
> >programmers.  This is especially true when dealing with languages that 
> >have emerged from the open source community or have strong ties to it: 
> >Perl, Python, Lisp, etc.
> 
> They also tend to be young.  Some of us have gotten to the point where
> enough stuff has been thrown at us that we know that there's more to life
> than computers, hacking, and pizza.

That's great, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that you are no
longer in it for the hack.

> 
> >Your AOL-style "LOL" indicates that you not only fail to understand
> >the significance of open source, but you do not understand the
> >difference between "without cost" and "open source".  One needn't work 
> >sans pay in order to make one's source code available.
> 
> Nothing quite like an ad hominum attack.  LOL predates AOL, is used in
> TONS of other places.

Mostly by AOL users today however :-) That was a joke, but somehow
true I find.  I am not making a broad generalization however.

> 
> WRT "Open Source" and "sans pay", that's true, but it's at the behest of
> the company paying you, not at your own.  Open Source is a good thing in
> the long term, but most of us have to pay the rent in the short term.  You
> might consider joining RMS in his unending quest for the eternal Free
> Software grail.
> 
> Just because it's Open Source doesn't mean it's -good quality- code, nor
> that it's particularly useful.

Thank you for sharing your opinions on Open Source with us.  This does
not negate the fact that this can be a good indication of someone who
is really focused on the hack.  This can be important.  If someone
came to me and said "I maintain this open source software..." I would
go and have a look at it.  The code would be useful in determining if
they have a clue or not.  This would also be an indication of a
greater commitment to the art.

> 
> >You Windoze guys crack me up.  Not only do not get it, but you laugh
> 
> I don't touch Windows, me self.

Heh.  People use Windows?  I understand your points, but I still think
the original thoughts make good tests in determining if someone will
be ay good at the art they are practicing.
-- 
Shaun Rowland	rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~rowland/