Re: 6502 Programming Is Not Interested?

["desiv" <desiv@attbi.com>]

2 things..

First..

Relax..  Breathe...  It's just the Internet.. :-)

Second..

If you really are a 20 year vet programmer (and I've no reason to doubt it),
you have to realize there's some truth in what he said..

Now, there can be art in programming today.  There are some programmers who
are that good, and I'm sure you are one of those..  But any one who programs
or works with programmers knows that there are a LOT (as in huge percentage)
of bad point-and-click programmers out there.  People who learn 1 tool (VB
for instance) and drag and drop code.

Of course, there were bad programmers "back-in-the-day", but there's a much
higher percentage now.  Why?  It's easier to be a bad programmer now.
Better tools, excess RAM and drive space.  It's very easy in todays world to
write bad sloppy bloated code and get away with it...

When coding COBOL or RPG, bloated code meant a new box at <insert HUGE
$$$$$$$'s here> in the day..
Now, it means a 4 processor Dell Poweredge with gobs of RAM to run Windows
Terminal Services so you don't have to rewrite your app to make it work well
over T1 lines.  Cost?  $6000.  Cost to rewrite or hire good programmers in
the first place?  Much higher..

(Now, there is the whole issue of paying for the long term (as in 18 months
:-) support of the BAD code, and it won't really save you money, but
managers don't listen to that.  It's cheaper now.)

But, when you are forced by your hardware to limit your code size and
performance...  You average better programmers..

I'm sure you're one of the exceptions.  But believe me, I've seen a LOT of
the rule..

desiv

"Dave" <nunya@business.net> wrote in message
news:nunya-1008030031290001@192.168.0.30...
> In article <20030707160621.20941.00000393@mb-m05.aol.com>, mjmahon@aol.com
> (Michael J. Mahon) wrote:
>
> > If you hunger for more megabytes of RAM, and fashioning "solutions"
> > by grafting two or three 8MB programs together to do something that
> > could be done in 24KB at 1/500th the clock speed, then the mainline
> > platforms are your thing...  ;-)
>
> What a crock of utter bullshit.   You realize that there were people who
> said the same thing about the "new" 6502 - "I can do that in 1K at 1/500th
> the clockspeed".    Who cares?   Time moves forward, not backwards.
>
> > The age of art and craft in programming is over, except for a few
> > stawarts who work by night.  Market pressure has ensured the
> > victory of the "cobble it together in a hurry" crowd.
>
> Excuse me, but bull fucking shit.   I'm a programmer, and have been for
> over 20 years.   Professionally - as in I do it for a living.   Not just
> weekend hacking on 20 year old hardware.   I have developed software on
> everything from TRS-80s and Apple //s, NCR mini computers with 32K ram and
> dual cassette drives, Z-8001 Pick OS systems that did 16 users with 512K
> of RAM and a 40 meg hard drive, to current PCs.    There is just as much
> "art and craft" in programming today as there ever was.   You are
> seriously deluded if you think that "real programmers" died with the
> 6502.   Jesus man, open your eyes and look around.
>
> In 20 years, assholes like you will be pining for the "good old days, when
> *real* programmers made do with a paltry 512 megs of ram, not the
> terabytes we take for granted today!"    Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't
> it?   That's exactly how *you* sound right now!   Your "24K" program was
> bloated by other folks' standards, people who were running real software
> on a 16K mainframe in the 1960's!!!!
>
> > As I have always said, "Quick and dirty is never quick, but
> > always dirty."
>
> And always will be, regardless of what hardware you are programming.
> 6502 or P4.    The hardware is irrelvant.
>
> Dave