1) smaller bureaucracies
That seems wrong. Buraucracies were around 30 years ago or 300 years ago for that matter. Only a certain percentage of the folks out there can do something, everyone else has to look busy. This is not unique or a growing phenomena in our generation any more than before.
2) less complex projects that might actually work the first time
This is wrong too. The projects may seem less complex but were in fact every bit as complex if not more so due to the tools at your disposal. Your forgetting what sort of hardware/user interface you will have in these older systems which adds to the complexity of your job. Hindsight is 20/20, but remember you cant bring a laptop from the present back with you.
I think this depends on where you are working and what your working on. None the less, the same situation exists today for the same reasons although I think it is rare. A good point would be a little later in time. say the 1970's with game developers for Atari writing the whole games individually. That is a pretty fascinating and wonderful way for a programmer to create a piece of art and call it his own. It can happen these days especially with the casual games and embedded markets, but you have to seek it out (which is probably no different than before as Atari and Colecto etc. programmers were rare).3) less complex projects that one person could actually understand
4) less complex projects that you could complete in less than a year
Same as #3. Some projects took many years. I think your grossly underestimating the complexity and comparing to now as if you were going to do the same project with the tools you have now.
5) happier customers because most products actually work without random failures after 3 months of time
Thats a fantasy. The good old days had problems too and they were usually very proprietary and expensive to fix. And they weighed more!
6) customers that will pay for special one-off projects
Some customers do that now. In fact , my years at IBM showed me that most new research is funded at least in part by a particular customer needing something. This is happening today.
7) smaller, more focused teams
This is the same as #2. It depends on where you would be working. My uncle worked at Bell Labs from after World war II till the 60's when he joined Hughes Aircraft. He was on the team that developed the transistor as well as commercial satellite technologies. The teams ranged from 10 guys to fairly large teams of thousands.
8) most projects done at a single location (very few midnight conference calls with India or China)
Well, that I agree with. No quicker way to give away your technologies to unseen competitiors then to outsource for cheap engineering labor to China/India. Don't worry, eventually you wont have to call them, as they will be putting you out of business with a knock off.
9) regular working hours (you can find your team-mate when you need him or her)
Skunk works.
The only problem with that is you have to work for defense contractors, which can be from my sources a real Big Brother type experience. (not sure what this has to do with the past in general though). I only did a small stint with Boeing and it was oppressive, but perhaps others can say something more insightful.10) trips to cool places like the General Dynamics F-16 factory in Fort Worth
-Adam
Regards, Mike W. N.N. Thayer wrote:Here's a question that's bounced around in my head for a while. The scenario is: take a bunch of programmers, system administrators, hardware techies, et cetera and unceremoniously dump them in the 1960's. They come only with their existing knowledge, and must adjust it accordingly if they are to continue along their line of work. Assume that situational side-concerns such as money, ID, and living space are irrelevant. What is the manner of this acclimation to a previous generation of technology? What challenges are faced? Would someone in a specific occupation, such as a programmer, be more likely to pass the inevitable weeding process?